What %age of joins did affiliates send 5 years ago?

[Head Boy]

I've been forecasting the decline in the role of affiliates for a couple of years now, and many people have rejected this. Several knowledgeable posters have stated that affiliates only account for !5%-20% of sales these days. Is this lower than 2 years ago, or even 5 years ago?

[Head Boy]

Any chance I can get some opinions on this. I need to decide if I should send my traffic to parking programmes plus a small selection of sponsors, or if I should put some effort into increasing the amount of traffic I send to a broader range of sponsors.

[RawAlex]

The affiliate system doesn't go away until the big guys have all the traffic. Someone will always be willing to pay for traffic and the development of new traffic sources.

[boobman]

bump for great thread

[Venril Sathir]

With so many affiliate programs nowadays I highly doubt this is the case. People with traffic are gods.

[Head Boy]

Originally Posted by Venril Sathir

With so many affiliate programs nowadays I highly doubt this is the case. People with traffic are gods.

But I can choose if I sell my traffic to a sponsor, send it to an aggregator, or sell other products as alternatives to selling paysite memberships.

[Player Rob]

No way, it is the 90-10 rule. 90% of your sales come from 10% of your affiliates.

90% of your affiliates are pure shit, most have day jobs and are just trying to make some extra beer money but are so pathetic that they cant even make that and that stand for every affiliate program I have work for.

Ibill must have made a fortune by not allowing merged accounts and setting the minimum payment to $50. That way they would have thousands, if not over a million accounts with less than $50 in never getting paid out.

[Head Boy]

I can accept the 90/10 rule, but has the total affiliate percentage changed over the years, and is the rule more like 95/5 now?

[Player Rob]

Originally Posted by Head Boy

I can accept the 90/10 rule, but has the total affiliate percentage changed over the years, and is the rule more like 95/5 now?

Programs work differently. I know some big sites dont bother with affiliates due to alot of them being whiney little pricks.

The majority of big affiliates wont really sign up to a program. They will be friends with the owners etc.

[Dagwolf]

The decline in the U.S. dollar is going to wreak some changes on this industry. I think those of us with other language skills will weather the changes a little better.

Affiliates? Their role will always be what they make of it.

[Dupont]

Only cc processors can really give you a good estimate.

[Lord Aga]

I have to say that the outlook for affiliates is worse than bleak.

[gecko]

It's def a lot tougher nowadays

[RawAlex]

The funny part is if it becomes bad enough for affiliates, someone will start a new program and accept all those guys in, and do well with all that traffic that nobody else is taking.

Affiliate marketing isn't anything like it was even 5 years ago, and certain programs appear to be very agressively shaving, milking, and abusing their affiliates, thinking they can get away with it forever.

[Head Boy]

So it would appear that the percentage of sales allocated to affiliates is declining. If the amount of traffic sent by affiliates has remained static, then either the affiliates are cheating and sendin crap traffic, or they are being disadvantaged by sponors. I suspect that it's a bit of both, but where does the honest affiliate go in the future?

One answer is to start his own paysite, another is to sell clicks through aggregators. Of course click sales are already subject to massive amounts of fraud, and I guess it will be a just reward for the sponsors to be the victims rather than the perpetrators.

An interesting alternative is for a group of affiliates to create a billing cooperative to work with some of the more honest sponsors.

[Jel]

Good (50+ s/u per day) affiliates just don't sign up for new programs anymore, is what I consistently hear. It's harder to get those affiliates, so for new programs at least, the affiliate sales are nowhere near inhouse sales. Since I launched, affiliates have made around 8% of my total sales (which isn't a huge amount in the first place ).

I'm not sure what angle you are coming from though as to whether you should be sending more traffic to sponsors, or parking pages. How does the amount of affiliates who make sales with me, or anyone else, determine how many sales you would make with them if you sent your on-target traffic?

[Jel]

Originally Posted by Head Boy

So it would appear that the percentage of sales allocated to affiliates is declining. If the amount of traffic sent by affiliates has remained static, then either the affiliates are cheating and sendin crap traffic, or they are being disadvantaged by sponors. I suspect that it's a bit of both, but where does the honest affiliate go in the future?

One answer is to start his own paysite, another is to sell clicks through aggregators. Of course click sales are already subject to massive amounts of fraud, and I guess it will be a just reward for the sponsors to be the victims rather than the perpetrators.

An interesting alternative is for a group of affiliates to create a billing cooperative to work with some of the more honest sponsors.

You know, as an honest program owner it's a real pain in the arse to see you consistently state how programs are traffic thieves, shavers, fraudsters, and just downright dishonest. There is no 'more honest' - there's honest, and dishonest. If you have concrete proof a sponsor is dishonest, state it. Don't just collectively lump us all in the 'basically dishonest' pile. Thanks

[Head Boy]

I'm puuting together my plan for the next two years. and I'm trying to find out how big a role affiliates will be playing in the future. To me, it looks as if smaller affiliates will be treated as a source of virtually free traffic, and I don't want to be a part of that. It's a time of great opportunity, and I'd like to build the foundations of some solid businesses now, rather than just spending all my time researching.

[Head Boy]

Originally Posted by Jel

You know, as an honest program owner it's a real pain in the arse to see you consistently state how programs are traffic thieves, shavers, fraudsters, and just downright dishonest. There is no 'more honest' - there's honest, and dishonest. If you have concrete proof a sponsor is dishonest, state it. Don't just collectively lump us all in the 'basically dishonest' pile. Thanks

It's a pain in the arse for me to see the increase in email harvesters on tours, the support of Zango and other traffic thieves, the unaffiliated popups and other leaks. I don't have to post names, they're on blatant display because some sponsors have no respect for their affilates, or their intelligence.

Of course there are honest sponsors, but the old saying that you shouldn't run with thieves if you want to be considered an honest man, is still true. I don't know how a sponsor can project an honest image at a time when many sponsors don't give a fuck. I'd really like to know, because I want to go forward with the honest sponsors.

[_LB_]

I have to agree with others. Affiliates who have traffic are as rare as hens teeth.

Not only that but its becoming more like the 95/5 rule. There are so many affiliate programs desperate for affiliates, that they will do virtually anything to get them.