<?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: Affiliate Code of Conduct by Fraser</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html</link>
	<description>Affiliate Marketing Blog by Clarke Duncan (aka Supercod) from the UK.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:54:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tephus</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html/comment-page-1#comment-1991</link>
		<dc:creator>Tephus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:57:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html#comment-1991</guid>
		<description>Great commentary. Keep it up!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great commentary. Keep it up!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: yorganic</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html/comment-page-1#comment-1897</link>
		<dc:creator>yorganic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:37:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html#comment-1897</guid>
		<description>speaking as someone who manages the odd campaign on behalf of a merchant I don&#039;t agree with affiliates being anonymous. There is so much fraud within these systems a lot of merchants are soon going to walk away as the costs of managing a campaign are starting to outweigh the benefits.

another perspective</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>speaking as someone who manages the odd campaign on behalf of a merchant I don&#8217;t agree with affiliates being anonymous. There is so much fraud within these systems a lot of merchants are soon going to walk away as the costs of managing a campaign are starting to outweigh the benefits.</p>
<p>another perspective</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keith Bond</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html/comment-page-1#comment-1858</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith Bond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html#comment-1858</guid>
		<description>Absolutely spot on regarding creatives Clarke if the network can&#039;t get them changed why should the onus be on the affiliate.

Also agree about taking problems to the network first no reason at all why the boot should be put in on a forum without at least attempting to resolve them.

As for Discount Vouchers, I&#039;d like to see a network take up the challenge of Ray Theakston (Befuddle) and make codes affiliate specific so that all sales using that code are attributed to the affiliate it was issued to. I know this can&#039;t be applied to codes from other sources but must surely help police the situation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Absolutely spot on regarding creatives Clarke if the network can&#8217;t get them changed why should the onus be on the affiliate.</p>
<p>Also agree about taking problems to the network first no reason at all why the boot should be put in on a forum without at least attempting to resolve them.</p>
<p>As for Discount Vouchers, I&#8217;d like to see a network take up the challenge of Ray Theakston (Befuddle) and make codes affiliate specific so that all sales using that code are attributed to the affiliate it was issued to. I know this can&#8217;t be applied to codes from other sources but must surely help police the situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moose</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html/comment-page-1#comment-1856</link>
		<dc:creator>Moose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html#comment-1856</guid>
		<description>Contact Info: I certainly agree with your point about contact details in the sense that this should be reciprocated. If we don&#039;t have theirs, then there is no reason why they should have ours, unless we limit communication to internal mail systems &amp; choice of communication we wish to receive by having them categorised. 

SEO: wrt to any negative review, for example a customer review, this should be at the discretion of the affiliate &amp; nobody else. Because a merchant may want to to terminate a relationship, two examples being Comet &amp; BT, it doesn&#039;t mean the affiliate cannot still earn money or be inclined to remove that review, if anything more eyeballs may actually see it.

&quot;Merchants need to know people are not daft and will click on Affiliate links and still use offers if they find elsewhere,&quot;

Very valid point !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Contact Info: I certainly agree with your point about contact details in the sense that this should be reciprocated. If we don&#8217;t have theirs, then there is no reason why they should have ours, unless we limit communication to internal mail systems &amp; choice of communication we wish to receive by having them categorised. </p>
<p>SEO: wrt to any negative review, for example a customer review, this should be at the discretion of the affiliate &amp; nobody else. Because a merchant may want to to terminate a relationship, two examples being Comet &amp; BT, it doesn&#8217;t mean the affiliate cannot still earn money or be inclined to remove that review, if anything more eyeballs may actually see it.</p>
<p>&#8220;Merchants need to know people are not daft and will click on Affiliate links and still use offers if they find elsewhere,&#8221;</p>
<p>Very valid point !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fraser Edwards</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html/comment-page-1#comment-1855</link>
		<dc:creator>Fraser Edwards</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:20:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/affiliate-code-of-conduct.html#comment-1855</guid>
		<description>Thanks for taking the time to post Clarke but I almost with you hadn&#039;t ;)

You&#039;ve put a reasoned argument against most of my points which proves how difficult it is to get any standard that people would agree with.  These are not simple issues but is it possible to have some kind of rules that would be widely acceptable without it being reduced to something so wishy washy that it doesn&#039;t mean anything?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for taking the time to post Clarke but I almost with you hadn&#8217;t <img src='http://www.affiliatemarketingblog.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>You&#8217;ve put a reasoned argument against most of my points which proves how difficult it is to get any standard that people would agree with.  These are not simple issues but is it possible to have some kind of rules that would be widely acceptable without it being reduced to something so wishy washy that it doesn&#8217;t mean anything?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
