That's exactly how I see it. Apart from that, if the network doesn't give you any warranty, what is exactly the benefit of joining one?
Hydra STIFFING me
- Thread starter tjewsky
- Start date
That's exactly how I see it. Apart from that, if the network doesn't give you any warranty, what is exactly the benefit of joining one?
If I ran a public network a good rep on this board would be worth well over 100k.
He must be hurting pretty bad to not pay on 3.5k.
Fire one of your worthless unproductive employees and use their salary to pay the man imo.
That sounds good in theory, and you do run a quality network, but don't all Networks at some point say that?
18 months ago, I was getting paid EARLY by some networks, because the cash was flowing. Fast forward to today, and I'm getting slow paid by 3 networks, and have one fucking me for charge backs. In discussions that I had with them in the past, they said that none of this shit would be an issue, but now it is.
I would imagine that all of the networks, with the exception of the morons that just start a "network" to intentionally fuck people never expect to not have the ability to pay. In this case, the number $3,500 is being thrown around because that is what the OP is chasing, but I GUARANTEE that there is a hell of alot more than $3,500 that hasn't made it's way to affiliates from Hydra yet. Right now, I can almost for certain say that they are shitting their tighty whities trying to figure out how to keep the lights on. Post rebill is a bitch for hydra apparently.
Agreed. Nobody starts/runs a business as potentially complex as a network with the expectation that they will ultimately fail, or with the expectation that they'll ever have to exercise some of the less pleasant clauses of their T&C's (like we don't get paid, you don't get paid).
The fact is one of the most critical aspects of running a network is risk management. Networks can live and die with their ability to manage risk. Smaller networks started by affiliates who think running a network is as simple as brokering offers and making themselves available on DP/BHW get a pretty rude awakening when the shit hits the fan and their obliviousness to this risk leads to massive cashflow issues. These networks typically just disappear without a trace a few months after they open because the owners really don't have much to lose - they can go back to being affiliates or back to their regular full-time jobs.
Larger networks that are fully aware of risk management know exactly what they are doing every step of the way. Contrary to popular belief, they are not blindly driven by greed. Sure, they want their companies to make as much money as possible, but their decision to extend $1M in credit to a rebill merchant (or whoever really) isn't done without fully weighing the rewards of bottom-line profit vs. the risks of non-payment by said merchant and being forced to take a loss or face the court of public opinion if/when they decide they'll exercise their "we didn't get paid, you don't get paid" clauses. Even something as simple as defending themselves on boards goes through a risk management decision.
These networks rarely die because the owners of these networks have a lot to lose. They could be answering to shareholders, they could have a significant amount of their personal equity tied into the network, they could be looking at their personal reputations being ruined. For that reason, they'll do whatever it takes to stay afloat. This includes making unpopular decisions. But make no mistake, these decisions aren't based on "let's fuck the affiliates". These decisions are made after carefully looking at all their options and selecting the one that has the best risk/reward outcome for them.
Affiliate = Bottom of the food chain.
Do this long enough and you will probably come to the conclusion that you have to run your own offers I guess.
Do this long enough and you will probably come to the conclusion that you have to run your own offers I guess.
No what he said was sometimes affiliate companies have to make tough choices even when they do their due diligence before extending credit to someone.
If you read through my post again, you'll notice that I state that the network may need to make a decision knowing that it won't be popular with affiliates for the simple fact of self preservation. They are forced to weigh the risk vs. the reward and sometime the right choice for the network isn't the popular choice with affiliates.
I would recommend that anyone who is ready to stop doing business with them cite that part of the terms and conditions as the reason. If affiliate networks won't act as a buffer for unpaid commissions, there is really no justification for their existence.
So the big question is which networks do their due diligence and make sure that their affiliates won't be hung out to dry after dropping thousands on a campaign?
I have customers and I have vendors and neither one give a fuck about my problems with the other.
I have customers and I have vendors and neither one give a fuck about my problems with the other.
Affilates on Consumers + Terms and Conditions...
"Fuck everybody that didn't read the T & Cs when getting rebilled for their free berry trial. I'm makin' it rain yo!"
Affiliates on Networks + Terms and Conditions...
"I don't care what the T & Cs said, I want my online monies! I'm gonna make a thread on wickedfire without the slightest trace of irony."
"Fuck everybody that didn't read the T & Cs when getting rebilled for their free berry trial. I'm makin' it rain yo!"
Affiliates on Networks + Terms and Conditions...
"I don't care what the T & Cs said, I want my online monies! I'm gonna make a thread on wickedfire without the slightest trace of irony."
The T&C's of networks say that the network has the right not to pay, not that they won't pay every time they aren't paid by the advertiser. When it comes down to it there's a matter of trust you need to place in a network, which is why it's good to know who you're working with and their TRACK RECORD of this happening in the past. I'm glad people bring it to the public's attention when a network doesn't pay them so others know as well - I don't care if they have a reputation in the WF community of only 3 posts, I'm just glad to be aware what networks will do this (and I obviously realize the specifics in each situation aren't known so snap judgments in all cases like this are out of line).
I've never seen a post about A4D or C2M doing this, but I have seen posts where C2M and A4D paid even when they weren't paid. I can't say the same for certain other networks. So even if the terms and conditions are identical, isn't there a difference there?
Just because the T&C says networks can do this doesn't mean it's acceptable to affiliates, and it sure as hell doesn't mean they don't have the right to post a thread about it notifying others (whether or not this is okay with Jon and WF mods is another matter that I have no say in).
Another interesting issue is the reputation management. I think even ONE POST about a network from a somewhat reputable member of WF putting it out there that they don't pay could be pretty hurtful, as people will search a forum, and even if there's not merit to the claim or if there are specifics, it has the potential to affect publishers wishing to sign up or make existing publishers wary about running new things. Even a small drop of poison can pollute the well of an otherwise totally pristine reputation that certain networks seem to share.
I've never seen a post about A4D or C2M doing this, but I have seen posts where C2M and A4D paid even when they weren't paid. I can't say the same for certain other networks. So even if the terms and conditions are identical, isn't there a difference there?
Just because the T&C says networks can do this doesn't mean it's acceptable to affiliates, and it sure as hell doesn't mean they don't have the right to post a thread about it notifying others (whether or not this is okay with Jon and WF mods is another matter that I have no say in).
Another interesting issue is the reputation management. I think even ONE POST about a network from a somewhat reputable member of WF putting it out there that they don't pay could be pretty hurtful, as people will search a forum, and even if there's not merit to the claim or if there are specifics, it has the potential to affect publishers wishing to sign up or make existing publishers wary about running new things. Even a small drop of poison can pollute the well of an otherwise totally pristine reputation that certain networks seem to share.
Sorry bro. I'm not that bright. But I think I got it... it's all about self-preservation.
After getting fucked over a few times by advertisers we now ask for deposits on just about everything unless we can confirm, without a doubt, that their credit outweighs the risk. In a lot of cases when deposits run low, we make them pay or the offer gets turned off. On credit based advertisers, weekly or bi-weekly payments are almost a must so that in the case that they do fuck you over, your risk is a lot less vs if they were net30 payments. I believe that being more strict on the acceptance of advertisers can prevent 99% of problems like this for networks.
