BTW, Jeff, if this policy takes hold, you may have to go back and adjust your titles for this blog post (http://www.revenews.com/jeffmolander/archives/001734.html) ValueClick might get mad that you are using their Brand in the title tag!

As a "sophisticated user", I look at the title. BTW, many users aren't sophisticated. (I have thousands of e-mails to prove it.) It is a huge risk in business to consider yourself to be the typical user.

I am glad that we agree. I commend affiliate managers who are willing to terminate bad affiliates at the risk of losing sales in their channel. I also applaud affiliate managers who stand up for their publishers who may, in fact, be helping to protect and enhance the company's trademarks.

I do not think that it is wrong for merchants to protect their brands. I think that they must! I disagree with the methods often used. In this case, I think that there is a happy middle ground (a single use in the title) that has reasons for implementation beyond SEO. Unfortunately, it is the publisher with that reasonable approach being terminated.

I am concerned about this issue not only because of the extreme view being taken but because this merchant has demonstrated that I am better off keeping my mouth shut and doing exactly what he said I shouldn't. Yet again, Black Hat is being rewarded.

I, a sophisticated Web user, don't read page titles so I hardly find this to be a valid point in your argument. Is there something I'm missing?

As for your getting fired and others not being fired — I'm not that surprised considering affiliate managers and the position that many find themselves in. As you seem to understand, there are certain levels of "documentation" that make AM's uncomfortable — to the point of their needing to actually enforce a rule that otherwise doesn't get enforced…at cost to the affiliate channel.

This is not unlike the situation with illegal immigrants being enabled by American businesspeople, citizens while a passive US government looks on. So… who's the bigot in affiliate marketing (asks its chief scapegoat)?

(cue laughter)

Seriously… we agree on this one, friend. How you were treated is obscene.

In the end (as Patrice Colancecco has gone on the record as stating) it's all about protecting a channel without regard for cost. The other choice (and there is one) is NOT to keep ignoring your title tags and risk one's job. The choice is to stop protecting a channel that is JUST DOING ITS JOB. The choice, I suggest, is to find ways to work with partners like you in a way that (gasp) might actually rack up associated financial gain through another channel! The choice is to embrace that shift IMO. Would you agree, David?

Let's not lose track of how search's importance is acting as a cause agent here. Marketers want ALL of the searchers typing their terms into SE's to end up at their site — not yours. Can you blame them for wanting you to only bring them something they otherwise cannot have (customers)? Can you blame them when this is the prime benefit of transparency… something that affiliate marketing affords (perhaps at cost to itself!!!).

What is it costing that advertiser to lose the relationship with you? Do they know? I suggest that they do not and never will. They've made it your problem. You now need to start over again — pitching them on the benefit you can offer. Unfortunately you're tainted by someone who was unwilling to look outside their channel (silo) for the benefit of the overall company.

I am eager to hear what others think of my viewpoint on this… including you, David.