I met Ming of Nuffnang on Tuesday to learn about the company, and understand the mechanics behind its affiliate program and their experience with Singapore advertisers. My intention was to verify my assumptions about the company and to see if they are worthy of recommending to my own clients. I came away pleased. While there have been many naysayers with even more reasons given on why Nuffnang will fail, I guess I will be the first to show you why they will not. And this is not from blind assumptions or by reading what others had written, but by directly talking to Ming. Safe for some really sensitive information, Ming was open and even shared some proprietary information …which of course I can’t disclose lar! ;) Anyway, here are 5 reasons why Nuffnang will not fail: 1) Celebrity Bloggers 2) No Slack 3) Good System 4) Ardent Supporters 5) Strong Management Team The only problem I foresee is Nuffnang’s network growing too quickly. While having 10,000 bloggers is a great value proposition, it also presents a problem - you must sell more ads or risk bloggers complaining about running only Nuffnang ads. This is a bigger problem in Singapore, where advertisers are only starting to warm up to the Internet. Of course, there are some temporary workarounds that can be implemented while waiting for demand to catch up and I have suggested this to Ming, along with some other suggestions. Let’s see what he does with them. If you still have doubts, my advice is to look for where the big fishes are advertising because they give an indication of who commands a bigger premium. I’m not sure about Advertlets but Nuffnang seems to have some pretty big name clients like Nike, Honda and Citibank.
Nuffnang has celebrity bloggers on their side, e.g. Xiaxue and Dawn Yang in Singapore, and Kenny Sia and Jeff Ooi in Malaysia. Why is that a big deal? Any advertiser who has the budget will want these blogs in their campaign - no question about it. So if I wanted an ad on Xiaxue’s blog, I’d have to give Advertlet’s a miss no matter how nice Josh treats me.
Nuffnang’s operation is as lean as it gets, meaning good efficiency and capital preservation. I visited the office and lets just say that most of us won’t be enthusiastic about the place. Even the employees are based in Malaysia to save costs. Seeing all these probably helps me appreciate their efforts in holding events still, and to understand why the $1 fee is necessary.
Nuffnang has developed a good set of systems for managing both bloggers and advertisers. It’s easy to see that the compensation had to be is designed to benefit bloggers because they don’t want you leaving the network or for advertisers to approach you directly. Conversely, the model for advertisers is equally attractive (though rare) and their targetting seems to work well, which would explain their above-average CTR.
Nuffnang seems to have managed to garner strong support from at least most bloggers and advertisers alike. Despite the shortage of resources, they have made conscious efforts to engage bloggers by holding events. What’s interesting though is how similar efforts were hurled at advertisers too, e.g. Ming invited advertisers/marketers to his home and cooked for them!
Although only 24 years old, Ming is confident with what he’s doing - something that can be easily mistaken for arrogance. He is very focused on blog advertising, and it’s not some money-making “attempt” to expand a business into unfamiliar territory.




Some money making attempt? Care to share more? Sounds like a pun to me.
Comment by Paddy tan on November 16, 2007 at 8:42 am
I don’t really agree with #2. If the operation is really efficient, then why the need for $1?
Comment by DK on November 16, 2007 at 9:22 am
I only met Ming once. The impression he gave me is quite different from what Estee impressed upon me later.
It’s good that he was open with you, if only Ming would be more humble and let it show on his online PR as well.
I sold my first company to Creative Technologies when I was barely 22yrs old and I (believe) people have not mistaken my confidence for arrogance as much as they have with Ming, based on the general feedback I gathered.
Comment by HighwayBlogger on November 16, 2007 at 9:26 am
For the record, I have never once said that NN will fail or fold or whatever. I have all the while upheld and I thinknI couldn’t be more clear that I am not happy with their service and arrogance. Till date, Ming had neither feedbacked on the comment he left in my blog which left me with a very bad taste in my mouth, nor had he bothered to drop me an email that he will look into things. Zilch, nil. Is the message that I am not Xiaxue or Down Yang visitorship calibre enough to warrant decent service?
Of course you have your own reasons to be a staunch supporter of NN that is your perogative of course. What I do NOT appreciate, is that you come to my blog, ask me a question which I answer, and then leave the question I posted to you dangling. I hope it is an oversight on your part rather than blatant discourtesy.
Comment by Rachel on November 16, 2007 at 10:15 am
Paddy: I wasn’t referring to Blog2u.sg. Actually, I was making a reference to my industry where every other web designer is also an SEO.
DK: I believe they were absorbing the fees previously, but with minimum withdrawals dropped to $50 and a hundred bloggers joining everyday, it’s not difficult to see why it became necessary. To put it simply, NN is not obligated to continue absorbing the (rising) costs just because they did so earlier.
Nic: he may come across as slightly aggresive and maybe a little impatient (which is normal if you’re 24) but he certainly wasn’t arrogant, going by the number of times he apologized and thanked me.
I think trying to explain it on NN would’ve done more harm than good since you’re going to get objections from certain quarters anyway - do you think why-nuffnang-will-fail is ever going to stop?
I told him that you can never please all 5,000 bloggers because we’re so opinionated. Instead, focus on the advertisers and bring more ads/money for the bloggers - that should shut everybody up.
And if you think about it, his silence on NN about the issue could imply that he’s very confident that far more bloggers are satisfied with the service than the ones complaining. ;)
Rachel: I did asked Ming about customer service and he said that they have 2 staff dedicated to just answering emails and that the turnaround time is usually 48 hours. It would be strange that your email missed them twice, i.e. once with customer support and another with Ming, so I thought that it was because of your message, hence, asking you what you wrote to NN exactly.
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 10:17 am
Larry, thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. FYI, the first email I sent to them was to their admin email, giving positive feedback and a request to migrate ads to my current domain. Their staff, Yang Huiwen, took 25 days to reply to that email. I don’t know if she is one of these 2 staff you mentioned but 25 days is really not acceptable. And her reply was obligatory and not very apologetic. The second was the comment Ming left was my blog to forward him these emails earlier so that he can check. Again, no reply from him so far. You know, I am not an unreasonable person. A simple reply like “We are sorry this happened. Moving forward, we will try to do better.” will suffice for me. But even that seems a little too hard.
Comment by Rachel on November 16, 2007 at 11:01 am
haha… capital preservation == $1 fee
Nuffnang = XX bloggers happy + XXXX bloggers unhappy
Advertlets = XXXX bloggers happy + XX bloggers unhappy
Comment by Putera Emas on November 16, 2007 at 11:02 am
Putera Emas: if every blogger withdrew every month, that’s $1 x 5,000 = $5,000 a month. If your network is growing at a rate of 100/day, try to imagine how much you’ll be absorbing by the end of 2008.
Nuffnang = celebrity bloggers + 10,000 other bloggers
Advertlets = no celebrity bloggers + xxxx other bloggers
and that’s why…
Nuffnang = premium advertisers
Advertlets = small time advertisers
And I think they should remove that bit about RedesignMalaysia.com because there’s nothing on that website.
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 11:35 am
Thanks larry for the clarification.
Comment by Paddy Tan on November 16, 2007 at 11:42 am
Harry: I did probe further, by meeting with Ming directly for answers - perhaps you should do the same. Your opinion still baffles me because as with the last post, I did logical reasonings by pointing out both the pros and cons, whereas you have only linked to all the negative stuff - maybe you should have an open mind?
I still think the eventual winner will be the one with the bigger/most advertisers …and we already have an indication of who they are looking at.
Why did you not mention about the lowering of the minimum withdrawal limit, because that’s why the $1 fee came about? Won’t that suddenly add signifcantly to their costs and become a non-linear issue?
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 11:47 am
Hey Larry,
Thanks for meeting up that day in Spore by the way! Having met you, I think you’re a nice humble guy and have a good thing going on there :)
I’m not a nuffnang or advertlets user/customer but a quick check on Advertlets website shows advertisers like Toyota, Digi, Starbucks and HP.
Pardon me if I’m missing something here but how are these “small time advertisers”?
Disclaimer : I’m not anti-NN or a NN basher because I have friends who support Ming but at the same time I have quite a lot of market feedback and a negative personal encounter to boot so I give my views as they are, trying not to take any side.
Comment by Nic on November 16, 2007 at 11:55 am
Nic: it was great meeting you too. Funny I missed that on Advertlet’s site - guess that’s an oversight on my part. Sorry, I take back my previous comment. :)
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Hey Larry, no prob :) TGIF!
Comment by Nic on November 16, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Harry: I see you’ve skirted your “$1 linear cost” argument with another long but pointless comment, and choose to continue in hiding. I guess you’re going to continue blogging based on assumptions - something which you advised me against.
Sorry, but your act of posting only the negative stuff is akin to the government allowing only good press in the papers - people stop believing after a while.
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Larry, since we’re aware that you value integrity, I’d like to hear your opinion on the integrity of the Nuffnang team.
There is rumor that positive press is attributed to Nuffnang because certain bloggers have shares in Nuffnang Pte Ltd. Is this true? If so, would you consider it honest for this not to be disclosed?
Also, if Ming claims his customer service replies email within 48 hours when Rachel’s experience is otherwise, would you constitute it honest and full of integrity for them to claim so?
Just wondering…
Comment by Precious on November 16, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Thank you larry for your post.
Thank you for your kind comments! I will certainly take your suggestions on board in an attempt to do better.
I will not let your faith go unpaid.
I have also personally phoned up rachel, and offered her my explanations to which I believe she is satisfied.
I do believe there is a lot to improve on, and pray for your patience as we grow together.
Best,
Ming
Comment by ming on November 16, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Thanks for being the voice of reason again Larry.
It must really hurt people like “Harry” or should I call “Leong Goh Meng” to read your entry.
Comment by Boss Stewie on November 16, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Harry: I’m sorry but you’ve lost me with your comments - they seem so deep. Please speak in plain simple English for the benefit of everyone. I hope you’re not trying the “if you can’t convince them, confuse them” technique.
As I’ve mentioned many times, the amount of ad spend for online is still small in Singapore. Fyi, I got a call from Hong Kong this morning asking about this so that they can budget their campaign. Still, Nuffnang cannot stop bloggers from joining them because of this.
You can use other advertising/compensation models to temporarily address this gap until demand catches up, and which I’ve suggested to Ming.
I hope you consider my advice of not being biased. Imagine for a moment that I censored all negative comments like yours - what will you think of me then?
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Harry: I am rather baffled by your bent intent on a smear campaign. why the personal agenda in this?
larry: yes i too came away pleased.
Comment by Rachel on November 16, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Precious: I didn’t asked Ming that because they’re not obligated to reveal since NN’s not a PLC.
If it were true, I’d think that it’s a clever move because it would get them exclusivity with these celeb bloggers and keep out the competition …and people thought Advertlets were business savvy? :)
Advertisers will want these bloggers on their campaigns and thus by signing up with NN, the bloggers at the tail-end get to ride along - provided that they’re in the targetted niche and have the correct demographics.
There were 2 Australian brothers who did this with their $1 wine. Instead of going on a commission basis, they gave a share to the biggest wine distributor in the United States. Obviously, this motivated the distributor to push their product and propelled them to be one of the best selling wine in no time.
I think Ming has answered about Rachel’s case.
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Nuffnang’s brand promise: Asia’s first blog advertising community.
I guess as long as they keep to being community centric, we can’t complain.
Ming, good job on calling Rachel personally. I applaud that move. Now how about the rest of the bloggers who feel betrayed by their own community for $1.00? Please do not leave/ignore your own blog community.
I’m sure the community will be happy to welcome you back if you’d humbly acknowledge the mistake and make up for it.
(I didn’t miss the apology, did I?)
Comment by Precious on November 16, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Precious: I know I’m going to get shot for this but I think that’s exactly NN’s problem - they try too hard trying to please everyone. With limited resources and in an immature market, you know you’re going to get caught at some point.
It’s the same with Advertlets. They’re good at marketing but overdo it sometimes and come away looking cheap or desperate.
If I were Ming or Josh, I’d cut back on trying to push too hard since the advertisers are not going to change overnight. Instead, focus on perfecting the business model to address potential issues and go educate the advertisers.
Lee: are you sure you’re not just cutting-and-pasting from a legal dictionary?
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 1:32 pm
precious: I just want to clarify that ming called me about some other issues that I raised, namely NOT the $1 or the lack of ads issue. The way I see it is very simple. They have their costs to cover and I never had an issue with the $1 at all. The lack of ads all boil down to one own’s visitorship and stats which would be unfair to blame NN for. That’s my stand on this.
Comment by Rachel on November 16, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Larry: “If I were Ming or Josh, I’d cut back on trying to push too hard since the advertisers are not going to change overnight. Instead, focus on perfecting the business model to address potential issues and go educate the advertisers.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Comment by Rachel on November 16, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Btw, I think when comparing Nuffnang, Advertlets and now Blog2u, you should remember that they are at different stages of maturity.
Obviously, if I had 100 bloggers in my network, I’d be able to provide better customer service and fill more ads, compared to someone with 10,000 bloggers.
Those of you who’re Adsense publishers will know the classic story of how so many defected to Yahoo because they were paying more per click - since there were a newcomer.
Naturally, that number has dropped as they grow and the publishers are moving back to Google.
That said, I think NN should add a “loyalty” factor into their algo so that loyal bloggers are rewarded. :P
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 1:43 pm
It’s heartening for me to see NuffNang start engaging the community in a more open manner as evidenced by calling up Rachel personally and talking openly to Larry.
I think that’s what the community wanted, to be humble and start engaging, not just to be perfect.
Glad to see this change coming.
I too applaud this as a move in the right direction for Nuffnang and hope that in due time Nuffnang will win back the trust of the blogging community and not just the star bloggers.
Comment by Nic on November 16, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Larry, no offense, but your definition of integrity is certainly different from mine. :D
People have tried to convince me to buy certain ideas/products before without disclosing that their suggestion is biased because they have a personal agenda such as getting a nice commission from it. I don’t appreciate that.
If you’re interested, you can check out the discussions about the ethics of not disclosing: http://blog.disclosurepolicy.org/2007/06/disclosure-debates-shoemoney-seomoz-and.html
BTW, I’m not saying Nuffnang had definitely given shares to certain bloggers who support them ya. It is a rumor I’ve heard and I’m curious…
Comment by Precious on November 16, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Precious: disclosure is meant for “buyers” when you’re recommending a product/service. In this case, the bloggers (celebs or not) are the sellers and the advertisers are the buyers.
There’s no conflict of interest on the side of the bloggers because if anything, they benefit from having the celeb bloggers on their side. Because let’s face it, do you think Nike will contact you if you had 100 uniques/day?
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Larry, are you the PR of Nuffnang?
Comment by RudeSingaporeans on November 16, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Nope. If I was, I wouldn’t be talking about NN’s weaknesses or taking the trouble to meet Ming.
I’m an Internet Marketing consultant with potential clients who want to advertise online. This was communicated to Ming at the beginning of our meeting - check with him.
I was also trying to understand what the fuss was about and to reason with bloggers based on my own experience as a publisher.
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 2:22 pm
sighz, I really regret getting into this Nuffnang thingy. It’s none of my business how others run their company.
I want to go back to my simple little life now…
Comment by Precious on November 16, 2007 at 2:24 pm
TGIF :)
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 2:29 pm
@Larry: so let’s just hope NN discloses to their buyers indeed
@Boss Stewie: You managed to find out the real name of Harry - “Leong Goh Meng”. That’s really smart, at least now we know Harry’s not a competitor of NN when he started the anti-NN site.
Comment by Nic on November 16, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I do not agree with whatever you wrote. I just feel that the reasons you have given are not strong enough. They seem to just be a response to why nuffnang will fail, instead of being an article about Nuffnang.
I feel that this Why Nuffnang will fail website is not being objective or helpful too. I feel that we have to give genuine support and suggestions to Nuffnang for them to improve. However, I do not see why you have to get into a spat with Harry.
Plus, as much as you deny being the PR of Nuffnang, I guess people feel that you are one, especially when you said you won’t be blogging about Nuffnang anymore
Comment by ignorantsoup on November 16, 2007 at 8:33 pm
ignorantsoup: I guess like the other blogger, you missed my bit at the bottom which read, “…I shall never write about them again unless really necessary”. Obviously after talking to Ming, I felt sharing my new thoughts was necessary.
I didn’t want to get into a spat with Harry - that was not the intention of this post. But you should’ve read what he wrote this morning.
If I really am doing PR for NN, I think I deserve to be paid for it - where’s Ming? :)
Comment by Larry on November 16, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Haha..Oh well, since you clarified that..i guess I’m really sorry for missing that out.
Well, I don’t know who this Harry guy is, but I am not so impressed with what he is doing. Sometimes I wonder if we shld try to help NN improve? So I hope the why nuffnang will fail blog is to show flaws in the system and hopefully NN can improve.
Comment by ignorantsoup on November 16, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I understand all these points that you raised. But the thing is, all these are coming from you and not Nuffnang. In another word, not official.
Comment by DK on November 17, 2007 at 9:55 am
I don’t thing everything needs to be official. Looking at the situation now, anything official will just give certain people more ammunition to play around with what they say and what they mean.
Comment by astro on November 17, 2007 at 12:10 pm
DK: yup, it’s not - that’s Ming’s job.
In my previous post, I discussed about NN’s issues as an observer and based on my own experience as publisher/marketer. The intention was to knock some sense into emotional bloggers (to put it bluntly), who were somewhat out of touch with reality.
In this post, I wrote about NN’s strengths as I understood from my meeting with Ming. Of course, he didn’t tell it that way instead I asked questions, he answered and I made the conclusions.
The intention here is to show why NN will not fail (before Advertlets anyway) so that those planning to jump ship will not do so for the wrong reasons.
Comment by Larry on November 17, 2007 at 12:21 pm
BTW: This is a useless comment. I’m just trying to see how to delete a comment from your blog after reading your entry here.
http://www.larrylim.net/seo-online-marketing/is-why-nuffnang-will-fail-blog-a-fraud/86/
Can delete our comment? Where is the delete button?
Comment by DK on November 17, 2007 at 12:43 pm
No leh. Can’t delete any comments.
Comment by DK on November 17, 2007 at 12:47 pm
erm… the other post is closed for comments? And yes, I can’t seem to be able to delete my comments here so I don’t understand how Harry could do it?
Comment by Nic on November 17, 2007 at 1:04 pm
If Harry has hacked your site and deleted comments then this constitutes a crime under the misuse of computer act in Singapore.
If you are adamant that Harry has indeed do this, then ‘put your money where you mouth is’ and report this matter to the Singapore police for investigations.
Comment by xizor2000 on November 17, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Guess all of you missed this at the bottom…
==========================================
Update: that’s fast! Poor Harry retaliated so quickly, although he’s also revealed that he himself could not stand his own bitter medicine of censorship and distorting the truth. Now you know what it feels like. ;)
==========================================
I still don’t know why is this guy so pissed off with NN - ex-staff, competitor, ex-bf, etc. ???
And if he’s so confident about what he’s blogging, why is he hiding?
Comment by Larry on November 17, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Woah! Guess now I’m assumed to be NN’s PR person. I really hope Ping.sg bloggers are less shallow than that because I actually respect you guys and gals. Here’s what I had to comment on another blog:
Bloggers are opinionated so it’s up to you to think I’m NN’s PR person. And if you seriously think so, please ask Ming to pay me a salary.
Seriously, I’m likely to end up as an advertiser on NN, by using them for my clients’ campaigns - that was the reason for meeting Ming.
Celeb bloggers are not only picked for their traffic IMO - heard of leadership marketing? Having an ad on their blogs suggests their recommendation for my product/service.
The thing about the minor bloggers was my own deduction as a publisher/marketer myself (hmm.. if I was really NN’s PR would I have said this?).
I personally think that it may become a problem for any BIG networks if they continue using the existing model - yes, on Advertlets and Blog2u too if they grow bigger.
Hence, I’ve suggested a different model to Ming which would allow ANY blogger a chance to make money regardless of their daily traffic.
So if you still think that I have a hidden agenda although I’m really trying to help then that’s your choice. Like I told Ming, you can’t please everyone.
Comment by Larry on November 17, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Don’t divert the topic. Where is the delete button Larry???
Comment by Eh on November 17, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Eh: your earlier post was deleted because you used a fictatious email address. Like I said, why the anonymity if you’ve nothing to hide?
And don’t you read…
==========================================
Update: that’s fast! Poor Harry retaliated so quickly, although he’s also revealed that he himself could not stand his own bitter medicine of censorship and distorting the truth. Now you know what it feels like. ;)
==========================================
Comment by Larry on November 17, 2007 at 4:06 pm
still does’t explains why you said that he deleted his comments in your blog
Comment by Eh on November 17, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Eh: try to read between the lines.
I think this issue with NN has gone far enough. Clearly, there are people who prefer sensationalism than actually solving problems.
I have given my opinions about NN. I have reasoned with bloggers who’re out of touch with reality. I have given my suggestions to Ming to improve their service.
If you still have complaints, please take them to Nuffnang.
Comment by Larry on November 17, 2007 at 4:31 pm