Image by Heinrichs_FJ via FlickrIt's 2011 and we're still getting weird emails from merchants. I like this particular merchant, so I'm going to censor the name and I understand why the company has taken many of the decisions it has but I don't understand this one. This one is odd. Backwards.
We've recently re-evaluated our affiliate programme and have decided to only continue working with our most productive partners. Unfortunately your site isn't one of these and so we will be ending your affiliation with [dramalama] on Tuesday 26th July 2011.
You will no longer receive commission from [dramalama] transactions and we ask that you please remove all [dramalama] content from your site as soon as possible. We would be grateful if you could let us know when this has been done.
I'm not sure what to say. They want to know when I remove any [dramalama] content. I could write an email like this;
Dear [dramalama] ,
I monterise my links to your site and your competitors via Skimlinks.
Removing me from your programme removes my ability to use your latest creative which help keep my banners up to date and removes me from your email notifications which have previously had a good record of giving me topics to blog about your [things dramalamas wants me to blog about]. It does not remove my ability to blog about your [dramalama transactional thingies] or link to you.
Keeping me in your programme costs you nothing.
Why would you remove silent partners? What's the benefit? I would be grateful if you could me know.
I do know there are times when affiliates need to be removed because they're in-active. If a brand re-brands or is guided by the firm hand of regulators to make significant changes to its advertising and marketing then affiliates who do not update creatives or messaging may well have to be removed. Especially when regulators are involved. This is not one of those times.
I wonder whether this presents a challenge to VIGlink and Skimlinks too? You have to apply to get into either site. My blogs are high value, true content ones, so no one can accuse either of letting some sblog into the system. But will some merchants worry about lac of control?