Re: Ouch! - From 60% to 40%

From: Dave Clark <mediadc_at_email.msn.com>
Date: Mon 08 Jan 2001 10:50:47 -0500

DAVID JOHNSTON <info_at_homepagers.com> WROTE:
> These were my "gut" reactions to this notice from
> Engage, am I that far off base??

Hi again forum,

In response to David Johnston's post/question on
1/3/01--no Dave, I don't think you're off base. At
least that far, if at all.

I believe that too high expectations, the "greed
factor," and a little cart-before-the-horse all
contribute to the change in Engage's policy. They may
not be running in the black (as you seem to suggest)
and there is some greed (they would call it profit
motive).

I think the tale is really told in their line "this
commission is necessary for us to maintain the breadth
and caliber of the products to our sites, and will
enhance our product offerings..." You see, it's all
about them. They want customers to pay for them to
develop the products with which to make a profit. Don't
most of us attempt to offer our product offerings and
services first, in a way that benefits us and our
customers? We offer products or services based on a
sound business plan that allows a profit. Perhaps
Engage (and others) prefer to generate a profit and
then find the minimum product they can supply to keep
their customers.

They are not alone.

The very fact that Engage chooses to operate far
outside the established commission structure for
advertising sales/placement (still about 15% of gross,
last I knew) but without the value of creative,
indicates their low esteem for their inventory
providers.

Let's run a test! Each of us on this ad list will call
up a newspaper, magazine, radio or T.V. station and
tell them that we're going to change the commission
structure we are paid to 40%, on the ads we place with
them...

Dave Clark





Received on Mon Jan 08 2001 - 09:50:47 CST