But I have. I imagine that Brian has too. They exist and are being used by some affiliates. I personally don’t have a problem with those kinds. I’ve actually seen a couple of new ones lately tied to social media that haven’t been discussed at all (why I threw out an example during the call) that are actually pretty cool but don’t necessarily cause any interference.

I understand that’s not what you and some others are discussing. But it *is* what Brian is trying to discuss. Along with the blinky flashy icon ones as well.

I haven’t liked the blinky flashy icon thing for years now. Years. It is NOT a new issue. But here’s the thing with the other networks. They do NOT disallow for a prompt. Never had. They have never said that a prompt couldn’t happen, even when the traffic originates from another affiliate. It is within the other networks TOS (or at least how they interpret their TOS) to allow it. Buyersport prompted. WhenU prompted. LittleGrad prompted via icon.

I’ve been opposed to those types of prompting to get the “physical click” because I’ve always felt that it potentially interfered more with other affiliate’s sales more than some of the other apps that would stand down on another affiliate’s traffic (even to some degree).

My opposition to automation (whether in a redirect or a prompt) especially in conjunction of contextual targeting the merchant’s URL to activate the toolbar has not changed. I still oppose it. I’ve made my case to Brian over the years (again years) as to why I don’t like it and why I think it has no place in affiliate marketing.

If you don’t like the blinky flashy thing, then lay out the case that it not a good thing for the affiliate channel. Not just a global sentiment that amounts to toolbars are evil. Or the toolbar could do something bad. Make the case for exactly why the prompting should not be allowed. IMO, there’s a strong case to be made. I’m not seeing anyone really make the case beyond they don’t like it.

I think it devalues the affiliate channel. I don’t have to state my opinion to Brian on why I feel it does because I’ve already done that more than once in our general discussions on software. Make the case for why the integrity of the channel is more important than the consumer wanted the blinky flashy toolbar and it brings assists the affiliate in keeping their customers happy. That’s what the merchant’s having been being sold and buying into to. And there is a counter case to be made to that argument. A strong one IMO.

It’s not about if Brian decided to call something customer service or not. It’s about behaviors of toolbars, what should and should not be acceptable and why. And making the case for or against those behaviors.

BTW..there is a very easy solution to the blinky flashy thing where there is a toolbar but no controversary of interference (for other affiliates or the merchant). I shared that with Brian in Vegas during a general discussion (nope I didn’t know an actual policy change for SAS was in the works). The fruit just isn’t as low lying. But keeping low lying fruit available isn’t my concern in keeping a level playing field.

This most likely will be used by the other networks with their current merchants and their toolbar affiliates by saying look over there. If clean network is ok with them, then they're not so bad. You might want to take it down to Level 1, 2, 3 and even 1a, 1b, 1c etc, get real specific with it but it's going to end up being "generalized" as ok and that's not good.

That stigma has been good for business. If you look at the ABW favorite network polls over the years, they went from last to first primarily on 2 things IMO. Being parasite free and very good at communication. A lot of that growth has been because of being looked at as a clean network.

"I do think it could also made a potential positive marketing point for SAS. If they can achieve something no one else has yet, while maintaining the integrity of the channel."

And there's also potential for a lot of negative PR. Already it's not looking good. Now let's look ahead. There's still a new policy coming. Once that's in place, what happens if there is a "glitch" and based on past history, it's possible. If following such a thing, there is some excuse, blaming the technology or something like that, just more bad PR.

Speaking of potential positive marketing points, this also opens the door to some of the newer networks like Avantlink and Buy.at (their competitors), since at this point, they still have a firm policy against this type of thing. And this could drive new business their way. They already have a working model to look at and can see the type of growth that model can bring.

I don't see this turning out well because of all the potential problems that come along with it but like you said, time will tell.

I'd have to say I think that the majority of toolbars in the affiliate channel are designed to generate affiliate revenue. Not all, but the majority of them right now. There a difference between marketing and revenue generation.

I would hope to see that change, since toolbars aren't just going to go away.

There is also a difference between when affiliates are marketing for a merchant and for their own site. I think it is very doable for a toolbar to be marketing for their own site and not causing all those issues we are familiar with.

"But SAS has made a name for itself providing a safe haven for non-corporate affiliates. This is a move that I feel will hurt that reputation. SAS doesn’t have the internal resources to effectively monitor such technology and even if they did allowing the technology in effectively eliminate differentiation between SAS and other networks (even if in perception alone)."

Yes, that could well be true. But then that's a marketing issue for SAS isn't it? I can't imagine Brian wasn't aware of that risk going into this. My own conclusions from talking with him and what he's said/posted is that he indeed is aware of that risk but feels that the issue has come to a point of needing to be addressed. It was worth the image risk to address what he feels is a very important policy issue, for both SAS and the industry as a whole.

I like Brian and SAS. I would hate to see them take a significant hit over this. However, my main concern is not SAS's public relations and marketing, but rather policies within the industry.

I do understand where you are coming from Angel. It's why I said in my blog post about the roundtable:

"The real challenge will be whether or not ShareASale can overcome the stigma that has become attached with downloaded software, turning what has been somewhat of a black eye for affiliate marketing into a positive."

I do think it could also made a potential positive marketing point for SAS. If they can achieve something no one else has yet, while maintaining the integrity of the channel.

How it plays out for SAS from their own marketing/public relations standpoint, only time will tell.

The call was recorded, but Brian may not publicly release the recording. Before the call he posted that it would be recorded but was not sure if he would make it available. If you missed it and want to hear it, I suggest you email Brian and ask him. Either he can arrange a listen or just talk to you in person and you get the story right from him.

Although I applaud SAS for doing this kind of outreach with their affiliates and although I am technology agnostic; I am afraid I find myself agreeing with Trust.

Toolbars in this industry are only designed for one purpose. That purpose is marketing. Sure the technology itself is not the issue. But SAS has made a name for itself providing a safe haven for non-corporate affiliates. This is a move that I feel will hurt that reputation. SAS doesn't have the internal resources to effectively monitor such technology and even if they did allowing the technology in effectively eliminate differentiation between SAS and other networks (even if in perception alone).

When affiliates want to use this kind of thing, money and marketing are behind it. Then you have the problem with toolbars, add ons etc. can "glitch" which you're well aware and other problems. And monitoring is a big issue in itself. So yeah, slippery slope, especially when you open the door to this kind of thing. And if and it looks like it is, minimum it needs to stand down from affiliate traffic.

I've no reason to believe that Brian doesn't fully understand the relationship between customer service and marketing. I doubt he would have gotten through Vanderbilt School of Business nor built SAS as he has to a large extent based on customer support if he didn't understand those concepts quite thoroughly.

I think the key is the part of "in regards to toolbars". It's an important qualifier to the overall statement.

So if you went from:

"So trying to say customer service isn’t marketing and trying to make some distinction between the two, doesn’t hold up."

To:

"for me a customer service toolbar might not be the type of marketing with ads, popups etc but still another form of marketing."

I don't think his starting point was necessarily such a bad one. I think that was part of his goal…to make the point that toolbars can be used for something outside of the type of marketing using ads, popups etc.

And those other types, such as customer service, can be non-problematic with regards to overwrites and channel cannibalization. Indeed a toolbar based on customer service can indeed benefit affiliates and thus everyone in the equation.

There are many in this industry who either don't realize or haven't considered the other possible uses beyond direct marketing (I would contend that some toolbar behavior isn't even marketing or advertising). So if some are now more aware of that and educated regarding toolbar technology, then I don't think his original starting point is necessarily a problem.

As a coupon affiliate, if you decided that you wanted to have a toolbar that would reinforce the benefits of the savings your site has provided your customers (users) by displaying a total of all savings they have garnered by using the coupons from your site, why shouldn't you be allowed to do that? It's not interference but reinforcing the customer service you provide to your visitors. Should you be restricted from utilizing such tools in your business model just because you *might* do something else because others have in the past? Should we assume that you would do something more nefarious with the technology?

If that kind of logic is going to be applied, then maybe the use of coupons by affiliates should be banned. There certainly has been quite a lot of coupon abuse over the years. There are slippery slopes everywhere.

Great recap, I was really hoping to be on the call but it seems that you hit on all of the major points. Is there any chance that the call was recorded? I would love to hear it in it's entirety.