I Want Your Opinion. (13)
What would you do in this scenario:
User X has a large profitable unique campaign. User Y has contact with a unique traffic source deal.
Both parties will not touch/share/run the campaign/traffic source outside of what they run together.
Should profits be split 50/50 or 80/20 in favour of user X who created the campaign?
I know there are quiet a few extra things that could go right or wrong, but with the information I've presented you, what would you do?
Please vote in the poll above.
Or 80/20 until Mr X gets XXX.XXX and then 20/80 until the campaign dies.
I'm working with a guy right now on 80/20 in a similar situation, although he has no expertise in the area so I feel it's fair.
Given your circumstances (and if he is aware of the percentages) both parties should be ok with 60/40 in favor of the campaign creator. It depends on how much more he stands to make with you vs. not. Anything that puts him in more profit (that requires no additional work on his end) is fair, so you can answer it yourself based on that.
User X should get at the minimum 60/40
Please vote in the poll guys. I don't want to make the poll bias due to the conversation.
Could think of the person with the traffic deal as an ad network/broker. Take a margin of what is spent on the traffic source instead of the profits generated. Might make the deal a bit simpler.
Just go 50/50 with your partnerships imo. If it's a deal that you own and it's your show, and you decide to bring work on board, do what you want. But I don't think this falls into that category.
edit: In this situation, X should be able to run the campaign wherever he wants on his own, and Y should be able to run other campaigns on the source. Unless I misunderstood it sounds like you're both honoring a mutual exclusivity option on the campaign and source (which again sounds very 50/50 to me).
voted 50/50.
anything else is unfair and will cause trouble....
what is worth more..the campaign or the traffic source? hard to tell right?
think about this scenario:
- the traffic source is worth nothing without the campaign (or maybe not that much) +
- the campaign is worth nothing without the traffic source (or maybe not that much)
so you have 2 parties with 2 strong arguments? who's gonna be the judge?
unless you involve a 3rd person ( who will select the 3rd person) the only way to go is 50/50..anything else is a ripoff for 1 of the parties in my opinion.
one of the parties will always be pissed if it's 80/20...so i would go for 50/50 and go from there...and who knows maybe more traffic sources will show up..in the long run 50/50 will make both parties more. think about it.
a good business deal will always benefit both sides equally...just my 2 cents.
to back up my arguments here's some scientific research...although not directly related but still relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
for me a good deal is a deal that benefits both sides period
btw: the results of the poll tell a lot about how this industry really works (think about network - affiliate relationships) ...it's a shame...go direct haha
PS: sometimes it's way more difficult to get a contact/account at a high volume adnetwork than coming up with a campaign angle that works.
if you get me a direct rubicon/appnexus acc i'll send you 3 campaigns because it will make me way more money in the future. think about it. i'm serious pm me :-)
voted 50/50.
Ok we have enough votes, so now I can give some feedback.
@nusolutionz very interesting points you bring up!
I guess the people who vote 50/50 see User Y as a partner on this specific deal. People who vote 80/20 see User Y as a traffic source. I find it hard to define what User Y actually is in this case.
The traffic is unique but not exclusive. Would you let a traffic source charge you 50% of your profit knowing your campaign is already profitable on a wide range of source? Or would you prefer to pay CPM or CPC, and take the risk yourself?
- Very interesting conversation here.
Now that there are enough votes, might as well disclose that I voted 50/50 as well.
Unless one partner is taking more risk than the other, in which case I think they should get a higher %.
Otherwise, taking a cut of the money spent on the traffic source would be better imo.
As for the traffic source, so long as the other partner can't access it now by themselves, or don't know how to get it etc. it is fair to split the profits because both couldn't benefit from this situation without the other.
@nusolutionz - Haha the prisoner's dilemma reminds me of affs continuously inflating the price on traffic sources by outbidding.
I would say 50/50 providing funding is split equally.
If only one partner was funding the campaign, then 80/20 is fair because User X is assuming blind risk.
A lot would depend on the nature of the unique traffic source.
If Y has secured a traffic deal that X wouldn't be able to match, then his value increases. If his deal is based on X simply not having found the same opportunity, then his value is weakened because he has less leverage.
In negotiation, whoever cares less tends to get the better deal (if he knows how to use his 'least interest').
In this situation, User X has the least interest because he's already got the large profitable campaign. User Y has a source of traffic but he doesn't have a profitable campaign. X has the leverage to get a better deal because he can make money without Y. The only way Y trumps X is by convincing him that he can take the same deal to User Z and make just as much money.
Whether X should expose his profitable campaign to an outsider is a different matter altogether...
Originally Posted by Mr Green
If net profit is the primary motive then the answer is simple... stack that money.
Home > General > Affiliate Marketing Forum