Talk:Affiliate marketing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Affiliate marketing was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Marketing & Advertising  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Affiliate marketing:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup: Structure, use sentence case for section headers
  • Copyedit: grammar and wording correction
  • Expand: Missing completely is the mentioning of the lack of standards for training and certification in the industry. Help is appreciated. Don't forget to cite your sources!
  • NPOV: the tone is a bit opinionated. please tone it down
  • Verify: See: Failed "good article" nomination
Priority 6

Archives[edit]

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3


Affiliate marketing on Wikipedia[edit]

Template:uw-affiliate can be used as a warning to users who attempt affiliate marketing on Wikipedia --Rumping (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a section on click-fraud[edit]

The practice of click-fraud and the role of botnets needs to be included in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.105.217 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

History - Web 2.0[edit]

New developments have made it more difficult for unscrupulous affiliates to make money. Emerging black sheep are detected and made known to the affiliate marketing community with much greater speed and efficiency

I could just as easily state precisely the opposite. Not only is an RS necessary, but the entire statement is suspect. 20040302 (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


Threat to traditional affiliate marketing[edit]

I have removed this paragraph as it describes a non-existent conflict betwen CPA marketing and "traditional" affiliate marketing. CPA (cost per action) is one of several different types of affiliate pay structures; it does not represent a threat to "traditional" affiliate marketing as it is just one of several different ways in which affiliate offers are structured (including CPS [cost per sale] which is presumably what the original author meant by "traditional" affiliate marketing.)

Additionally, of the three sources cited in this section, two are 404 pages at a non-notable source and one is a forum discussion which does not itself arrive at any consensus, and is not authoritative. Frank Mottley (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I was going to remove the sources in question but, embarrassingly enough, find myself unable to figure out how to edit the Reflist. Frank Mottley (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have removed the sources? If not, please quote some actual text in the article that you think should be removed and I'll have a look. To remove a source, you delete the <ref>...</ref> reference (after checking that the source is not used elsewhere in the article). Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I deleted them when I removed the paragraph in question, as they no longer show in the references list. Thank you for the tip -- better to know how to do things properly, of course. Frank Mottley (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I'm not qualified to write on this, but I nominated it for NPOV review because of the language particularly of one section header. It says Pros and Cons but only lists the pros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.174.109 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanding on the criticisms of affiliate marketing[edit]

Overall, this article is too pro-affiliate marketing. I'd like to see the current "Past and current issues" renamed to something that more explicitly calls out the serious reservations many have towards affiliate marketing. This, too, should be clearly called out in the introductory text of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomqj (talkcontribs) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are these many, and what are their reservations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.90.97 (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)