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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
July 10, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
October 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
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
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


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 (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)


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 (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 (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Affiliate programs[edit]

The term "affiliate programs" start being used under the headline "History". The term is used in the first sentence under the headline "Compensation methods", the sentence starts "Eighty percent of affiliate programs today use revenue sharing...". This sentence in particular makes the term "affiliate programs" seem the same as "affiliate marketing". Whether or not this is the case, as a layman I believe this needs a clarification. (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the lack of a standard industry term lends a little confusion to the matter. "Affilate program," "affiliate marketing program," and "publisher program" seem to be the most commonly-used terms to describe the relationship, but it would be difficult if not impossible to cite a source. Some businesses avoid using the term "affiliate" because it has legal or business connotations for other aspects of their business (e.g. affiliates in broadcasting, which is an entirely different concept from affiliate marketing.) I agree that the terminology and its use could use cleaning up, or at least standardising for purposes of clarity in the article. Frank Mottley (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Affiliate marketing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)