Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Seven Quintessential Question

The non-existent moral high ground

The next quintessential question has got to do with the basis of their TOS. Turmoil is obviously brewing now in Nuffnang, from the implementing of $1, a mild one, to the allocation of advertisements to the earnings of bloggers.

What form the basis of Nuffnang’s operation? The answer to this question is the very reason why bloggers want to join them as a publisher of their advertisement. We must continue to study reasons behind their TOS so as to have a distinct and clarity in clearing the doubts as to the crux of the matter thus far. Many of us will have all kinds of different opinions about what is the motive behind every move of Nuffnang. We will disagree often enough to make each other look very stupid. However there is one thing we do not want is to be part of an internet company in the same genre of “Get Rich Scheme” now pervasive in the internet. What I am presenting is also the very same thing all bloggers want to avoid: to investigate and study possible fraud before it contaminate the community further, fraud is not avoided by simply of its existence by genesis but the persistent study which those promises stand upon.

In this era of internet, bloggers want to monetize their blogs and to do so; one of the good ways is to join an online advertising company that can provide strong advertising rewards. The rewards should not be dressed in appearance by promises, but supported by the pillar that will deliver the promises. The TOS of a company must be free to be question and make believe its honesty dealing with the blogging public. Bloggers are not consumers of the company and until the company can understand that bloggers need more than all things façade.

All the more bloggers must question, and Nuffnang must answer intensely, so that their existence can be proven to be reliable and trustworthy. Whatever appear to be causes of changing of the TOS, the agreement of the transaction must be done so with notification.

Let there be no question that no two companies are the same, but a bad shape of a company is always due to massive discontent!

Bloggers may be convinced to swallow a bitter pill. Bloggers may be convinced to hang a logo waiting for advertisements, but let there be no question that for bloggers to endure seeing high traffic bloggers earning, the company’s leadership must be seen to deliver its promise of sharing the pie with tail end’s community as it promised.

Have the lesson of changing TOS being so lost, that they could no longer justify even why they want to charge $1 per cheque? The responsibility of the company is not giving bloggers a sense of fairness in purpose? The more discontent there were, the more the owners needs to be compensated by charging more money? And in due course, whatever you desire for the bloggers to swallow, be it the pill of sequestration of the registrants by their blog traffics or charging fees without authentic justification, Nuffnang now do not have the moral high ground. Are the owners so disconnected that they failed to see that they have lost the high ground to charge even an extra $1 from bloggers?

The justification of charging $1 does not have logic of a well reasoned platter of how bloggers are benefiting from it even they reduced cashing out amount to $50. Bloggers do not buy your justification if they found it to be not linear to an expectant inference.

To understand the value of able to cash out at $50, we see how much Nuffnang receives by each cash out when they amend their TOS.

When a blogger cash out $100 in 2 cheques, Nuffnang receives $2 in fees which in actual fact is $1 bank charge and $1 into their pocket.

If they had not amend the TOS and withdrawal stays at $100, and a blogger were to cash out $100 in one cheque, Nuffnang receives $1 in fees which in actual fact is 50 cent bank charge and 50cent into their pocket.

Now they want you to withdraw more often for no other reason than because they had now invented this thing very cleverly where they rewrite their rules and arbitrage on every cheque that was delivered to you. It became a win-win situation but the lost on the blogger account was cleverly buried.

Likewise, if they had not amend the TOS to change the withdrawal amount to $50 and had pass on the bank charges to bloggers, then no arbitraging occurs.

But if they had amended the TOS to charge you $1 but withdrawal remains at $100, they would pocket 50cent per $100 withdrawal. What if they allow bloggers to withdraw twice in the form of $50? That means they made double the figure which is $1.

Now they want you to withdraw more! The more the merrier! Hence the lower of withdrawal amount.

A company lower itself to this level of integrity is risking discordance with every stratum within the blogging community. Can a company profiting in obscene quantum together with celebrity bloggers amend the TOS to charge bloggers more than it should and let itself bath in newly acquired wealth and opulence? I do not know.

This Seven quintessential question for your representative: Did Nuffnang have a moral high ground, given its business with extremely big corporations, to change its TOS to benefit itself rather than bloggers, many who had not even made money with Nuffnang?

Discuss this post in the Asia's First Nuffnang Discussion Forum

If you find this site helpful, please leave your footprint on this site using the shoutbox on the right.




No comments:

Quotes

Postings In Order Of Date

Comments In Order Of Date