|
150 rogue affiliate managers.
|
these days programs look for any stupid reason not to pay. stick with the winners and the ones who have a record of paying and always ask what you are going to do is ok with them so you have a paper trail.
|
Quote:
Especially since your TOS says one thing (can't alter anything) and you are here saying another (*thumbnails* are ok). |
Quote:
Note that I am going to be shooting in Palau and staying on a boat without internet for 2 weeks starting Sept 1. We'll have the pleasure of 4 great Budapest models but unfortunately no internet during this time which means I cannot contribute to this forum or work on your project then. |
Crackhead.
No offense, but the OP did mention in his first post EXACTLY what he did. Now if you read your statements regarding his concern, you may see why some of us were debating as we were. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The lesson here is that sometimes affiliates need to crop photos to fit their websites. For the most part, programs do not care about cropping, but want their watermark on the image still.
Simple solution is to provide a link to your watermark at the bottom of every promo mailer. |
Quote:
thats really your problem not his. Personally although your content looks great I won't be promoting you because you've acted like a jackass and I don't feel like putting in a bunch of work to benefit us both only to have the rug pulled out from under me. And I bet a lot of other affiliates who see this will think the same. So, once again, it wasn't the OP's fault. It was your fault for poorly supervising your employees and/or giving them poor direction and not clearly thinking out your policies. It was easy to give ultimatums and send out vague emails when it was only his ass getting burned wasn't it? Now you've got some skin in the game, suddenly its, I wish you came to me? Yeah, right. |
Quote:
I'm not sure if it's in their best interest to enforce it in your situation, but with any program, whether it's in TOS or not, it's not a rule I would find unreasonable to enforce. :2 cents: |
Quote:
By now, after hearing from so many affiliates, I'm sure you've picked up that for a few different reasons we may need or want to crop. Make it so that affiliates can crop, but still protect your branding. I get that you're a photographer and each photo is a masterpiece but as a program owner you also have to understand that blogs, while amazing marketing tools, can be somewhat restrictive in layouts. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As I see it, you are OK with affiliates cropping the images (watermark or none) so long as they ARE linking it to a gallery, full size photo w/watermark intact, or otherwise linking to the site within that particular publishing? And you will outline these conditions in your future TOS? Is this so? I ask because I use automated means to create my wordpress posts and create a large thumb (like I mentioned previously about 540 px I believe, cropped with no watermark) which links to a post containing the full gallery of small thumbs (again automatically cropped) that links to the full size images. I would like to continue this practice, as my other sponsors are ok with this, I would like you to be as well. http://www.poonmoon.com/weblog/pics/...r-a-full-moon/ |
Quote:
|
Well I learned something, anyway.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree with this 100%. As someone who shoots on the one hand and runs a program and pushes affiliate sales on the other, I am acutely aware that what the photographer in me wants to do and what the marketer in me requires are often at odds. When I spend literally fifty times what I need to on a particular shoot, I'm aware that I am entertaining my photographer side and that marketing could sell something a fiftieth the cost. Because I am primarily on GFY to represent SpookyCash, and I don't post my CV every five minutes, but I do see both sides of this issue, it kind of irritates me to see some shooters on here acting like the photographer point of view is clearly the only remotely valid one and nobody else could get it. For what it is worth, I really don't think surfers ever type something in, when they could just click, given that clicking is so much easier. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
"we can always use an additional affiliate"
huh? I thought this was nothing to do with money whatsoever, why would you be in a position to need any additional affilates, or even have an affiliate program in the 1st place? In fact, if it's only about 'the art', why do you even need a watermark? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Really? That's interesting. The only folks I've ever come across, in the past, who do this, are affiliate marketers who don't want another affiliate referring them and seeing their volume. What was your reason as a surfer? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
the code itself would often scare me off with all that crap characters and therefore couldn't be trusted to take me where i wanted to go. I always hover over a link and check it before clicking. landing on some dodgy or annoying site but wanted to click through to something that interested me but didnt want the shit annoying site to get any credit. basically the internet is a dodgy place full of tricks, the less you click on dodgy looking links the saferyou are. I use this knowledge to help in my marketing now with things like .php redirects and creating a nice tidy link, i don't generaly remove watermarks however because its just not worth my time as far as time spent / benefit. |
Quote:
The entire adult community knows the difference between a thumbnail and a 500x700 image with the watermark removed. Anyone *confused* by that is either a thief a liar or an idiot. which one are you? |
Quote:
surfers don't do it. This whole affiliate nonsense about "oh no, they'll type in the watermark instead of clicking the pic" is nonsense. It shows the level of intelligence you're dealing with. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
excuse me for not sharing your surfer mentality and shed a tear for tubes. |
Quote:
|
Duh, everybodies in it for the money. We gotta eat. Nobody says you can't have passion for something and still make a profit.
|
Quote:
As far as I remember from my days at Gonzoga Law School, it is strictly a term that was used in Sony's defense against their Universal/Disney suit back in the 80's. It is not a legal precedent. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree, what makes this even more *tragic* and a train wreck is that is all over a water mark, which I believe they want there because they want to pick up free traffic. From looking at In the Crack's site, all of their images have a url on them. People say "watermark" you can have a watermark with a logo on it for your company name without having the url on it. The fact that they want their URL on the images as part of the watermark is proof to me that their main concern here is the belief that they will get free traffic from people seeing the images and typing in the url. It's that belief or motives that makes all of this such a clusterfuck and ultimately shooting themselves in the foot on this situation... the amount of sales/traffic In the crack would have gained by the OP having the url on the images is so small compared to the traffic/sales he was sending and would continue sending as an affiliate. Besides, no one is going to type in the url when there is a link there for them to click. Like I said earlier, this is 2011 not 1996. People really don't download images and post them on newsgroups, email them to friends etc... at least not .0001% of what they use to. Now if it was videos, it would be a different story. But to put your url on every single image you produce is more of a waste of time these days and to kick out an affiliate and potentially lose lots more over this is beyond retarded... from a business stand point that is. |
Quote:
I would have thought with all of the bad weather in the NE he would be away from his pc busy fixing roofs... |
Quote:
they've been replying to you just fine. now that you're back on GFY, go ahead and continue your idiot prattling about 500x700 being a thumb nail. its exposing why those of us that matter, know you don't. |
Quote:
|
Oh geesh, sorry everyone, looks like I poked the troll and he is here to stay.
|
Quote:
Or to put it another way, if you're dumb enough to sign up to a porn site, you're dumb enough to click on any old link without checking it. The spread of malware, like the continued sales of pornography, demonstrates that there are no shortage of dummies in the world. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Takes a lot of insight to make sales from "cross sales" lol. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
isn't it time for you to make another announcement about you sig whoring for click cash again? oops, my bad, its time for you to stomp your virtual feet and storm away from the board again because no one takes you seriously.:1orglaugh |
It is regrettable that many people who were pissed at us took the whole argument to mean that you cannot make your own thumbnails without having a visible watermark on it, or that you cannot make your own thumbnails period. That was never my intention. Perhaps blogs are still a new enough phenomenon that this has not been dealt with up until now. I would have never considered a 700 pixel image to be a thumbnail. Depending on how you use it a 700 pixel image with the watermark removed can very easily look like an attempt to pass it off as your own picture, or at the very least, careless use of copyright material. I can be even worse if the image does not go directly to our gallery or it takes multiple clicks to figure out what you are really looking at. Perhaps a blog template may require images of a certain size or aspect ratio which is fine, though there seems to be a need to do some refining of the definition of a thumbnail and some ground rules as to what can be acceptable. I'm also thinking that providing a watermark psd or png may be the best solution for "giant thumbnails" if you really must use them for your format. Those that believe this is too much work can restrict themselves to a smaller thumbnail. I will create a watermark and update our TOS shortly.
|
Quote:
this is simply the GFY monkeys throwing shit. nothing more. |
Quote:
The URL on the picture has nothing to do with free traffic or circumventing the affiliate. They're gonna click it if it's on your site. The URL is there for people who have a large assortment of random pictures on their own hard drive to identify where it came from and for any event where the picture ends up on a forum or any other unauthorized posting. I don't think there is anything wrong with this. |
Quote:
(oh, I see someone that actually has a law background said the same thing...) |
Quote:
Pretty sure I remember seeing people as far back as 2004 saying ccbill cookies could be set to 180 days, have no idea if they are longer now. I am sure someone can confirm this. But pointing out that yours are still set to just 30 days and that you haven't inquired about it since you set it all up many years ago, I think is just further proof you not going out of your way to help your affiliates. Perhaps you should hire someone to run your affiliate program and advise you on these matters. Apparently photographers don't always make the best affiliate program owners. Hire 12Clicks, I hear he is looking for a job and can get you lots of cross sales. |
The TOS has now been updated as follows...
Any content taken from our affiliate content page for promotional use may NOT be altered in any way other than to make thumbnails or modified images to fit your format. A thumbnail is defined as an image less than 400 pixels on the long side. An image that is 400 pixels or more on the long side will be considered a modified image and MUST have our provided watermark on it. Any thumbnail or modified image MUST link directly to the corresponding full size unaltered picture or gallery. You may NOT remove or alter the copyright information from our full size pictures. You may NOT crop, alter size or further compress the full size pictures. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123