Terms & Conditions Update @ COPEAC

[AdHustler]

I got an email today with updated Terms & Conditions from COPEAC. I admit, I never read them before this so this clause may have already been in there:

COPEAC shall only be liable for payment to Publisher to the extent that funds have been received from the Advertiser. In the event Advertiser does not make payment to COPEAC, upon written notice to COPEAC, Publisher may directly contact the Advertiser to recover any unpaid fees.

​

Thats pretty ridiculous. Don't we use an intermediary affiliate network to ENSURE WE GET PAID? Why is it our issue if the advertiser doesnt pay the network? Let the network require payment up front. Seems unfair. has anyone ran into this situation and got royally fucked with a network?

 

[Rage9]

Wow COPEAC must have got pretty screwed.

 

[durkadurka2]

Didn't they used to tout how they were the only network that would pay no matter what (if they were legit leads).

Too much fraud?

 

[mkrongel]

That has always been in there, its in every networks contract, that was not the change.

The change had to do with checks becoming void after 90 days if they are not cashed.

The condition is what is commonly referred to sequential liability, some networks enforce it more than others, it is there as a protection, Google has the same clause for adwords if you read it.

 

[AdHustler]

It's definetly not a clause that instills confidence.

 

[-Bill-]

No copeac just Isn't ready to take responsibility for these types of business transactions. All the more reason to go direct to the advertiser.

 

[kreed]

never got such the payment issues with copeac
but this quotation sounds a bit confusing
it woud be great if we had some comments from network's side=)

 

[mkrongel]

It's definetly not a clause that instills confidence.

None of our affiliates have ever been affected by the sequential liability clause. And at times we dont get paid by some smaller advertisers. Some networks enforce it harder than others.

 

[johu]

It's definetly not a clause that instills confidence.

Find me a major, reputable network that doesn't have that clause...


Azoogle has the following in theirs:
"corresponding payments shall be made from Company out of the funds actually collected by Company from the applicable Advertiser" and "In the event that Company fails to receive the applicable corresponding payments due from the respective Advertiser(s), Company shall have no payment obligation to Publisher. Instead, Publisher shall have the right to pursue any and all legal remedies directly against any Advertiser that has not made funds available".

CJ, LinkShare, and Performics have the same sort of term, as well.

 

[johu]

No copeac just Isn't ready to take responsibility for these types of business transactions. All the more reason to go direct to the advertiser.

Where if you get screwed out of a contract payment, you have to pursue the same legal channels that you would have if you were with Copeac.

 

[maximus]

Copeac is actually one of the best networks out there at instilling trust, timely payments, and assuring payment to affiliates even when they don't get paid. I've never had a problem with them. They work hard and are on the affiliate's side.

 

[Mike]

This is a standard clause with every affiliate network out there. I know for a fact, however, that Copeac stands behind it's publishers. Without going into detail, they've always gone above and beyond when it comes to payments. I've never been screwed by them, and have never talked to another publisher that has either.

So, get over the stupid clause and go back to work.

 

[AdHustler]

ive never not gotten paid by them either, just stating what i saw in the TOS

I did check out some other TOS's after posting this and noticed similar terms were in theres as well. It's still a sketchy sounding clause. I feel that the network should be responsible for paying the affiliate regardless of what happens between them and the advertiser.

It's like working for a company and having them withhold your pay because their client didn't pay this month.

 

[mikeymike]

Probably on every t&c of any affiliate company may not worded the same but I would be willing to bet that it is included.

Sounds they have a good law firm backing them to me...probably boiler plate language.

I used to work for the company that the t&c's basically admonished us from any wrong doing regardless if it was our fault or not....did not matter we always took care of the customer.