Summary of Questions - For Nuffnang Owners (Ming Shen and Timothy Tiah - Please answer )

The first quintessential question:
Why did they implement a $1 fee for cash out of a cheque? How did they arrive at the figure $1?

The second quintessential question:
Did Nuffnang really arbitrage on the situation by implementing fees to its publishers (not consumer in this case) unfairly?

The third quintessential question:
Why did Nuffnang not giving advertisements to blogs at the end of the long tail when they had promised in the beginning? Are tail end bloggers under the ditch of slippery slope of no advertisement ever suitable for their blog because advertisements would always go to higher traffic blogs?

The fourth quintessential question:
How does Nuffnang’s justify it’s method of calculating earnings for bloggers, especially those that had a fairly high traffic but earning a paltry sum?

The fifth quintessential question:
Should Nuffnang be trusted further and be endowed with confidence to manage advertisement on your blogs, if they had in the beginning shown a peculiar tendency of mismanaging your expectation and are now concern about wanting $1 for each cheque from publisher(bloggers) , without justifying the cause for it?

This sixth quintessential question:
Were Nuffnang on the path of a scammer from the beginning?

This seven quintessential question:
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?

The eight quintessential question:
Does Nuffnang really think that the community will take the amendment of their TOS quietly, knowing what they know and feeling what they feel?

The ninth quintessential question:
Have Nuffnang understood the possible community abnormalities and costs due to the implementation of $1 fees to it’s loyal bloggers?

The tenth quintessential question:
The blogger’s voices in the community and reality are diametrically opposite to those celebrity bloggers that are with them, which one is Nuffnang listening?

The eleventh quintessential question:
Does Nuffnang knows that once that community’s confidence is eroded via the delay in fulfilling its promises, it will have a direct impact on its business dealings and subsequent commercial partnership?

The twelfth quintessential question:
Did Nuffnang know that the business model they sold to the public would never be sufficient in providing for all blogs with 20 counters? Why was it still been sold to the community and to release statements that their operation is made to provide for blogs with 20 counters?

The thirteenth quintessential assertion:
From the invention that they created, they are benefiting from it unfairly. We do not want them able to write rules to favor themselves! We want the rules to be written for community and not applicable to themselves!

The fourteenth quintessential question:
We want Nuffnang to succeed yet we were force to discontinue our loyalty when they the direst of public handling in lieu of their maladminister, is Nuffang festering hatred amongst departed supporters by keeping muted their standing instead of assurances?

The fifteenth quintessential assertion:
Given the current circumstances of Nuffnang’s relentless, do you seriously believe that hanging on to that blue logo will make you money one day? Do you believe they have not betray your trust for coming up with a reason to make you sign up in the first place but refuse to even justify that reason now?

Read more!

The Balance and Reason of it All - Nuffnang

The Balance and Reason of it all

The whole idea of my existence is about a certain balance. What kind of balance has the media achieved? What kind of balance am I looking for? What kind of balance is a reasonable man looking for?

The incumbent in his pretentious community dot comer demands that we patiently wait for advertisements, theoretically, we know that they do not have sufficient advertisers. Indeed if we do not have enough visitors to our blog, then why do they allow us to sign up for their service knowing we do not have enough? Is hanging a blue logo for them a reasonable trade off?

The incumbent t in his pretentious community dot comer demands understanding for their current predicament which is high cost of operational materials such as 20cent envelopes and ink and hence the increase of $1 when we cash out. Is that reasonable? If we do not reach $50 or $100 and qualify for cash out, do they not have a homogeneous operation cost? A moral yardstick of decision destroyed the confidence of the blogging public. Nuffnang charges you $1 because of bank charging them $0.50 per cheque and tell you the other $0.50 is for operation cost. How far can Nuffnang go in destroying the trust of the already skeptical consumer?

If indeed some (eg. Mister Larry Lim) said it is not fair for Nuffnang to absorb any charges, are not 50cent of the operational cost also not call absorbing but part of a term call overhead which is part of an equation of a business? Are they so fearful that if they do not take this opportunity to pass on $0.50 of their operational cost to every cheque issued they might not have a chance to do so? If indeed a cost is requiring processing the delivery of a cheque to a customer, is the figure $0.50 a double-dealing? Have they wanted $0.50 from each customer so much that they fail to understand the consequence of waking up a sleeping tiger? Something is very wrong with the kind of treacherous and perfidious values Nuffnang is operating.

I cannot explain it all other than call it pretentious dot commer! How far can we not believe what they did was not right if they cannot justify what they decided to charge you? We want an honest community dot commer yet they lock us up with a blue logo when we sign up and now even we made enough to cash out, our earnings are exploited. How are we to trust them if they do not have trustworthiness to start with? How fair is it to charge $0.50 without justifying so and organize events such as show screening for few hundred bloggers? Ladies and gentleman, you are paying for these show screenings. It is not balanced, it is not reasonable.

Now the community who are still hanging on to the blue logo is throttling breathlessly. The bloggers are not only not getting advertisements; they are to make believe a deception of paying for an operational cost. Who cares for the tail end bloggers if the tail end bloggers do not care for themselves? They are the cause of their own action. Nobody told them to sign up with Nuffnang? Let us not care for them. Indeed, let it not be remembered the tail end blog will never make money. Let’s concentrate on the celebrity blogs which can make us the money. Ladies and gentleman, I am the voice of the tail end bloggers. Nuffnang has become too hard not to be brittle.

With their refusal to counter public’s concern to allegations, now a statistical game has began, a game of who will leave Nuffnang, the cost of implementing $0.50 against the number of bloggers left, how it affect their earnings from celebrity bloggers, Is this not a fair assumption? In a true bona fide company, the owners will obligate and deliver. However in Nuffnang they promise and neglect like serving you a ten-course dinner with hawker food! That is the essence of a pretentious dot commer.


The unbridled greed of the owners had become the obsession of a company augmenting its wealth like an addict! No considerations, no regards and no hoopla for tail end bloggers. The populace that has served Nuffnang well in spreading the name from nothing had given Nuffnang the benefit of all doubts from beginning. One life cycle of that benefit is almost over. The first group of wounded are now slowly is coming to their sense. Will they affect the operation of Nuffnang? My answer is no, because operation of Nuffnang was never dependent on the lower tail end of the community once their name is spread and has covered the internet. They are now amassing fortunes from celebrity blogs and blogs which yield high traffic. The intent of amassing tail end blog is to beguile the trust of advertisers that they have a huge following and that purpose has long been served. They are expired in the eyes of Nuffnang. Read that again - You Are Expired In The Eyes of Nuffnang! If anybody thinks Nuffnang's self impose mute on the allegations are doing them harm, think again. Those who are not earning will leave; yes indeed they do not need you to hang their blue logo anymore. Those that are earning well (celebrity bloggers and high traffic blogs) will not leave because Nuffnang has allow them to make money. Those who leave will leave, those who won’t leave, would not leave. A public statement would not change an iota of that reality. They are clever in avoiding because it is going to do them no benefit by issuing any statement and keeping tongue-tied are not going to do them any further harm. They had made their calculations, now you know where the 2 owners of Nuffnang are considering being intelligent. They have made their calculations and decided not to take part in countering any allegations because they understood the new compact of their next move! Ladies and gentleman, their silence is loud and clear.

The Fifteenth quintessential assertion for your representative: Given the current circumstances of Nuffnang’s relentless, do you seriously believe that hanging on to that blue logo will make you money one day? Do you believe they have not betray your trust for coming up with a reason to make you sign up in the first place but refuse to even justify that reason now?

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.

Read more!

Fourteenth Quintessential Question

Of Nuffnang, community, bloggers and promises.

The question today arose out of a quote I read yesterday.



The incumbent believes linking community comes with it a new channel of online advertising not tapped before. So let us assume that the incumbent notion of Nuffnang comes with it that notion. Does it also include a notion for Nuffnangers to hang a blue logo but not advertisements and make money from it? Of course it must! Therefore lets hang the blue logo and expect an advertisement soon.

In the same manner your reply must be: Your desire for our loyalty is respected on delivery of promises – a necessary condition. If you want to create a community, any community, to do a job for Nuffnang, then Nuffnang must be prepared to walk its talk, fulfill promises made to bloggers which attracted us here in the first place.

Any promises made must come with it a corresponding deliverance of the same to the community. The failure to abide by the above law of equity is the main reason why Nuffnang’s reputation is depleting like an air burst balloon.

I will never setup a company and promise a blog money if they acquire 20 visitor and not deliver. And if I see a company doing that and not delivering, I will use all my power to put her and her position into a light of reason and public wrath. When Nuffnang imposes a condition on its subscribers, it must be prepared for the condition, for something as fundamental as deliverance, to avoid the same community to haunt it in time of great annoyance. This is the law which all lovers understand! I have no doubt that we have conditionally alienated thousands of bloggers, which Nuffnang has not even gone into assessing the impact.

I cannot imagine how this will play out as more and more are leaving Nuffnang due to a condition which encourages the abandonment rather than embracing it.



Business growth is not something that does not require deliverance of promises. You can scam and run of course, but make sure you better run. When you deny the community that pot of gold they helped you to get, they will have no choice but to discontinue any association with you! Do you really think bloggers want to leave Nuffnang? Between celebrity bloggers and 20 visits bloggers, there is a difference and if they are not treated right, then they will leave, hating the very entity that entices it to join!



Nuffnang is festering hatred in all imaginable ways in the most myopic application of sterile law without an iota of consideration of tail end of bloggers who had join the company and promised earnings on their condition!

The Fourteenth quintessential question for your representative: We want Nuffnang to succeed yet we were force to discontinue our loyalty when they the direst of public handling in lieu of their maladminister, is Nuffang festering hatred amongst departed supporters by keeping muted their standing instead of assurances?

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.

Read more!

Twelfth Quintessential Question

Why does Nuffnang insist on 20 unique visits?

Why did Nuffnang’s registration be based on a minimum 20 unique visits knowing that in due course 20 unique visits will not be selected by advertisers due to inferior exposure? I have always doubted the intention of that prerequisite. Are those blogs going to get advertisements?

They released information about the business model and proclaim to have innovated a system that could give advertisements to blogs as long they achieved 20 unique counters. Proof

Did their business model have a solid system in providing? How did they? Given the fact that their business model evolve around advertisers predominantly selecting where they want their advertisement to go, from a business perspective, it should not come as intellectual surprise that the system they proclaim to have will fail as a means to allow advertiser to exercise that right.

I do not believe Nuffnang does not know the idea they are selling will create dissatisfaction in the community which could lead to a dilemma. What happened? What is so reckless is not what it was not noted, but rather after almost 10 months, no one in Nuffnang called their business model spade!

A whole community of bloggers deceived!

Why? There is something really wrong here.

Even google lets you register if you have lesser than 20 counters! Why then imposing a 20 counters on a registration? If they had known in the beginning blogs with 20 counters would not get the advertisements, why are they operating their subscription service at a limit of 20 counters? Is there something peculiar about their actual business model that is not distinctly similar to the hundreds we have on the market already? Why not remove the 20 counters limit and let any blog to register for the service too if 20 are not going to serve advertisements?

I do not believe it is due to ignorance, it is something I do not understand?

There are already widespread allegation of the company being a scammer, why has the allegation being ignored even till today? A few weeks could have made the essential difference between the doable and the impossible! I do not believe that the disatisfaction was not predicted even earlier! Nuffnang operated a system with that business model, as early as February, when they were launched!

"Blogs with small-medium sized traffic were neglected and for good economic reasons as well (they were just too small on their own to command any advertiser dollar). That however, was something both Ming and I were not willing to accept. We envisioned a website that could offer a piece of the action to as many bloggers as we can, even those that have as low as 20 unique visits a day. Attempting to cover these smaller blogs proved risky but we innovated and built a system that would solve the problems surrounding such an action. " Direct from the mouth of the founder!

The owners are not only astute, they are savvy! So ignorance is out!

The owners have been an astute businessman since when? Celebrity blogs were getting good advertisements, partly at least, why then are blogs with 20 counters not having? They could not have been ignorant! Were they?

Or was the reason simply because they cannot serve advertisements on all blogs doesn’t matter they have 20 or 200 counters? One side had to give, which side do you think they chose? However the owners played it, it is only so much advertiser. It is the advertisers that help the company to make money. The only difference is you have celebrity bloggers and non-celebrity bloggers. One end is high traffic and the other end is low traffic. How does having 20 counters in your blog means you can make money from Nuffnang for sure? Isn’t that what they sold you in the first place?

The twelfth quintessential question for your representative: Did Nuffnang know that the business model they sold to the public would never be sufficient in providing for all blogs with 20 counters? Why was it still been sold to the community and to release statements that their operation is made to provide for blogs with 20 counters?

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.

Read more!

Eleventh Quintessential Question

Nuffnang is facing an inevitable cross road. The erosion of confidence is getting quite apparent and clear, when bloggers no longer believe the promises they made at the beginning would be delivered. The continual delay of their public statement via the proper medium, confidence will decline. The rise of public challenge is now inevitable. The subsequent negative implication on their business will also be inevitable.

Every single step towards the process of sequestration or trading time with their consumers, the advertisers will cease to have faith on the promise given; this is the law of confidence and commercial certainty. The printed words during campaigning are no longer credible; as a result, blogger’s trust of them will be written off like a bad debt and will be minimized in due course. The rise of the fall of Nuffnang will be inevitable.

The trust has always been there. There is a trade off between been trustworthy and been bogus in the world of business dealing. If trust is written off like that! The consequence will be severe! Has Nuffnang thought about this? This is a threshold which they cannot trespass. Once Nuffnang cross the line, that’s the end of them. Do not pretend otherwise. Once Nuffnang is concluded a spammer, the impact will be immediately rised in the blogging community. The confidence will immediately shrink and the corporate will shrink with time due to withdrawal of its consumers and publishers.

The threshold is clear; promises must be maintained at all cost! Once this confidence is breached, the cost will be tremendous.

The eleventh quintessential question for your representative: Does Nuffnang knows that once that community’s confidence is eroded via the delay in fulfilling its promises, it will have a direct impact on its business dealings and subsequent commercial partnership?

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.

Read more!

Tenth Quintessential Question

Let a retreat be an advance, before it is too late!

Yesterday, I read an excellent article on the call for advertiser to ban Nuffnang, which is posted by one of the Nuffnang supporter. I am attracted by the notion of retreat. Did the notion of retreat ever occur to Nuffnang leaders? This notion of retreat coincides with the reality of facts, one which are easily available online in this environment. The modus operandi of Nuffnang has been to scam long tail of bloggers, now going through the inevitability of being forced to change. Many bloggers which I highly regard also believe Nuffnang should self correct in order to ensure its own survival.

What is amazing about the concept of retreat is also the reality of advance. There are benefits from other advertising company which Nuffnang could not match : Free cash out at advertlets. Unless Nuffnang can withdraw its implementation of fees, they must accept that they will no longer control popular opinion in due course. The recent scandal involved Nuffnang must have truly terrified the community. They are not so much terrified by the $1 (which is a small sum). They are terrified by the fact that the implementation of charging was not justified to the community and Nuffnang has shown little interest in engaging the issue with the public. The margin of error is now so large when assessing the impact of the scandal, they must now decide whether they withdrew the implementation ( which is not likely as their ego is too huge ) or they must face the consequence of bloggers leaving. I honestly believe the situation is now on the path of the latter.

I believe this is good news for the community. I believe my reasoning is sound.

As always, my delimiter and honesty prompter.

The tenth quintessential question for your representative: The blogger’s voices in the community and reality are diametrically opposite to those celebrity bloggers that are with them, which one is Nuffnang listening?

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.

Read more!

Ninth Quintessential Question

Operation mutation in lieu of $1 charge

Nuffnang in their eagerness to arbitrage on its bloggers, they failed to ask fundamental question of why it should not be done.

Their recklessness is visible.

They later came out with possible exclusion list of operational cost of more bloggers cashing out which is unlikely not to be included in the original business plan.

Can the list be reasonably extended to be used as an excuse as and when they want to charge you more? Do they have any plan to lower the withdrawal amount to $25? Since they already assured themselves an invention is found to profit from withdrawals, and lowered it to $50, will they not cease the idea of further profiteering? How about to even $10, so they could theoretically make $1 out of every $10. The depth can be extended ad inifinitum if not checked.

What I want to raise here is a very simple fallacy of arbitraging something by capitalizing, you simply cannot, what is apparently capitalizing does not become benefaction because you chant it long enough. Many fell to Get Rich Schemes for the same reason. In a Community setup, when you have enough reason not to arbitrage, for those who did, it simply spell dishonest. The process of desensitivisation will perpetuate like a chain reaction down the community.

What are the possible consequence? Exploding reactions from people from sufficient disregards to people who are wise and clever enough to know they qualify for another advertising campaign. When it is time for them to make other considerations, those who are not treated right, will voluntarily terminate their services, so whatever that are left would be only the celebrity bloggers, can the situation not possibly get worse from here?

I believe the implementation of the $1 will be the last straw that will once and for all change the community dynamics of the commercial, for the worse. I do not know whether Nuffnang see this coming, but some had already foreseen the costs. How can they actually not predict the whole commercial fabric being torn to shred?

The ninth quintessential question for your representative: Have Nuffnang understood the possible community abnormalities and costs due to the implementation of $1 fees to it’s loyal bloggers?

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.

Read more!

Eighth Quintessential Question

The Iron Law of Typification

There are several theoretical questions that need to be answered at this juncture. I will narrow this to the context of Community. I am always perplexed by what we mean when we say “the Community”? Many of us interpret it differently. And I am not interested how dictionary defines “the Community”. I am deliberately delving into this definition because it is left elusive, often by communal themselves, so that we do not understand the boundary when we must, but certainly feel its impact when it pushes.

The community in this context is almost everything Nuffnang. Yet when the community desires, it is deliberately absent in some. Can you feel it?

I do not know. Many have compared Nuffnang with Advertlets lately, and some have concluded for any of us to doubt the integrity of Nuffnang is tantamount to “ungratefulness”. What then is the relationship between Community and Nuffnang for that gratefulness to exist? Does bloggers not help them to help list their advertisements or their logo? Have bloggers not be loyal follower? Did they not help them to serve and make a lot of money?

Some have ventured the notion that by the will of 2 great men, we have a local network of advertisers and hence we must be grateful. Have we not? Have we not let supported Nuffnang since the beginning of their launch? Have we not given them whatever they expected except a few? What more must bloggers do to show we’re loyal? We have even allowed them dictate how much we make regardless of our traffic figure. Is our silence what they want? Can we possibly give it to them? I do not think so.

Many have even ventured the notion that if you are not happy with the company, you should leave? What is it about Nuffnang that is so gigantic that it somehow ensures a need to conform so strong that we need to break the loyalty (since the beginning) merely to be aligned to it?

Has Nuffnang now become unquestionable? If ever we question, we must question “responsibly”? Who defines what is responsible? Is Nuffnang, whom we are criticizing to determine what is responsible? Or is it the consensus? Or is it the law? If indeed we are driven by the premise that it is possible to have Nuffnang judging the process that is judging it, is this premise fundamentally faulty?

We have a local advertising medium indeed because of 2 young man, that is precisely the same ingredient that is fuelling this massive confusion? If indeed the 2 man that created Nuffnang, does he not know the sentiments of local bloggers? Can we therefore conclude that they were merely a devoted pragmatist bound by the business of accumulation empiricism and no more?

When Nuffnang decided to adopt the precept Community for their campaign, they detailed the kind of local relationship, managing an efficient network followed by apathetic grateful populace. Now can anyone guess what Nuffnang had provided for the same populace? Guess who followed Nuffnang’s catchphrase right to the letters? Calculations of traffic earning are suspicious, waiting for advertisements was bad enough, with the scandal of implementing $1, and you are left without a shred of doubt!

I do not believe Nuffnang is of that mercantile character. I hear the amount of Get Rich Schemes found online were not enough for some. I believe the time for gratitude is over. Nuffnang is now on even keel with its community. Any future community compact or contract is no longer unilateral.

If owners of Nuffnang are reading this, let me remind them when Ming wrote an entry on this community, he assumed several things and one of the most critical assumption is the limitation and passivity of a Community and thus the dependency of populace. That assumption is now void: courtesy of several decisions, as seen in the events recently around several blogs, even some where attracts little traffic. It is a matter of time when everything will unfold. Just stay with me. What is the spreading rate of information in blogs? It is a very simple calculation.

The eight quintessential question for your representative: Does Nuffnang really think that the community will take the amendment of their TOS quietly, knowing what they know and feeling what they feel?

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.

Read more!

The Cheque Out

The Method Explained

Step 1 - It's original state as before bank had announce the increment of 50cent per cheque withdrawal.

Step 2 - After bank had announced, if they had pass on bank charges to bloggers.

Step 3 - After they increase by a 100% of the bank charges to bloggers fee.

Step 4 - After they realised they make a 50cent per cheque, they further reduce the withdrawal amount so as to encourage bloggers to withdrawal more often because now they are profiteering from each cheque issue so they want bloggers to withdrawal often.

This is no longer good will. There is only this grand excitement to see how they can push for more withdrawal from bloggers. The angst that tips the scale or the arbitraging that so form the basis of their operation. How far will they go to take advantage of bloggers? Their amendment of TOS should be the total disregard of principles of integrity? There is no more good will community pretension; it may soon be an outright disregard.

*There is a mistake in the chart,  fees at step 4 should be $2.
The above chart is a representation of the progress of amendment with withdrawing cheque/cheques per $100. 
The effort is to make a consistent study. I welcome comments and feedbacks.


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.

Read more!

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.

Read more!

Sixth Quintessential Question

The Path of a Scammer

Is Nuffnang moving on the path of a scammer? Are bloggers not coming to the point of their pragmatism that being seduced by Nuffnang into signing up (even one has only 21 unique visitors a day) but was not allow to serve advertisements on the blog because the high traffic bloggers would always be the first to those advertisements? Hasn’t Google.com allow you to register with them if you have 21 unique visitors too? Google.com even allows you to register if your unique visitor’s number is zilch! Nuffnang had market itself in such a way that their use of words so manipulative to the point of creating a advertising model only sustainable by using high traffic blogs to run the advertisements. Are these people who created Nuffnang had any ethics to start with by using this method of promotion?

Have bloggers been putting up Nuffnang’s logo for nothing?

Are bloggers so immersed in the drugs of their marketing words that they unconsciously had embrace into the same Get Rich Schemes that appear on internet everyday?

Are bloggers still to believe that they would make a lot more money than any other advertising company such as Google.com by reading about Nuffnang showcasing celebrity events (selected celebrity friends) on their website?

Are bloggers still going to believe Nuffnang, and see whether they can deliver their promises in the future?

Conversely, the true slippery slope, as alluded in many blogs entry is honesty!

That is the slope that is so important in this era of internet business where all we see in front of us is a screen!

No company that has betrayed its consumer outlived its intended life span!

This Sixth quintessential question for your representative: Were Nuffnang on the path of a scammer from the beginning?

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.

Read more!

Fifth Quintessential Question

The chronology of the transition of Nuffnang’s unicorn: to a celebrity beast

I will now state the chronology of the evolution of the idea of Nuffnang, and give you my take of how Nuffnang was used as a publicity device and its intent and purpose in its existence, and with its intended focus which was to profit from extremely high traffic blogs.

Nuffnang was created February 2007 and main concept of the company was to allow local advertisers to advertise on local blogs. The purpose is simply to manage an advertising community and at the same time achieve its communal status as a responsible dotcommer by promising blogs with more than 20 unique visitors per day could register and be part of the supposing lucrative local advertising potential.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffnang). Nuffnang had a free hand in deciding what kind of bloggers they want to recruit to publish their advertisement. The problem faced by most bloggers was low daily traffics which mean they make a paltry sum regardless of brand of advertiser.

It was published that giving lower-unique-visits-per-day blogs to have a share of the pie is important for the Nuffnang. Few months later, the tail end of bloggers is still waiting for Nuffnang to fulfill her promise perceived in the campaign. Nuffnang’s purpose was to simply allow tail end bloggers to register with them so as to accomplish a certain advertising campaign hanging their logo on your blog and spread publicity and popularity of Nuffnang. Their campaign in the beginning to include tail end bloggers in their database were meant to use the tail end bloggers to advertise for them using the tail end blogs.

They were to use this device and sell tail end bloggers this apparently “win-win situation” from December 2006 on Timothy Tiah’s blog and increased awareness to the point when Nuffnang were launched and introduced to the public, people rush for to sign up for it. During a period of 3-4 months, they secured the registration of about 5 thousand bloggers and in that period they used them as an advertising medium to spread their bogus campaign. The game was never gonna be zero summed.

Celebrity bloggers were introduced, events organized, this is also the period where they begins to amass some big corp as their advertiser. The beginning of their intent served.

The campaigning to allow tail end bloggers to register with them was not for intent to allow Nuffnang’s advertisement to serve on their blogs. The spirit of spreading their brand of beaming out the logo using the method similar to what we call Multi-Level-Marketing via tail end bloggers.

As such, the situation is that celebrity bloggers were taking a big chunk of the advertising market leaving tail end of even middle end bloggers earning a paltry sum. As they progress, bloggers with fairly decent traffic begin to question. They had earned an amount not commensurate to traffics their blog is attracting. Few bucks a week to list an advertisement on blogs( few thousand unique visitors) is at best can be call a liability especially when Adsense could earn you a few bucks a day and more so in American dollar.

The nature of their concept which was to let the Nuffnang logo surges through the tail end bloggers. This was achieved as of today, 10 months later. Proof

Now their marketing concept has worked but however has elevated to a dissatisfaction situation with bloggers.

Should Nuffnang be trusted further and be endowed with confidence to manage advertisement on your blogs, if they had in the beginning shown a peculiar tendency of mismanaging your expectation and are now concern about wanting $1 for each cheque from publisher(bloggers) , without justifying the cause for it?

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.

Read more!

Fourth Quintessential Question

Fourth Quintessential Question

Today’s question is a “did you or did you not” question.


Requiring a simple answer, either Nuffnang knows or does not, did or did not.

This is a question of Nuffnang taking its defence as to why a certain blogger(http://skorcareer.com.my/blog) commenting on (http://paypal2u.com/blog/?p=242) in his own words, “interchanging their banner positions for experiment. 1 month later, while advertlets was earning RM100 (i did not do review for them), Nuffnang gave me only 20 cents! What a mystery” was making a paltry 20cent in the exact same location on his blog that earned him $100 later on?

Question 4 to your representative: How does Nuffnang’s justify it’s method of calculating earnings for bloggers, especially those that had a fairly high traffic but earning a paltry sum?

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.

Read more!

Third Quintessential Question

(Please note questions are at the end, front part would always build context, establish facts, this question here and those before triggers off the whole saga but the critical thing is still to clear your doubt as to the crux of matter though reason and logic.)

We have heard from the owners of Nuffnang that they need the long tail of bloggers to bring blog advertising to a whole new level. And they even mentioned that their effort had been paid off which was mentioned Here.

It has paid off for them but has it paid off for their publisher at the tail end? Let me assure you Nuffnang that it hasn’t. Because bloggers with 20 unique visits to their blog daily are yet to see advertisements from Nuffnang. Unless you consider it a paid off for publishers as those like Kennysia.com or Xiaxue.com? But then that is call front head(or tail) right?

How you decide to handle bloggers will determine how popular you are and how impressions are made with new bloggers because if you were to let tail end bloggers perceived to the point of having a share of the pie just to attract their signing up, they would find out in the end your intent, they are not foolish. No intent can be achieved without continuum actions against the promises which made bloggers signing up in the first place.

All your promises will come a time where it has to be delivered. Bloggers spend their valuable time and allow valuable space from their blogs for Nuffnang and surely you are going to deliver your promises? What reason is there to put a Nuffnang Logo on my blog if only the high traffic blog gets the advertisements? Has your buiness algorithm being done correctly?

What is the earning of displaying an advert from you? Is there any slippery slope on the earnings calculation? If a blog is expose to 2000 unique visitors in the concurrent week the advertisement was ran, why am I not being paid at a price commensurate to 2000 visits? There were reports that the earnings depended large on the traffic of the blog received on the previous week before the advert appear. Isn’t that then you could decide unilaterally to run advertisements on lower traffic blogs(just for that week), then exposed to high traffics(actual week) and then tell bloggers you earned just a few bucks even though the adverts were exposed to high traffic?

Question 3 to your representative: Why did Nuffnang not giving advertisements to blogs at the end of the long tail when they had promised in the beginning? Are tail end bloggers under the ditch of slippery slope of no advertisement ever suitable for their blog because advertisements would always go to higher traffic blogs?

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.

Read more!

Second Quintessential Question

(Please note questions are at the end, front part would always build context, establish facts, this question here and those before triggers off the whole saga but the critical thing is still to clear your doubt as to the crux of matter though reason and logic.)

When they decide to implement a $1 fee for every cheque deposits, what was the reason behind that decision? Is it because of the decision of the bank to charge 50cent per cheque? If so then why are they not implementing 50cent? There is a difference of 50cent between the bank’s fee and their fee. Why the margin exists between the amount banks charges them and the amount they charge you?

To pass on the bank’s fee of 50cent to their present consumer is fine; however to arbitrage on the situation by adding a 100% amount to it is not.

What was the consequence? Dissatisfied bloggers raised fundamental points such as why didn’t they give more notice, and what made them come up to that figure of $1. The fundamental question is should or should they not charge you 50cent more if they were indeed implementing the $1 because of the bank. If the 50cent extra was to cover operation cost then why was it implemented at this stage of the business, where in reality operational cost existed even before Nuffnang was launched which was in February.

When Ming and Timothy went onto blogs to explain the reason behind the logic behind the decision to put the figure at $1, more dissatisfaction were created among the blogging community as to the way they decides to defend what they did.

Which raises questions as to the $1, was it really implemented because of the bank’s fee? Even if there were a fee of 50 cent, have they thought of other ways to cut their running cost instead of passing it to consumers (or in this case arbitrage).

Even when the owners think they have the right to implement or update the TOS of their business, we must question.

If indeed it is necessary for Nuffnang to implement a $1 charge to cover their running cost, why did they choose this time to implement? And also use the reason of the bank’s decision to charge them?

Being bloggers advertising for them, we are naturally concern about how honest they are in handling the public. If indeed they had indeed being honest, then should we being their publisher (not even a consumer in this case) get charged for added running cost? Why are they not passing on to their consumer which is the advertisers?

Did Nuffnang really arbitrage on the situation by implementing fees to its publishers (not consumer in this case) unfairly?

----------------------
Original version:

Did Nuffnang arbitrage on the situation by adding 50cent to the 50cent the bank had charge then per cheque out and not being upfront about their intent and therefore raises the issue of high operational cost needing to be covered?



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.

Read more!

First Quintessential Question

(Please note questions are at the end, front part would always build context, establish facts, this question here trigger off the whole saga but the critical thing is still to clear your doubt as to the crux of matter though reason and logic.)

Nuffnang was created to arbitrage on the local advertising market as it serves only local community. There were a few issues recently that did not go down well with its publisher (bloggers). For example a simple issue of implementing $1 for cash depositing has incur the wrath of some of their cash depositors. The issue has been publicized in an article in Techcrunch and readers are split as to whether were they being victimized or protection for the company is require.

I will post each question in simplest sentence in for form of a question, every single day till every stones are turned.

The first quintessential question:  Why did they implement a $1 fee for cash out of a cheque? How did they arrive at the figure $1?


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.

Read more!