There are three sides to every story, the Advertiser, Publisher, and Ad Network, we only heard two. If Advertiser refuses to pay then Ad Network can't pay Publisher. They don't assume risk for fraudelant advertisers I'm sure they have a clause that says if advertiser doesent pay then publisher doesent get paid. Looks to me like advertiser is the one that is taking the publisher adn ad network for a ride they get good traffic and then run on the bill. Alternative here is that advertiser paid and ad network kept money in hopes that publisher would just leave mad and not sue. Theres a chance that some of the leads were incomplete or inaccurate however I'm sure some of them were good, like it was stated Adwords traffic cannot be faked.
Or is it that Ellis gets the leads and refuses to pay for it ? I am sending few leads to them from some other netwrok everyday, same thing could happen to me as well May be we should expose all advertisers which gets all the lead from publishers and does not pay saying that all leads are invalid
Well, if the advertiser refuses to pay, but there is no fraud, then who takes the hit? The affiliate made a deal with the network. The network has the job of collecting. Also, whether they call themselves a CPA network or not, if they SAY they pay for clicks, then they have to pay for clicks. If his account said he'd made money, then clearly the minimum requirements had been made. It wasn't until the advertiser refused to pay that all of a sudden there were additional lead requirements demanded. The company can well afford to take a hit like this, but asking an affiliate to shoulder that is too much.
Where has anyone ever said that this was a pay for clicks deal. It's a CPA deal, if the actions were fraudulent/invalid then he doesn't get paid for them.
Sorry, my mistake. Thought that was why he had been told via his control panel that he had money coming to him. Am I mistaken in that the company said he'd qualified initially and then said it was fraud? What changed? The fact that the leads were false? But if they were coming from search and he could not make them good or bad leads, how is that his fault?
If the network is not paid by the advertiser it wont pay the affiliate, its not the networks faults as long as they did not falsify information. If Advertiser refuses to pay then network can only inform the publisher that the leads were fraudelant and network did nto receive payment for them. If they were a good network they would have defined all terms of what is fraudelant and received rights to verify emails then they cannot do anything more.
I see your point, but if they continue with an advertiser that refuses to pay even when conditions were met then that shows they do not support their affiliates and I would have nothing to do with them.
Of coarse, a network has an obligation to both advertisers and affiliates, it must keep a reasonable balance between the two.
I agree. Did you see today on Dave Naylor's blog that Dadamobile was refusing to pay all their affiliates?
Did you read the first post Mr. CEO? He said he needed to talk to the CEO. This was your employees response: Actually, you do not need to speak to my CEO - he is in complete agreement with me - and so is Sandy. So what was that last comment you made on your post? Seems like you need to get your business under control...
There just going to call it something else and open up shop again. Keep an eye on that name Bill Tait. If you join a new network I would suggest finding out who the CEO is...