New Zoogz Termz?

thunderlips

thunderlips

New member
Jul 30, 2008
1,955
28
0
Hey. Any of you phuckers see these new Azoogle terms?

They are basically saying that if they do not get paid from the advertiser, they reserve the right to not pay out affiliates.

Personally, i feel like this is BS. If i am providing a service, then i should be paid for it.

Do Athletes only get paid when they win?

Opinions?

:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015
 


im only doing a few grand a week with them but looks like ill be stopping that soon if thats true. Where was this posted?
 
Pop Quiz
What is the point of a network when they are not taking any risk?
...

There is none. Wait, what is their bus model?.
 
thunderlips said:
Hey. Any of you phuckers see these new Azoogle terms?

They are basically saying that if they do not get paid from the advertiser, they reserve the right to not pay out affiliates.

Personally, i feel like this is BS. If i am providing a service, then i should be paid for it.

Do Athletes only get paid when they win?

Opinions?

:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015:costumed-smiley-015
Click to expand...
New terms? What page would those be on? https://www.epicadvertising.com/aup.php?id=terms was last updated in 2008.

Terms that say a network doesn't pay until they get paid can be found in basically every network. http://www.wickedfire.com/affiliate-marketing/27562-terms-conditions-update-copeac.html covered this 2 year ago...

Even Ads4Dough has language stating such:
In the event that Company fails to receive the applicable corresponding payments due from the respective Advertiser(s), Company shall have no payment obligation to Publisher. Instead, Publisher shall have the right to pursue any and all legal remedies directly against any Advertiser that has not made funds available to pay sums due and owing to Publisher for Bounties earned in connection with a particular Program. If Advertiser does not pay on time, Company will notify Publisher and may, in its sole discretion, offer its reasonable assistance in matters related to collections. Publisher agrees that Company shall have no obligations and incur no liabilities to Publisher in connection with any such payment-related dispute.
Click to expand...
 
defelice said:
GG ewa
Click to expand...

EWA's terms:
In the event Company fails to receive payment due from Merchant it shall have no payment obligation to Affiliate. If Merchant does not pay on time, Company will notify Affiliate and offer its best efforts in matters related to collections
Click to expand...
Find a network that doesn't have a term like that in their agreement, and you've found a company that I wouldn't trust. It's a standard legal term.
 
johu said:
EWA's terms:

Find a network that doesn't have a term like that in their agreement, and you've found a company that I wouldn't trust. It's a standard legal term.
Click to expand...

um lol. i said that considering most of ewa's offers are from zoogz
 
every network has terms like that... but I would definitely feel safer with ewa than I would with CPALead ;)
 
How many networks have you pushed traffic for that do not "reserve the right to pay out" based on these same terms?

This practice is rampant amongst networks and has been for the last 8 - 10 years now. Good networks will stand by a good affiliate, but most are going to come up with some sort of excuse as too why your traffic was bunk. Whether the terms state it or not, something is in there stating that they dictate what is fraudulent and thus they can withhold your payouts in the event that the advertiser denies payment for your traffic. At least Azoogle isn't hiding this in a bunch of fluff BS terms.
 
ClickRover said:
How many networks have you pushed traffic for that do not "reserve the right to pay out" based on these same terms?

This practice is rampant amongst networks and has been for the last 8 - 10 years now. Good networks will stand by a good affiliate, but most are going to come up with some sort of excuse as too why your traffic was bunk. Whether the terms state it or not, something is in there stating that they dictate what is fraudulent and thus they can withhold your payouts in the event that the advertiser denies payment for your traffic. At least Azoogle isn't hiding this in a bunch of fluff BS terms.
Click to expand...
There are two parts to your post that I want to address.

First, I've read and re-read your statement a few times and I'm still not quite sure what you are getting at. Are you saying it's good that there are clauses like that or bad? If you are saying those clauses are bad, I'd refer you to your own terms:

Payment for Commissions is dependent upon Clients providing such funds to Click Rover, and therefore, you agree that Click Rover shall only be liable to you for Commissions to the extent that Click Rover has received such funds from the Clients. You hereby release Click Rover from any claim for Commissions if Click Rover has not received such funds from the Clients.
Click to expand...

If I've misinterpreted what you were getting at, ignore the above part of my post.

Second, I've read dozens of variants of "This practice is rampant amongst networks and has been for the last 8 - 10 years now. Good networks will stand by a good affiliate, but most are going to come up with some sort of excuse as too why your traffic was bunk." over the years and I respectfully call bullshit. Networks that have any plans of staying in business over the long term do not make it a habit of screwing over honest affiliates by inventing excuses to not pay for leads. It makes no sense for a network to pocket a few hundred or thousand bucks by screwing an affiliate for one month only to lose the revenue that affiliate would have generated over the next several months. $1000 < ($1000 * 12)

While things may sometimes happen that don't please affiliates, there are always legitimate business reasons. These reasons aren't always completely shared by the affiliates when they go public, but they are there. This concept of networks randomly fucking over affiliates just to pocket a few bucks is total and complete bullshit. At least with respectable networks. I can't speak for the dozens of "I can has a network" networks that have popped up (and disappeared just as quickly) over the past 6-12 months, but if an affiliate is desperate enough to work with them, they shouldn't be too surprised when stuff like that happens.
 
MaxSteve said:
Second, I've read dozens of variants of "This practice is rampant amongst networks and has been for the last 8 - 10 years now. Good networks will stand by a good affiliate, but most are going to come up with some sort of excuse as too why your traffic was bunk." over the years and I respectfully call bullshit. Networks that have any plans of staying in business over the long term do not make it a habit of screwing over honest affiliates by inventing excuses to not pay for leads. It makes no sense for a network to pocket a few hundred or thousand bucks by screwing an affiliate for one month only to lose the revenue that affiliate would have generated over the next several months. $1000 < ($1000 * 12)

While things may sometimes happen that don't please affiliates, there are always legitimate business reasons. These reasons aren't always completely shared by the affiliates when they go public, but they are there. This concept of networks randomly fucking over affiliates just to pocket a few bucks is total and complete bullshit. At least with respectable networks. I can't speak for the dozens of "I can has a network" networks that have popped up (and disappeared just as quickly) over the past 6-12 months, but if an affiliate is desperate enough to work with them, they shouldn't be too surprised when stuff like that happens.
Click to expand...

Sir,

Please don't try to confuse us with your fancy maths or logic.

Thank You,
crackp0t
 
Since we've been online, I can attest to hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses by dirty advertisers. We've always taken the hits and covered our affiliates 100%. Fraud and/or shady traffic is another story.
 
To be clear, I'm not talking about trash traffic. Gift card/ stolent CCs, etc are fuckin bullshit. BUT if I'm driving good solid proven traffic, I should be paid for it. Period.
 
thunderlips said:
To be clear, I'm not talking about trash traffic. Gift card/ stolent CCs, etc are fuckin bullshit. BUT if I'm driving good solid proven traffic, I should be paid for it. Period.
Click to expand...

So you want it to come out of the network's pocket if the advertiser defaults?

Question, if you were direct with the advertiser, and they failed to pay... what then? You're going to pursue legal action right?

Then do the same with the advertiser who doesn't pay the network. But oh wait, you've got no agreement with them. :ugone2far:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom