31–40 of 187 posts
Huh, didn't livejournal try the same trick a month or two ago? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100304/1741458425.shtml
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Viglink does not strip existing affiliate codes.
Okay. Could you clarify more what happens if there are existing affiliate codes? Does Posterous only get an affiliate fee if there is no existing affiliate code?
There are a couple of companies in this space, viglink, skimlinks, etc. They all operate on the basis that they sign up to every affiliate scheme and they become the single publisher with which the merchants have a relationship (or more likely, the merchants use a marketplace that puts all merchants together so that they can be found).
For any affiliate program that viglink/skimlinks is signed up to, should someone click through from your site a 45 to 60 day cookie is usually set by the affiliate provider to show who the last publisher is that made the referral. Should a subsequent purchase be made viglink/skimlinks is credited with the sale and receives the 3.5% > 15% affiliate payment.
Catches (there are some)...
1) The cookie. Only the last web site to set a cookie gets the affiliate reward. In this case it means other sites actually providing value and setting affiliate click-thrus are going to get their cookie hijacked by posterous using viglink. So this hurts niche sites that really rely on the affiliate schemes.
2) The fee. Viglink and SkimLinks both deduct a 25% fee for this service. That's pretty damn high. They are VERY profitable.
The benefits...
1) As a publisher you get 75% of the money that is currently left on the table.
2) You didn't have to sign up to every damn affiliate scheme... actually you'd be declined anyway as whilst a merchant will deal with the big boys they tend to only like smaller guys who stay in their knowledge domain (if you don't run an insurance content site, you don't get the insurance affiliate scheme).
Basically viglink and skimlinks are simplifying the whole affiliate thing by doing for the publishers exactly what the merchants already had in places like Commission Junction... which is to provide a one-stop-shop.
So... merchants get found via CJ, AffiliateWindow, etc... and publishers get signed up to all merchants via Viglink, SkimLinks, etc.
What has ultimately happened is that now there are 2 intermediaries between the publisher and the merchant, both of whom take a slice.
I don't blame posterous for doing this, it is just money left on the table. But the cookie hijack will hurt smaller sites for whom the affiliate scheme revenue is a bloodline.
Thank you for the heads-up. Just added *.viglink.com to the AdBlock list.
Well, I'm not as torn as the author. They are altering the original content of the author, even if the result is the same. Imagine that someone's religion believes that you go to hell if you use affiliate links... posterous would have condemned them! (dramatizing works)
while it would have been nice to get a heads up, this doesn't bother me in the least. props to posterous for having a revenue model that doesn't interfere with the user experience whatsoever
http: // api.viglink.com/api/click?key=8eb8c964d...
But I am not experiencing that with a right-click in either Safari/Mac OR FF/Mac. He mentions Safari not being a problem. I find that FF/Mac isn't either.
EDIT: Any chance that they have disarmed this after getting all the bad press (at least on HN)?
The OP says that using right-click to copy a link to google.com gives instead a link like: http: // api.viglink.com/api/click?key=8eb8c964d... But I am not experiencing that with a right-click in either Safari/Mac OR FF/Mac. He mentions Safari not being a problem. I find that FF/Mac isn't either. EDIT: Any chance that they have disarmed this after getting all the bad press (at least on HN)?