<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Removing affiliates from affiliate programmes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/removing-affiliates-from-affiliate-programmes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/removing-affiliates-from-affiliate-programmes/</link>
	<description>Travel Industry Affiliate Marketing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:13:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: hero</title>
		<link>http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/removing-affiliates-from-affiliate-programmes/#comment-657</link>
		<dc:creator>hero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:33:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/?p=391#comment-657</guid>
		<description>you know what this reminds me of? Throwing away the junk stuff you&#039;ve hoarded in your house over the years. Does anone do it regularly and frequently? Of course not. Only time you do do it is when you move and you actually come across it. In other words, inactive or non-converting affiliates don&#039;t take anyone&#039;s time, anyone&#039;s attention, anyone&#039;s space. Let them be - unless you have help turn their performance around, that is. 
As for time spent auditing affiliates, no offence Matt, but agencies have far more important value to add than this. Monitoring brand presence and representation, yes, but sometimes things go overboard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you know what this reminds me of? Throwing away the junk stuff you&#8217;ve hoarded in your house over the years. Does anone do it regularly and frequently? Of course not. Only time you do do it is when you move and you actually come across it. In other words, inactive or non-converting affiliates don&#8217;t take anyone&#8217;s time, anyone&#8217;s attention, anyone&#8217;s space. Let them be &#8211; unless you have help turn their performance around, that is.<br />
As for time spent auditing affiliates, no offence Matt, but agencies have far more important value to add than this. Monitoring brand presence and representation, yes, but sometimes things go overboard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matt</title>
		<link>http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/removing-affiliates-from-affiliate-programmes/#comment-645</link>
		<dc:creator>matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/?p=391#comment-645</guid>
		<description>I can see a case where an affiliate manager might want to reduce the volume and complexity of incoming reporting data, getting rid of &#039;dead wood&#039; could help with that a lot, and help them concentrate on what matters.

2 days notice is bad, no question. Fact is though if it&#039;s there in the terms when the affiliate signs up, the affiliate has to assume it may be executed. To then invest in running that program as if the rug can&#039;t be pulled away at any time is naive. (Basically: don&#039;t do it!).

&quot;if your performance has boosted since October ...&quot; well that&#039;s just plain lazy, the author of the mail already has access to that data.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can see a case where an affiliate manager might want to reduce the volume and complexity of incoming reporting data, getting rid of &#8216;dead wood&#8217; could help with that a lot, and help them concentrate on what matters.</p>
<p>2 days notice is bad, no question. Fact is though if it&#8217;s there in the terms when the affiliate signs up, the affiliate has to assume it may be executed. To then invest in running that program as if the rug can&#8217;t be pulled away at any time is naive. (Basically: don&#8217;t do it!).</p>
<p>&#8220;if your performance has boosted since October &#8230;&#8221; well that&#8217;s just plain lazy, the author of the mail already has access to that data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/removing-affiliates-from-affiliate-programmes/#comment-644</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:29:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/?p=391#comment-644</guid>
		<description>Hi Matt,

Thanks for the fast and knowledgeable answer &amp; yep, thanks for the plug on your blog. I enjoyed reading your mates 5k blog too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Matt,</p>
<p>Thanks for the fast and knowledgeable answer &#038; yep, thanks for the plug on your blog. I enjoyed reading your mates 5k blog too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Bailey</title>
		<link>http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/removing-affiliates-from-affiliate-programmes/#comment-641</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:36:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://affiliate4travel.co.uk/?p=391#comment-641</guid>
		<description>Hi Rob,

A couple of reasons this may happen. Firstly,the affiliate manager in question may have to audit all affiliate sites regularly to check for adherence to brand guidelines etc. Undertaking this auditing process takes a lot of resource and therefore it may be best to get rid of a few people who aren&#039;t doing anything but still need to be checked.

Secondly, the merchant concerned may operate to a marketing budget for the affiliate channel (the wisdom of which can be questioned but it does happen). Therefore they may need to keep a careful eye on who&#039;s doing what in order to make sure the budget is not exceeded. 

Whilst these two reasons may not make sense to affiliates these are examples of restrictions under which some affiliate managers have to work. The way we get around this is by coming together as an industry to educate merchants more about how the channel operates. Quick plug for the good work the IAB&#039;s Affiliate Council is doing in respect to this.

I agree on the notice period though, a little bit naughty and surely could have been planned better.

Did you see my plugs for you on my latest blog post btw? - http://www.mabailey.co.uk/what-ive-been-reading-recently</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Rob,</p>
<p>A couple of reasons this may happen. Firstly,the affiliate manager in question may have to audit all affiliate sites regularly to check for adherence to brand guidelines etc. Undertaking this auditing process takes a lot of resource and therefore it may be best to get rid of a few people who aren&#8217;t doing anything but still need to be checked.</p>
<p>Secondly, the merchant concerned may operate to a marketing budget for the affiliate channel (the wisdom of which can be questioned but it does happen). Therefore they may need to keep a careful eye on who&#8217;s doing what in order to make sure the budget is not exceeded. </p>
<p>Whilst these two reasons may not make sense to affiliates these are examples of restrictions under which some affiliate managers have to work. The way we get around this is by coming together as an industry to educate merchants more about how the channel operates. Quick plug for the good work the IAB&#8217;s Affiliate Council is doing in respect to this.</p>
<p>I agree on the notice period though, a little bit naughty and surely could have been planned better.</p>
<p>Did you see my plugs for you on my latest blog post btw? &#8211; <a href="http://www.mabailey.co.uk/what-ive-been-reading-recently" rel="nofollow">http://www.mabailey.co.uk/what-ive-been-reading-recently</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

