So I’ll start this with a rant.   As regular readers will know, as well as now working for a network I still operate a couple of affiliate sites which pay for some beer tokens every now and again – not as much as I would like, but with a wife, three kids and a full time job it’s difficult to find the time!

Anyhow – when I apply to programmes it is generally with the explicit aim of doing some revenue with them, perhaps I’ve purchased a niche domain and want to use them on this site for example.  I don’t sign up to every programme under the sun as some affiliates will do.

Today I received notification that I had been suspended/removed from one of the programmes that I am signed up to due to lack of activity.  It’s not the first time that this has happened but does lead me once again to ask why there is such a lack of understanding from merchants that do this?  Do the networks advise their merchants that it’s a stupid idea? I believe they should…

The only good reason I’ve ever heard for this is that some networks charge merchants on a CPM for their banners being displayed, and the costs for this are sometimes more than the commission being paid – but this is more of an issue in the states from what I understand.

I challenge anyone to give me another decent reason for this, especially for a retailer.

I would suggest that any merchant who has thought about doing this thinks again for the following reasons:

• Just because I’m not promoting you currently doesn’t mean I won’t in the future
• If you reject me, I will just use your competitors in the future and you’ll be the ones losing out
• If you communicate with your affiliates via newsletters then just by being signed up I’m likely to receive and read these looking for more opportunities – surely the more affiliates that read this the better

I’m all for rejecting specific affiliates if their harming your brand / reputation but just culling all the non-active affiliates really is stupid.