KevinReader got banned but I'll respond
We admittedly take a very unconventional approach to bizdev when it comes to diet offers. It may seem like we're being assholes and denying too much but its a sensitive vertical and can make or break a network when it comes to being sustainable for the long term. The issue of risk management when it comes to diet isn't as black and white as Trials are high risk and profitable, straight sales are low risk but aren't profitable. We're fortunately positioned well and have a lot of good SEO and straight sale affiliates who could push good volume. Unfortunately we get 2-5 bizdev requests/day asking us to run their straight sale diet offer. If we took them all we'd spread our traffic way too thin and stretch ourselves out. The reality is having too low of traffic to an offer is just as high risk as having too much traffic. I can rant for pages on the details but ultimately it comes down to building up straight sale at a steady pace and in sync as the traffic base grows and build out those long term partners keeping as much leverage per offer as possible. The same goes for trials. You can't just grab everything that comes your way and start blowing them up. You put yourself and everyone around you at a ton of risk and ultimately you end up with no long term partners or loyalty/leverage. I realize that's how most networks do it in an effort to chase every dollar, but that's not my way.
My official policy is: No diet trials without a straight sale to go with them. No diet straight sales without a trial to go with them.
Seems stupid I know but I have a lot of logic backing it. i can rant for pages on the ins and outs but this thread is old so here's the basic cliffnotes:
1. Most of the reasons are actually exactly what kevinreader said above about mid and customer service issues causing them to become high risk, and well explained in Monte's AMA. If i can help my merchants keep their mids at lower risk by sending them maximum straight sale traffic offset it. That's what i need to do. Trial advertisers who think they'll last forever on their mids without a solid straight sale are kidding themselves no matter how good their product or customer service is. I don't want to get burned with them as they go down.
2. Too many straight sale only diet advertisers exist with way too similar of products. If I get to pick (and i do) I'm going to only pick the ones I either already have traffic to (requested by an affiliate), are unique in some way, or come with a compliant and well serviced trial that can also help the media buyers who can only run trials.
3. Ultimately I want the exclusive on every offer. If I don't get the sense that I could get the exclusive I'm hesitant to recommend it. If i'm hesitant to recommend it I'm hesitant to put it in the system. If I have the exclusive I get maximum say in compliance. I get to manage all the traffic going to it. The advertiser cashflow/cap/my float, and last but not least the optimizations done. It scares me when one offer I'm running is up on a bunch of other networks. Some don't take compliance and fraud checks as seriously as I do. Even straight sales can very quickly get blown up by a credit card frauder and a noncompliant pub on another network. The other network may even try to cover it up and hide it for as long as possible. Everything they do can very much affect me and put me at risk because I become the #1 target to help absorb the loss when it happens. Some networks will ONLY take trials as an exclusive and won't even setup the straight sale, leaving the advertiser high and dry to get the SS on as many networks as possible and pressure it every day to keep up with the mid demand of the original network. That's paying peter with paul's traffic and not a good way to do business.
Like I said there's a ton of reasons behind it, but in the end I'm just here to make sure every advertiser who does get in, gets the most and taken care of the best. Same on the affiliate side. Sorry if you get rejected on bizdev. It's never anything personal and most of the time it's not even an outright rejection. If it's a good product and you're a good advertiser it'll last and we'll circle back when we can make sure we're the long term partner you can keep and never have to worry about. It seems like a ridiculous standard at first but once you get a chance to see how it works and get a full night sleep knowing you're not going to wake up with no traffic or a bunch of problems you'll very quickly decide you don't want to work with anyone else and it was worth the trouble.
We admittedly take a very unconventional approach to bizdev when it comes to diet offers. It may seem like we're being assholes and denying too much but its a sensitive vertical and can make or break a network when it comes to being sustainable for the long term. The issue of risk management when it comes to diet isn't as black and white as Trials are high risk and profitable, straight sales are low risk but aren't profitable. We're fortunately positioned well and have a lot of good SEO and straight sale affiliates who could push good volume. Unfortunately we get 2-5 bizdev requests/day asking us to run their straight sale diet offer. If we took them all we'd spread our traffic way too thin and stretch ourselves out. The reality is having too low of traffic to an offer is just as high risk as having too much traffic. I can rant for pages on the details but ultimately it comes down to building up straight sale at a steady pace and in sync as the traffic base grows and build out those long term partners keeping as much leverage per offer as possible. The same goes for trials. You can't just grab everything that comes your way and start blowing them up. You put yourself and everyone around you at a ton of risk and ultimately you end up with no long term partners or loyalty/leverage. I realize that's how most networks do it in an effort to chase every dollar, but that's not my way.
My official policy is: No diet trials without a straight sale to go with them. No diet straight sales without a trial to go with them.
Seems stupid I know but I have a lot of logic backing it. i can rant for pages on the ins and outs but this thread is old so here's the basic cliffnotes:
1. Most of the reasons are actually exactly what kevinreader said above about mid and customer service issues causing them to become high risk, and well explained in Monte's AMA. If i can help my merchants keep their mids at lower risk by sending them maximum straight sale traffic offset it. That's what i need to do. Trial advertisers who think they'll last forever on their mids without a solid straight sale are kidding themselves no matter how good their product or customer service is. I don't want to get burned with them as they go down.
2. Too many straight sale only diet advertisers exist with way too similar of products. If I get to pick (and i do) I'm going to only pick the ones I either already have traffic to (requested by an affiliate), are unique in some way, or come with a compliant and well serviced trial that can also help the media buyers who can only run trials.
3. Ultimately I want the exclusive on every offer. If I don't get the sense that I could get the exclusive I'm hesitant to recommend it. If i'm hesitant to recommend it I'm hesitant to put it in the system. If I have the exclusive I get maximum say in compliance. I get to manage all the traffic going to it. The advertiser cashflow/cap/my float, and last but not least the optimizations done. It scares me when one offer I'm running is up on a bunch of other networks. Some don't take compliance and fraud checks as seriously as I do. Even straight sales can very quickly get blown up by a credit card frauder and a noncompliant pub on another network. The other network may even try to cover it up and hide it for as long as possible. Everything they do can very much affect me and put me at risk because I become the #1 target to help absorb the loss when it happens. Some networks will ONLY take trials as an exclusive and won't even setup the straight sale, leaving the advertiser high and dry to get the SS on as many networks as possible and pressure it every day to keep up with the mid demand of the original network. That's paying peter with paul's traffic and not a good way to do business.
Like I said there's a ton of reasons behind it, but in the end I'm just here to make sure every advertiser who does get in, gets the most and taken care of the best. Same on the affiliate side. Sorry if you get rejected on bizdev. It's never anything personal and most of the time it's not even an outright rejection. If it's a good product and you're a good advertiser it'll last and we'll circle back when we can make sure we're the long term partner you can keep and never have to worry about. It seems like a ridiculous standard at first but once you get a chance to see how it works and get a full night sleep knowing you're not going to wake up with no traffic or a bunch of problems you'll very quickly decide you don't want to work with anyone else and it was worth the trouble.