Looks like CJ’s paying me, but that PSA…
by Sapphire (October 9, 2005)
For anyone still following the great “Why have all my commissions been sitting in ‘locked’ or ‘new’ mode for three months, thus delaying my first CJ check?” epic saga, the answer turned out to be: it’s something they do to newbies to check for fraud. What kind of fraud? Don’t ask me. Not being very good at committing fraud, I’ve never known how to think like a scammer.
Good news, though - my July and August commissions moved over this morning (or maybe yesterday) to my actual balance, so I should get paid for those this month. A woman I spoke to a couple of weeks ago told me they were closing stuff on the 10th, which is tomorrow, so I’m not sure if this is part of that, or if this was just due to my account being found to be in compliance. Maybe tomorrow they’ll review that September sale I had, which hasn’t closed yet? I’m thinking not, and for good reason (more later).
But what about that PSA?
This week, CJ put out a new PSA which states that we need a privacy policy in which we would effectively take legal responsibility for anything CJ turns around and does with our visitor’s cookie-gathered info. And that they can chargeback commissions indefinitely instead of for 60 days. Obviously, this sort of b.s. opens the door for ridiculous abuse by either CJ or its merchants. It also has some good stuff, like not using blog comment spam to promote your links.
Tod from CJ says they have no intention of enforcing the PSA to the letter. They want a basic privacy policy (fair enough) and will stick to about 60 days on the chargebacks. Why the heck write this crazy PSA, then? Why not just say what they really mean?
I’m pretty sure the PSA as written will not stand up in a court in California. I’m also pretty sure CJ’s lawyers know this (if they don’t, CJ, please consider finding better counsel?). For that reason, I seriously doubt CJ has any intention of enforcing it to the letter. If they make a three year old chargeback against an honest affiliate, or dump the person for not employing a privacy policy that would make the affiliate a target in a lawsuit if CJ does something unethical with cookies, that would just land them in an unwinnable position in court. The whole PSA would probably get handed back to them from the judge as confetti. And then the door would be wide open for every CJ affiliate to sue and get not only what they actually lost, but some extra money for harrassment and whatever.
It is disturbing however that they would write the PSA in such a way that affiliates who follow it blindly will incorporate a privacy policy which could put them into legal jeopardy if CJ or its merchants do something wrong.
You know what the solution is? CJ needs to adopt a net-XX period of payment, and forget chargebacks. This is what every business dealing with subcontractors does. It’s even what AdBrite does. AdBrite has a net-90 (net-30 and 60 are more common) period, which means that when I earn $5, it will be 90 days before AdBrite pays me that $5. That gives them 90 days to make sure I’m not scamming, to make sure the advertiser’s check cleared, etc. It also gives them 90 days to earn some interest on the advertiser’s payment, thus cushioning themselves against the inevitable scam they don’t catch in time and have to eat.
This would protect CJ and its merchants from scam, and it would inconvenience affiliates a lot less than knowing a chargeback could come at any time, even after you’re dead.
Posted in Affiliate Marketing
Subscribe to the feed or email updates
