| Paul Markham |
09-17-2020 02:04 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd
(Post 22736608)
I love the "who needs affiliates?" argument. LOL Especially coming from people with no skin in the game, like Paul.
Affiliates = traffic. Period. If a webmaster sends a visitor to a site from his site that webmaster wants and expects to get paid. And he should. That 50% for paysite affiliates Paul is bitching about is EXACTLY what I as a Program Owner want! Why? Because it's free money. It's a FREE sale Paul. It's a sale I would otherwise not get. So, to me, it's passive income. Yay affiliates!
Now this does not mean I stop my own "in-house" traffic generation. Of course I make more without affiliates (duh) but see above. It's not an either/or situation. You do/have BOTH. Get affiliates AND you do your own traffic generation, traffic and media buys, link exchanges, etc etc.
Geez Louise. LOL
If ALL your sales/revenue is 50% from paysites and you are shooting content 1-3 times per week for updates then yes 50% would be a tough margin. But hopefully only a % of your money comes from affiliates.
|
Major points that prove you're wrong.
Affiliates do not have a monopoly on traffic, anyone can find and send it. I'm not advocating doing nothing to get it. Even you tell us that you're having to send a lot of your own traffic.
Then there's the methods affiliates use to get traffic. Using google they could be getting your traffic just because you have to compete with them on Google. Using your samples to submit to other sites, they're using your content to get traffic you could be getting.
Getting 50% for doing no more than using what you supply and can use. Is too high and we've seen too many programs fail because of it. You're picking up those failures soall power to you.
Then there's the money spent on content. You expect content providers to work for a reduced wage, then you only get content providers who have no alternative. I had an alterative that paid much better than what paysites could offer, so I went for it. |
