Last Monday, I had a fun chat with the old GeekCast gang that generated quite a good amount of buzz in the affiliate world.

In many ways, it was my entry back into the world of affiliate marketing (though I never really left but had definitely pulled back from blogging and talking publicly about the industry).

Last Monday also marked the 5th anniversary of my old CostPerNews site and so I launched this blog to pick up some of those pieces.

Over the last three years, many people asked why I left the affiliate world, and there are certainly a number of reasons. I had children (cutting down on conference travel), I went back to teaching (cutting down on free time) and I entered my 30′s (time to grow up and figure out what’s important etc). Plus, my home state of NC passed a series of laws that undercut my own affiliate business with sites such as Amazon (which, yes Shoemoney, people can and do make money with). I had just re-incorporated my business in NC away from SC (something I’ve since reversed since I do keep a business and legal residence in SC), so this was a major pain at the time.

However, I’m optimistic about this blog and my own potential to do some fun and interesting things in the affiliate world, so now is a good time for a reboot.

When I was making the decision to leave the affiliate world in 2008-2009, the Performance Marketing Industry was just beginning its own voyage. I was a part of the early discussions both on conference calls with group organizers as well as with the now infamous Boston Affiliate Summit meeting that was sort of the constitutional convention of the PMA (and led to a few fun and heated discussions both on panels and in the hallways during the weekend).

Now that I’m the flip side of the coin, I’m deciding on whether or not to join the PMA (by, not on the first page of a Google serp). One of the reasons I was frustrated with the PMA process back in 2009 was because it was adopting the pay-to-play model, which many industry trade groups adopt as their operating model for membership. In this hierarchical structure, those who pay the most get the most voice. Ideally, they are beneficent and have the wider interests of the industry in mind.

However, two things about this model concern me… 1) We don’t live in an ideal world and the affiliate industry is notoriously self-serving (let’s be honest). 2) Affiliate marketing is unlike many industries in that affiliate marketing is based on a democratized set up that necessarily creates a large amount of “small” players with just a few networks or agencies at the top.

I’ve always hoped, as an industry, we could come together and create something much more democratic to serving not just the needs of companies willing to pay $500 or $5000 for nebulous board seats, but also work to incorporate the voices of the “small timers” in leadership. There’s a fine line between capitalism and democracy and I think affiliate marketing, of all industries, is able to tread that line. I don’t see that in a pay-to-play structure.

So, I was disheartened to hear Lisa Picarille describe the PMA set up during our GeekCast chat linked above. I was hoping the PMA had moved on to a more realistic representative structure that better reflects our industry beyond who can pay to be on the board. It doesn’t surprise me that there are only 300 or so members of the PMA out of the thousands of affiliates around the world, but it does disappoint me.

I don’t think I’ll be joining either.