Is This Ethical?

I don't believe it is unethical, however I don't consider this a good practice and therefore I wouldn't continue to promote their program since they weren't upfront about the terms.

I personally think that any ethical marketer should pay the amount due to its affiliates in a timely manner, no matter how small.

Michael

Don't even get me started on affiliate commissions! Grrr...I've been trying to collect commissions from day one of my association with a particular Warrior affiliate program owner and have not received a penny. This goes back nearly 7 months at this point! So I know how you feel.

No, what you've described is not ethical. Upon bringing this to their attention, and realizing that there was a tremendous oversight in not laying out the affiliate program terms, they should have made all affiliates whole at that point, amended the Terms and then went along with their payout plan with new affiliates having full awareness of the payout structure.

Making affiliates wait for commissions is foolish. Who would work for free? Therefore, pay your affiliates early and often and they will work for you over and over again.

I think you have a right to be ticked. Affiliates are performing actual work for pay whether affiliate program owners want to admit that or not. It's the ultimate pay for performance model yet some still screw it up and offend affiliates with either ridiculous affiliate terms or total lack of integrity by not paying affiliates.

It's really a dumb way to run a business....

How "new" is the marketer? I could see myself overlooking this during my first launch. Followed by a firm slap to the forehead.

Making people wait 5 months for their commissions is not necessarily "unethical", but I would certainly say it is a very poor business practice and marketing strategy. If you really want to maintain the enthusiasm of those referring, then pay quickly (like every two weeks or so) and that will keep the momentum going. If those referring start realizing they haven't been paid and several weeks have passed, they will probably stop referring and the marketer who is supposed to pay is going to have lost a lot of credibility. If he was upfront about the payout details, then that would be different, but I still believe he is shooting himself in the foot by such a delay for the reasons I stated above.

However, if he or she is only going to pay those who referred at least 20 people and not pay those who referred less than 20, then that is not only unethical, it is blatantly dishonest (your post was a bit unclear on this part, but it gave the impression that $20 was the minimum payout...). So, in the long run, IMO, this marketer's approach is only going to damage his reputation and credibility.

Well, a bit of hair splitting here. Creates more of a PR nightmare to put one over than to just pay. Keep on them.

Definitely not ethical. Waiting until February would make me want to not promote for this person again, but having a $20 minimum that wasn't transparent is even worse.

I agree, definately unethical. If there were payout criteria, they should have been plainly stated to you up front. But then in the marketing world, it doesn't seem like ethics are much of an issue (in general, of course).

Sucks on the receiving end, eh Justin?

Is this the Russell Brunson new contest you're talking about?

I feel it is unethical if not stated clearly on the affiliate page. 5 months is quite a long time & I don't see why there would be such a long wait.

90 days until payout is fine (when stated) with the reason being, that is the length of the refund period (usually).

It seems kind of borderline to me
but it's definitely not the right way
to run your business.

There's no better way to run off good
affiliates than to pull some crap like that

Hey Justin. I personally think it's unethical to not state the terms of an affiliate program then make stuff up off the top of your head later on so you can steal the hard earned money of small-time internet marketers who can't simply drive more than 40 to a site at the click of a send button.

I personally think that's unethical and it's simply something I would never do.

I really don't appreciate marketers that like to "hide" stuff in the small print... Best of luck with your promotion!~

Regards,

-Alex Kaplo

I also think it's unethical, that kind of stuff should be laid out clearly. Lots of affiliate marketers are self employed and having to wait 5 months to be paid, that just seems way too long.

It is unethical as there was no mention of the $20.00 minimum requirement initially.

It is counterproductive and shortsighted to deceive those people who are trying to help you make money.

All The Best,


Tony

not exactly unethical well ethical.. hmm not sure, but come on, we're talking adding 2 lines to a website, I'm surprised an old school marketer failed at doing so.

Five month, more if you include the launch date, for a payout is a long time in the internet time zone.

Certainly a sneaky way to promote, how many people would be eager to promote a product if a five month waiting period and a miminum payout limit is mentioned to the affiliates beforehand.

What about the leads that are generated by people who earn below $20.
They should be valuable to the marketer who can benefit from future sales while shafting the affiliates.

Nice very Nice. Should be a point in here somewhere.

Kulasekaran

Unethical.

This might be a trick to earn more by those big name marketer.

If they don't use this trick, they might think they are leaving money on the table.

hehe.

Justin this marketer is not ethical at all

and i will never buy anything more from him, even if he released his expensive workshop for 7$
I have bought expensive crappy packages of his affiliate rubbish information that were probably the worst marketing package i ever bought.

I had bad experience with this guy and he is just running after the cash, he don't care at all about his customers

he even brag about this as being a very aggressive marketer

at least you can use it on your own promotion, to expose these "******* marketing" mindset. That's not the way to deal with yoru affiliates and customers

In popular english: this guy is a sneaky *******

Halille

Unfortunately, "caveat emptor" applies. We need to read the "fine print" folks, or contact them for details. I have learned that in IM, making assumptions can be dangerous.

I know a lot of people (by the number of emails I got) who jumped on this promotion so I the marketer must have a ton of leads for which he may or may not be paying out.

This could be avoided by just adding a few lines as to how this "magic $1" referral is going to be paid out - then folks could decide whether to play in his sandbox or not.

Get to know who the people are behind your promotions before jumping in. Ask questions - if you don't get the answers - don't play.

And if you want to talk ethical - look at investment banking in the US...LOL

Much success to all.

Sid

IF, and it sounds like a big IF, the marketer just didn't think to put up all of the terms and conditions, then it COULD be an honest oversight. The situation could rectified in several ways - including paying people as soon as they reach $20. There may be legitimate reasons for making people wait, but if it was an honest mistake they should be paid now.

HOWEVER, if the marketer didn't divulge the payment threshold, or when payments would be sent because they were afraid fewer people would promote it, THEN that's a lie of omission, and that IS unethical.

I know what my guess is, but only February will show if I'm right.

~Michael

well, i guess the person on question will have a different set of affiliates for the next promotion. nobody will fall for that twice. and people talk.......

Hi Justin,

I guess I'll play the bad guy for a minute or two.

A question like you proposed in the OP is like asking if a nickle is a lot of money. To a child, or poor person, yes, it may seem like a lot of money. But to someone who has or makes good money, it isn't.

See what I'm saying?

For instance what is ethical to some, may not be unethical to others. Each individual has to come to their own conclusion in the end.

Now for the good guy's stuff lol ...

Yeah, I think I'd call it unethical because I saw it as being deceptive. But then again, the person who ran this affiliate program might have made a drastic mistake. That happens more than people realize.

Mike's right, in the end, it's best for people to ask specific questions about each affiliate program if the terms are not clear before they sign up.

Perhaps this is a good lesson for everyone who signed up for his. I know it should be for all of us here that are viewing your thread. At least it has the makings for a good case study of what not to do.


Mary

I cannot see any reason for these payouts to be made in February...unless that's the date they have "up their sleeve" for whatever this $1 campaign will lead to. In that case it seems they are taking advantage of their affiliates.

Justin's not new to the game so it seems like a lot of people, new and experienced, had the wool pulled over their eyes.

I think something that goes against the expectation of the majority of affiliates is unethical.

I know the offer you're talking about. I received emails about it from lots of people when it started. I didn't do it, though, because it seemed too good to be true. $1 for every person who downloads a FREE report?

Sounds like my instincts were right. I do feel bad for all those who put work into this and won't see a dime till next year. =(

I know this guy, last year he made $1,300,000 in one month using this technique but with an ethical way

Hello everyone!

This is my first post in this forum and I thought why not. I started marketing online in 1997. Since then I have done over 40 million in online sales direct to consumer and b2b sales. Since the early days of SEO it has gotten alot tougher and I'm here to learn new things and not to be so dependant on PPC. As for Russell I can't help but think this may be one of those things ( Mistakes) that has been overlooked. I've made a ton of mistakes in our bussiness ramping to our peak of 10 million a year. Many times I thought I had all bases covered only to find out later that what I thought was common sense and that someone who I employed would have taken care of didn't get done. I was the one to blame because I was the one who started the business I had to hold on to the tigers tale. Anyways I can see how I would get upset also if I recieved the email and I may have actualy said worse if I started this thread. But..

The only thing I can think of here is that Russell is trying to do a good thing but it sure looks like he made a mistake.

Can I understand why it would take 5 months? No! But maybe he has a reason that has not been expressed properly and whoever sent the email stating that payment won't come until February is mistaken or not answering properly.

I think I would look into it further before I slammed him to much. I've learned some interesting things from him so far. I'm impressed that he gives this training away for free.

Mike

To put it simply...

IF it was an honest mistake, then it was just that and not unethical.

IF it was done on purpose to get more people to promote it, then it's unethical.

All the best,
Michael Oksa

It was stated clearly in the Affiliate Agreement when you sign up.

Paragraph 18:

You have no right to commissions based upon subsequent sales, or where "cookies" are used,
overwritten or deleted even where the customer first arrived at the Company site through your
Affiliate link. Commissions will only be paid when the buyer makes a purchase on the same
visit using your Affiliate link or with your "cookie" indicating you as the affiliate. Affiliates
will only be paid at the end of the contest Feb 3rd, 2009. Affiliates will only be paid if their
overall commission checks total at least $20.00.

No, it's not ethical. In fact, it is a scam (the not telling people they need to make at least 20 to get paid part).

If disclosure iss a component of business ethics then for sure. I am sure that they will suffer many negative posts because of their practice. As an advertiser I have always posted a .pdf schedule for payments to affiliates. Cuts down on many responses by having it clearly available in the affiliate admin.

Quite unethical for me. Every contest should have clear mechanics just so to avoid conflicts such as those you mentioned. But these kind of online contests are rampant and therefore people should be very careful before engaging in such promotions.

Not ethical period, from a past customer of this big GuGusse

Ethical marketer certified
Halille

I don't think it's unethical, but it sure is on the fence. It's sort of running neck in neck with if I don't tell you the entire truth, does that make it a lie?

**Edited, my last post on this thread**

Ok guys, I just edited this post my mistake i posted to fast and apologize.

Anyway, as most people think I am attacking Russell when my feeling is just reviewing as an affiliate of the last year program here is what you can do and decide for yourself

Google the program of last year(hint add some keywords in your search) and see what affiliates of last year have to say about the program. With that information you will have enough information to put everything in perspective.

Ethical certified marketer
Halille

ps:rationalization is what can destroy your path to wealth creation, when you have been burned once, you must acknowledge it to go froward with a clear vision to avoid the mistakes you made in the past.

Unethical? You be the judge.

Once upon a time, in a land far far away (USSA) (United Socialist States of America!) an insurance company said they needed a bailout. Their basic core business is strong, but their other businesses are not. They took the $85 billion the US Treasury said they could have access to (or most of it, anyway) and then went out and spent lots of money on spa treatments after receiving the $85 billion due to the "lack of liquidity" or whatever.

I happened to be shopping for life insurance, and looking at their "core business" to see if it was really sound. Yes, it is. Yes, there is a high likelihood that they will be able to meet all of their insurance obligations in the future. Their rate quote seemed more than fair.

Then I rethought about the purchase. What was I really buying? It turned out that wasn't actually life insurance. No, I was buying the peace of mind that would allow me to sleep at night without worrying about something that the insurance would cover.

Guess what?

No sale.

Why?

Business decisions are based in a core set of ethics. And the company's ethics seemed sorely lacking.

What's this got to do with the affiliate promotion?

Lack of details (that seems in this case intentional) appears to be due to a lack of ethics. Furthermore, even though there actually might NOT be a lack of ethics, the APPEARANCE of such a lack is cause enough that most affiliate marketers should not be willing to risk their much-more-hard-to-come-by-than-money time on something that appears to be so shady.

This same lack of ethics just might lead the affiliate program runner down a path of shorting the customers the affiliates are marketing to. And the affiliate's name is attached to the recommendation, therefore their own credibility is on the line.

Perhaps the affiliate program people/company needs to rethink their offer, or be more transparent.

But in the current condition?

Again. No sale.