Whoa.
Let's take the time and review this thoroughly before jumping to anything drastic.
Publisher agrees that should they commit a breach of this Agreement, including but not limited to violation of any of the warrants outlined in Section 9 of this Agreement, Company may, in addition to other legal remedies: (i) terminate Publisher's membership in the Network immediately; (ii) withhold any Bounty due; and, (iii) assess liquidated damages of up to $10,000.00 ("Liquidated Damages") for each violation of the terms of this Agreement. Publisher further agrees that such Liquidated Damages are reasonable.
This actually looks like its drafted and been sent to legal counsel. I'm not a lawyer but I've had my fair share of court dealings and this looks to be legitimate. Whether it is or not, is vital to everyone, I'm hoping it is.
I'll share a small story because honestly it relates very much to the jargon used in the quoted statement. A publisher whom I have known for about 3 years came to me months back. This publisher is a member here as well as other forums I frequent as well as one of our own IRC Chatroom members. This publisher was known for radical methods of promotion. We talked a bit over the years, never messed me over and never gave any indication of messing me over.
In walks this publisher after 3 years of knowing him. I at the time, was ecstatic he was going to start working with us because from talking to other networks in the industry, I was aware that when he was on a roll, he could produce substantial revenue. I never saw it coming so I immediately placed him on weekly wires.
One week of traffic went by and I initiated a wire to him. All was fine. The next monday hit and I get a call from eAdvertising whom I was working with at the time on the exclusive offer that the advertiser was going apeshit because they had customers wanting their gift cards. Knowing I had this offer specifically at the request of this pub, I went searching. This publisher nailed me for a substantial amount. I immediately issued eAdvertising that we would wire them or take it out of our next payment. Either way, I wanted the issue resolved on that side.
Long story short, eAds took it out of our next wire and it took me a couple of weeks of to get this publisher to wire us back. Unfortunately for him, he's known widely so a simple threat to his reputation made him give up the dough.
If that is not enough, I recently dealt with a federal subpoena issued by the FTC regarding certain keywords that in our system were not allowed to be bid on yet the publisher bid on the anyway. Over 11 fucking leads I was subpoenad.
I call this publisher up and inform him that I have to terminate his account. The FTC was chasing the money trail and were using this publisher to get with the networks involved. 3 of the largest networks online were involved as well. He asked about his $100 and I said I couldnt pay it. Paying out that $100 was an audit trail mistake they were waiting for me to make. I would have flown to give this $100 myself to the publisher under the table until the next part got to me.
This publisher pretty much turned the networks in and tried to pawn the problem off onto us. I had strict terms within the offer that explicitly explained not to bid on such terms, yet he did anyway. Knowing he was just a publisher and probably knowing the networks were at the forefront of where the most revenue was it quickly escalated into a headhunt.
Moral of the story is that when you read something like this as a publisher, it may not fully be made aware to you why someone or a company drafts such a policy. I have nothing but respect for Advaliant and Mediatrust. Our companies due not do any reciprocal business but we have. We do however share information regarding fraudulent publishers. Almost all networks have started coming on board with that and I believe even stanley is creating a database.
To jump on them so quickly is a little irrational. Phrench quickly points out something very important. In an industry such as ours, who has the right to point fingers and say which is right, which is wrong?
The answer to that is simple. While this may be generic forum talk regarding the situation, NOBODY has control of their business in this industry EXCEPT THEMSELVES.
Like it or not, Advaliant is trying to protect their ass. A Multi million dollar a month affiliate network who almost everyone from this very community has been raving about, and just made the inc500 list at #9 (I think, correct if wrong). Advaliant is not out to harm or disrupt legitimate affiliates. If you could just see it from our side for a month, you would understand some of the shit we are going thru.
There is no reason to dislike such a policy. The situation is more likely intended to keep the bad element out which on the other hand was failed to see by many. This policy was drafted to keep shitheads out. Keeping the wrong element out results in more offers, exclusives, pay terms, and overall service from them. This is in their best interest as well as keeping you in mind.
From an affiliates perspective I can see mis-interpretation. What would be really great is if feedback was supplied to them so that can amend and clarify anything that may be misread and understood.
Just trying to offer some advice and suggestions. A lot of threads like these can quickly turn into illegitimate lynchings.
