Hi Warren,
My view is that Brightshare cannot be trusted and the new terms covering new players referred is not something that I signed up to when joining the program back in 2005.
Putting the allegations made against Brightshare in December 2012 aside, the way Brightshare just steamrollered these new terms onto their ‘Partners’ was in my view a calculated move. In short they knew exactly what they were doing and knew the likes of AGD for one, would resist them, if they ran them past them, before making the changes.
One can only assume that they were hoping the affiliate community as a whole were too fragmented to notice or make enough objections, so these terms would stick.
However, what they have done, is what they deem is the least costly solution to them, to ensure they still can attend and sponsor the conferences, remain on here and GPWA etc.
Bringing them back on CAP as a sponsored program would be giving them the green light and other programs who are monitoring this situation, to stick to the changes ( or implement them in the case of the programs considering making the same predatory moves ) that have been made.
You and CAP must do what you feel is right from both a business perspective and for what you believe this site if for.
However, bringing them back as a sponsor here, as I have also told Michael Corfman for not suspending them from GPWA gives out the wrong signal. To affiliates to whom CAP is meant to be a resource for and to protect their interests and also to the programs considering making retroactive and predatory changes to T & C’s.
I certainly won’t be working with them again as it is clear they do not want a partnership. They just want our traffic and all the proceeds that come with it.