Advertlets Capitalizes On Nuffnang’s Misery

23 Comments The thing is really not about the 1 dollar or not. Its about the attitude of passing the operational cost to clients. If you cannot handle the operational costs in the first place, don’t promise your clients this and that. If you want to charge, do so at the beginning. Also, if you need to charge 1 dollar in the course of your biz, just charge it and end of story. If your clients are not happy, they leave and end of story also. No need to explain about what cost here cost there and give several other lame excuses. Its like who likes starhub to explain how their sports exlcusive cost have went up and we need to charge more. Just simply charge and stfu and risk your clients leaving you. Lastly, I really find it laffable when pple say without nuffnang you get no money. How about without bloggers they have no biz too? I like some comments made by others where they say “do you thank Giant when they are having a mega sale?” It is soooooo apt to use it in this context. Comment by nato on October 10, 2007 at 10:07 pm Personally I feel that there is nothing wrong with clearing the air that Advertlets do not charge others for mailing. Already in the blogsphere you can see that there are discussions if Advertlets do the same cos it is not the common practice, even by Google adsense. As for your statement: ‘is it really necessary to send a RM100 cheque through registered mail? FYI, I don’t even get that treatment for US$6,000 cheques from the U.S.’ Err… cant this be value added service? It is not as if they just started doing this after the Nuffnang fiasco right? If I am receiving a cheque that is thousand of dollars, I will love it to be registered. Gimme peace of mind too. I am not standing with Advertlets or against Nuffnang since I myself blogged about it, comparing it to Gmask incident but nonetheless, I am for being open about whatever charges that affects the bottomline of others. Ming has stand out and clarify so the case should be put to rest also but probably not for others that are still upset about it. So my stand is nothing wrong with Advertlets to clarify the air. But then again you dont have to agree also since I believe everyone has their own opinion about it. :) Comment by Paddy Tan on October 10, 2007 at 10:10 pm “I know it’s business, but it seems a tad unprofessional in my opinion.” Sorry dude, if you know business then how could that be unprofessional. “just share publicly the percentage commission you’re taking?!” Again, no one in the industry will be stupid enough to do that. “As for Advertlets - shame, shame tak malu!” Anyway I thought it was a brilliant move by Advertlets. Oh don’t blame them. Blame me because I advise them. :o) Comment by IZ Reloaded on October 10, 2007 at 10:24 pm finally i get to say this: bad publicity is still publicity. Comment by malique on October 10, 2007 at 11:13 pm In today’s world where we’re constantly misleaded with half truths, it’s rare to find people openly share their weakness - it also means they’re telling the truth. It would’ve been easier for Nuffnang to absorb the $1 and then take a bigger chunk for their commissions, but they came clean with the problem they were facing and got punished for that. I don’t know the both of them and am not a publisher for either networks - just an observation from a neutral bystander. ;) Comment by Larry on October 10, 2007 at 11:37 pm @Malique: It should be “No publicity is bad publicity”. See the double take in the statement? In terms of PR, Nuffang did a great job in responding to the post and explaining what the S$1 was for. That started the conversations in the SG blog-o-sphere so it is good. Adverlet took advantage of a competitor’s weakness and that’s a great marketing tactic. Yes, Adverlets vs Nuffnang may not be the marketing wars of Coke vs Pepsi, Yahoo vs Google, etc.. But we should be encouraging this type of competition even between small companies for at the end of the day, it is the customer who benefits. In this case here, Adverlet’s bloggers save on the $1 and this will force Nuffnang to reconsider their S$1 charges. Who benefits? The bloggers, of course. Comment by The One on October 10, 2007 at 11:51 pm Thank you for your kind comments larry. You are right in saying the focus should be on the publishers. This is what myself and timothy have been focusing on in the past months. You will see clear dividends as soon as this week for Singapore, where there are 5 concurrent campaigns from bluechip companies. Part of our vision had always been to match relevant and credible advertisers with bloggers. Today, these advertisers include Citibank, Nokia, Nike, Walls, F&N, Nescafe, AirAsia, Clearasil, Honda, Twisties and more. We are proud of this achievement, but not content with it. It’s no longer irelevant ads like korean dream chat that bloggers have to put up with. In terms of payouts, we’ve tried to be as flexible and have the lowest cash out treshold than any advertising network out there. $50. This is despite adverse payment terms from advertisers. Community outreach programs also cost money, time and effort, but we believe is something that needs to be continued in order to be inclusive. Movie screenings, food outings, affiliate programs, and more. You hit the nail right on its head when you say that we are minnows! People often forget that Nuffnang Singapore is just 5 months old, and Nuffnang Malaysia 7 months old. We are still a startup and vulnerable in more ways than one, as a result, my instinct has always been for sound business practices, coupled with transparency (as much as reasonable), in our disclosures. It is true that without our bloggers we are nothing, but at the same time we are also confident that we have contributed very tangibly to the blogoshpere in general. This is outside of the thousands of dollars I send out every week in cheques (Just sent another batch), but also our outreach programs, and the fact that a new breed of bloggers who call themselves “Nuffnangers” have emerged. We will not rest on our laurels, and we will not tire in our quest to improve. Just as google has a core motto and creed “Do not be evil”, we have a creed, the essence of which is honesty, forthrightness, and integrity. In all we do. Thank you all for your support and comments, they are not falling on deaf ears. Even if a decision does not go your way, it does not mean we are not listening. Comment by ming on October 10, 2007 at 11:57 pm josh.. will you please start growing up and stop pretending bad mouthing nuffnang under the guise of someone else.. grow some balls?? Comment by gemma on October 11, 2007 at 12:48 am I don’t see anything wrong with Advertlet’s posting. It is strictly business. And in the business world, you tell everyone what you can do and your competitors can’t. Josh clearly showed us that they have higher operational cost. But they aren’t passing the cost to bloggers. As for the registered mail, its value added service. So why are you against it when advertlets didn’t charge transaction fee for that? Comment by DK on October 11, 2007 at 12:53 am Whatever it goes. It should be clear to the bloggers what they are getting themselve into when signing up for these ads services. Comment by Daniel CerVentus on October 11, 2007 at 1:16 am DK: why compare yourself over small things like the transaction fee? Why not boast about having quality advertisers, MOUs with branding agencies, affiliations with media companies, being a banner network too, etc. etc. Two SMALL companies in a SMALL market competing on TRIVIAL stuff just looks plain childish to me. Regarding registered mail, I’m just pointing out that it isn’t necessary. Escrow, Google, Amazon, Kontera, CardOffers, Linkshare, CommissionJunction - I receive regular cheques from them and they all use normal mail. Josh seems to have second thoughts too by running a poll at the end of his post? Is he taking the opportunity to switch to regular mail to cut cost? :) Comment by Larry on October 11, 2007 at 7:24 am Daniel: correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the $1 transaction fee only came about after they reduced the cash out threshold to $50 - which they did to benefit the bloggers? Comment by Larry on October 11, 2007 at 7:30 am It is absolutely bizarre to me that someone would consider what Josh did to be “unprofessional”. ??????? Scratch head ???????? What a bizarre definition of business unprofessionalism: sharing about / showing how you are better than your competitors. Gee, that means ALL businesses are unprofessional. Maybe you just mean that Advertlets has not been gracious here, but definitely not unprofessional. I think Nuffnang should start learning, if they haven’t yet, from Advertlets. It’s a very very good lesson, keeping calm in the chaos and noise of anonymity in the blogging world. Judging from Ming’s posts after the initial hoopla, I think Nuffnang should do fine. Comment by Entrepreneur on October 11, 2007 at 7:44 am Well I wouldn’t call Josh unprofessional. Its a neat trick actually, to be able to do that. In a small industry with 2 small companies demanding more market share, isn’t any news good news? Josh knows that the bloggers are getting restless over this issue and thus, reassured that Advertlets do not pass on mailing costs to bloggers, and through this, distinguished himself from Nuffnang. Thats killing two birds with one stone. Actually you may feel that comparing the 1 dollar is wrong because it is minimal. I do agree with you that its not a big issue, but its affecting lots of blogger so its important. Haha. I just felt that its unfair to label him as unprofessional. Comment by ignorantsoup on October 11, 2007 at 9:35 am Larry: It is not the $1 that matters. It is the justification behind the increase. If the justification is valid, I’m sure nobody will make any noise even if the increase is $10. But for this case, even a 10cent increast is bound to invite question. Same thing apply to public transport. The increase is only 2 to 3 cent, yet the public is complaining because it is not justified. I’m quite puzzled by the way you criticize Advertlets for something that is not wrong at all. Using registered mail is perfectly alright if the cost wasn’t pass down to blogger directly. Perhaps Josh is a bit paranoid and scared of using normal mail for cheque. But end of the day, he has the bloggers at heart. He want to be sure that the cheque reaches blogger safely. Is there anything wrong with that? And changing from registered mail to normal mail is a cost cutting action and a business decision. In fact, I feel that it is a good decision. By changing to normal mail, Advertlets can reduce operating cost and at the same time does not affect the quality of service. By doing so, Advertlets can continue to provide good service to bloggers without any transaction fee. Remember: Cost cutting is always good for business as long as it does not affect the quality. This is the cost cutting that I’ve been mentioning in my blog. All business should take cost cutting measures instead of passing the increased operating cost to customer or employees. Nuffnang should learn this from Advertlets. Comment by DK on October 11, 2007 at 9:49 am 落井下石? Comment by Miss Loi on October 11, 2007 at 10:49 am I think many see this act as perfectly professional because this is regularly practiced in business. Personally, I think it is perfectly fine for any company to clarify if there is any admin charges passed on to buyers and suppliers. The more clarify upfront, the better. However, the fact that this is published just when Nuffnang is being attacked for passing admin charges to bloggers, it is a tad distasteful, don’t you think? Josh is surely too savvy for this timing to be a coincident. Comment by precious on October 11, 2007 at 4:03 pm I am not sure it is before or after however that is a good move for bloggers who needs money fast. Hhahaha I might just shoot up their operational cost. Comment by Daniel on October 19, 2007 at 2:27 am I would suggest you not go into a business venture, Larry. All business don’t start great. Whether the market is small or big it is the absolute objective of any businessman to try and corner the market and eliminate competition. What Josh and Advertlets did is simply a business decision and what is really childish would be to belittle that. Comment by Aldragon on November 8, 2007 at 1:38 pm Aldragon: I admit that the way I do business is very different from others. Even my own parents have said that I’m too honest and naive to survive in the business world. Still as a freelancer and based in a little town in Malaysia, my customers include SPH, M1, NYSE-listed Premiere Global and even global PR agency, Edelman. Clearly, there are people who are sick of “business wits” and prefer simple honesty for a change. ;) Comment by Larry on November 8, 2007 at 2:59 pm Do you play International Chess? Here’s an analogy: Imagine this, when you made a blunder whereby I can check your “King”, and after that capture your “Queen”, is that being unscrupulous or just good play? Do you expect me to let you walk away with that in a International Chess championship? Likewise, NuffNang made a blunder, it is only natural for Advertlets to take advantage of it. There is nothing honest or dishonest about that. Comment by Aldragon on November 8, 2007 at 9:06 pm If you read my message carefully, you’ll notice that what I’m trying to say is you can still WIN by being honest, ethical, righteous, etc. etc. There’s no need to be “clever” because some people (like myself) will view Advertlet’s move as being un-gentleman, desperate for publicity and taking advantage of other people’s misery. I for one will never do that. Anyway, you seem pretty firm with your opinion so let’s take it that we have different views and thus, different ways of doing business. As for me, I’m pretty comfortable with the way I run my business, my customers are happy with me and I go out with my competitors sometimes. Comment by Larry on November 8, 2007 at 11:23 pm What I am saying is, what is so unethical, unrighteous, or dishonest in what Advertlet’s doing? Like in a game of chess when you make a mistake and I take your pieces, it’s only a part of the game. If you prefer to tell your opponent he should reconsider his move or win the game by not taking his pieces instead, that’s your choice, but it doesn’t make the other way of playing wrong. Comment by Aldragon on November 9, 2007 at 1:01 am Leave a comment Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Related Posts from the Past: The Final Words On Nuffnang (Seriously!) Josh Lim On Deal Or No Deal Game Show Advertising With Advertlets Was Just As Bad Questions About Advertlets Expired Domain Advertlets In Trouble? Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Enter your search terms Submit search form

Web www.LarryLim.NET