Interview with VigLink CEO, Oliver Roup

I read a post recently on Internet Retailer stating that Affiliate marketing technology firm VigLink raises $5.4 million. The article went on to say that this raised VigLink’s investment capital to a grand total of 7.3 million.

VigLinkAnd of course, my first thought is “What the HELL could they be developing that requires that much cash?” So I read on.

Turns out VigLink is kind of like Adsense, but for affiliates. What do I mean?

Well, Adsense is basically lazy monetization. Website publishers give Google a cut of the advertising revenue (somewhere around 40%) and Google sells their advertising space for them (I have sites that use Adsense, but I’ve done my best to always make it a backfill to CPM ads or affiliate marketing efforts.)

Basically – to me – VigLink is lazy affiliate marketing. You sign up with their program and they automatically insert affiliate links from “merchants across more than 20 affiliate networks” with “one simple sign up.” In exchange for them turning any link they possibly can into an affiliate link on your blog, you pay them a commission of any affiliate commissions your site earns from those links.

I’m not going to lie. This post started as a rant. But about three paragraphs in I decided to contact VigLink (pronounced with a hard G) to clarify a few points of my rant and have to admit that their CEO, Oliver Roup, definitely made me pause to think. I asked some tough questions (in my opinion) and he didn’t shy away from any of them. Completely absent from the response was any arrogance or any defensiveness. And in a world of bullshit, VC funded startups that definitely impressed me. He’s either pretty genuine or one hell of an actor.

Interview with Oliver Roup – VigLink CEO

Rae: Your merchant page states that merchants have the ability to say they don’t want certain publishers using their links in your program. Do you provide me with a list of the merchants who’ve decided they don’t want my sales so I know not to link to them?

Oliver RoupOliver: Merchant domains may be not “on for you” for a number of reasons:

  • they’ve asked for whitelist affiliation where only domains they specifically approve get affiliated.
  • they’ve specifically turned off your site.
  • the merchant may not have approved VigLink at all.

You can determine if a merchant is covered by VigLink at all here. We do not currently provide a full list of our supported merchants for competitive reasons.

Merchants that are off for you (either because of a whitelist of a blacklist) are listed in best merchants for total revenue with a “-” (a hyphen) instead of a numeral. Obviously this needs to be clearer and we’re working on an improvement. Listing things this way originally made sense because our publishers were not making linking decisions based on our support but measuring the site they had already built. As our customers have gotten more engaged and started promoting offers as a result of the incentive VigLink provides, we’ve realized we need to make this clearer.

Rae: The VigLink site states: “VigLink lets affiliates create merchant links naturally, with no unsightly affiliate codes and no unintelligible jump domains. Cleaner links mean more user trust, more click-throughs and more conversions.” Can you give me an example of what an affiliate link using your software will look like on my blog?

Oliver: Yes – the demo page has a number of example links all of which are affiliated by our software.

Rae: On the VigLink site, your publisher page asks: “Have you lost relationships with merchants because your state has passed tax laws for online retail? We may be able to help, find out more on our blog.” The post you link to basically cites information about the Amazon tax and says you might be able to help, but doesn’t say how. Care to elaborate? (P.S. Arkansas has also passed the Amazon Tax and is not listed on your post.)

Oliver: Different merchants have different (and evolving!) views regarding the various new laws which also continue to change. (The Arkansas law is less than a week old.) We comply with merchant wishes about who they want to do business with. For example, Amazon does not want to do business with affiliates in affected states and the use of an intermediary like us makes no difference to them. So unfortunately affiliates in those states are out of luck with respect to Amazon and we cannot help. Some other merchants may take a softer view and we may be able to help depending on the merchant, the particular publisher, and current law. It’s tough to be more concrete than that.

Rae: No where on your site could I find an exact percentage you’d be taking from folks using your service as publishers. “Small fee” was as specific as I saw. Based on your referral program though, I’d imagine your commission is at least 10% of the commissions paid to me by merchants. What is the exact amount? And why isn’t the information published?

Oliver: This needs to be clearer and I’ve added the following entry to the FAQ:

Q: How much does VigLink charge?
A: There is no up-front fee for using VigLink so you can try it without risk. VigLink takes a cut of the commissions a publisher earns, typically 25% although we occasionally negotiate a smaller share for particularly large or strategic customers and in return for a commitment period. In some cases an account is referred to us by someone else, either individually or through a distribution deal. (And of course VigLink is a merchant in it’s own software so any links to VigLink on a site running VigLink are automatically affiliated.) Referral commissions are usually 10% and they always come out of VigLink’s portion, so a publisher is never worse off for having been referred than if they’d approached us directly.

There is no good reason this hasn’t been made clearer sooner (although we’ve talked about it publicly in lots of places like here and here).

It’s worth noting that many merchants offer improved rates with higher volume. In some cases VigLink receives a rate more than 25% higher than an affiliate can get for themselves and in those cases the affiliate will receive more money working through VigLink vs on their own.

Rae: On your FAQ, you state cookie duration lasts up to 30 days. However, many merchants with the networks have 45, 60, 90 or sometimes even longer cookie expiration dates. Do I still get paid past 30 days if the merchant allows it through the network? If not, does VigLink still receive that commission?

Oliver: We never interfere with a merchant cookie duration. If a transaction is affiliated through VigLink, the publisher will receive their cut of that transaction. Measured on a per-dollar basis of traffic flowing through our networks, it is very rare for merchants to have cookie durations longer than 30 days. (IE merchants that have longer cookie durations do not drive much business through our network.) I’ve amended the FAQ language to reflect that there are in fact cases where the cookies are longer and we do not interfere.

Rae: You have a “spam control” statement on the FAQ page that states in part: “This will ensure that you send only traffic that will convert at a high rate.” I can see where this statement would have a place in lead generation, but not in a straight up “we sell something, you pay us” scenario?

Oliver: Many merchants do not like poorly converting traffic even if they don’t explicitly pay for it. There are some costs associated with traffic and they often have internal metrics like revenue per visit that are distorted by large volumes of poor traffic. Moreover certain brands, most notably fashion brands, are very sensitive to their products being promoted in a way that erodes their brand. To them, poorly-converting traffic is a potential red-flag and in certain cases is evidence of cookie-stuffing or other fraud. VigLink monitors the conversion rate of all our traffic and rates that fall outside our norms are flagged for investigation.

Rae: You make assertions like: “Additionally, VigLink increases confidence, click-through rates and conversions by making the links to your site appear to be “natural” links instead of obviously embedded affiliate codes.” several times, but then on the FAQ page, you push for disclosure and mention the FTC guidelines, which means users will know it’s an affiliate link anyway, correct?

Oliver: The FTC has made it clear that affiliate links should be disclosed no matter whether those links are created by hand or using automated technology like ours. (We provide tools to assist our publishers in disclosure.)

Making link destinations transparent is a related facet of the same issue. Conversion and click-through are improved when a customer knows what they’re about to click on. Mousing over a link and seeing a link to a particular merchant instead of one to or some other equally opaque domain gives a reader a greater sense of where they’re about to be taken.

The two issues are related but distinct. I certainly don’t speak for the FTC but it seems unlikely to me that linking to would satisfy them that the affiliate nature of a link had been adequately disclosed.

*Note by Rae: I definitely didn’t mean to imply the URL merely “appearing affiliate” was disclosure – to be clear.

Rae: As a career affiliate, I have to admit I take offense to this statement that appears on the website: “This prevents the traditional problem of publishers becoming overly aggressive once they’ve been admitted to an affiliate program.” It seems like typical affiliate FUD spread to merchants. And frankly, an aggressive affiliate likely wouldn’t use a program that took a cut of their affiliate commissions. Most professional, full time affiliates (which, granted, are the not the majority in sheer numbers tho they many times are in sales volumes) hate even having to use a network that we know cuts into “our cut.” Did you obtain the information that led you to make that statement from any published data you can point me to?

Oliver: We certainly don’t intend to contribute to FUD. Merchants have complained to us about this problem and alleviating their concerns along these lines is one of the key barriers we face in getting a merchant to admit us to their program. Nonetheless, I’ve softened the language to reflect that these cases are more about certain bad actors than about affiliates as a class.

Rae: You discuss your crawler on the site. Is the crawler actually yours or technology belonging to someone else? Assuming it’s yours, whats the name to be identified in the robots.txt file?

Oliver: The technology is ours. The user-agent string is ‘viglink’ (A single word as suggested by Nutch, the crawling package we use.) I’ve added this to the FAQ.

Rae: Do you ever plan to release a flat fee version of your product for affiliates with large networks? If not, do you worry someone could come along and do so, likely snapping up the higher earning affiliates while doing so?

Oliver: We do not currently have such plans. Building a technology like ours is more labor intensive than it might at first appear. A company charging a flat fee would need to charge a high enough amount that it would likely be off-putting to a large number of potential customers. We find a revenue-share best maps the value we deliver to the revenue we earn – the more money you make, the more money we make and vice-versa. Charging a flat fee creates different incentives – such a company would be incented to do as little as possible for their fee because any work done after a sale is just lost profit.

Also note that VigLink does not overwrite existing affiliate links. So an affiliate might use our technology on one of their pages just to “backfill” the links they have not gotten around to affiliating themselves. We think over time affiliates will feel that the work we save them increases their productivity more than 25%.

Rae: I noticed that one of your investors is Google Ventures. Is there a clear line of “investor” there or do they have access to the detailed information you keep on your publishers and merchants?

Oliver: Google Ventures receives information typically disclosed to investors – aggregate financial performance, hiring, future product plans and so on. They do not have access to detailed publisher and merchant information.

Rae: Is there or will there be the ability to use VigLink within mobile applications as well?

Oliver: Yes, VigLink runs unmodified on mobile browsers and developers wishing to integrate VigLink directly into their app can make use of our API.

What I Learned

I looked at VigLink as a professional affiliate publisher and not as a typical blogger or hobby site webmaster. Oliver (I assume he caught onto that in our conversation and by the questions I asked) added:

“A majority of our customers do not think of themselves as affiliates, but just as web publishers, many of whom are completely unaware of affiliate marketing as a concept until we introduce it. So a number of product decisions we’ve made make a lot more sense in that light.”

And you know what? That makes sense.

Catching what falls through the cracks

Monetizing a site via affiliate marketing, to be done very successfully, is a big task. If your topic is broad, there could be thirty or forty or fifty relevant affiliate programs for you and unless they are producing significant revenue, many are almost a waste to bother with. So I could definitely see the time factor making VigLink attractive. As well as the “don’t need to know anything about affiliate marketing” factor.

I’d never use VigLink to monetize in place of the programs I make x,xxx or xx,xxx per month with (as they said, it doesn’t override current affiliate links), but if they can catch the small opportunities I currently don’t bother with, paying a commission for them to do so seems like it might be a win/win. (And I plan to try it on a site or two, so I will let you know how that goes.)

There’s commissions strength in numbers

An interesting comment Oliver made was regarding their ability to receive higher commission rates: “In some cases VigLink receives a rate more than 25% higher than an affiliate can get for themselves” – and that also makes sense.

VigLink is basically acting like a master affiliate, with all their publishers acting, essentially, as sub affiliates. So, the “volume” the merchant uses to decide commission rates is actually VigLink’s and not each individual publisher with VigLink. It kind of reminds me of a chamber of commerce and how they band together small businesses to be able to offer cheaper prices on health insurance.

That said though, at BEST, that means their ability to demand increased commissions covers their cut – when they can get it. So you have to weigh the convenience of their service against the money you lose in paying their cut. But since their target market are folks who don’t currently make a full time (or even part time) income with affiliate marketing, the convenience factor (and the compensation for the “affiliate ignorance factor”) there is a good chance convenience will win.

Their ability to monetize mobile apps

I found that to be one of the more interesting facets of their capabilities – and it’s (app developers) a market they definitely should be targeting. I’ve long said there’s affiliate opportunity in mobile, especially for the first ones “on the scene.”

About Rae Hoffman

Rae Hoffman aka "Sugarrae" is an affiliate marketing veteran and the CEO of PushFire, a search marketing agency specializing in SEO audits and link building strategies. She is also the author of the often controversial Sugarrae blog. You can connect with Rae via Twitter, Google+ and Facebook.

Sugarrae runs on the Genesis Framework

Genesis Framework

If you’re someone who doesn’t understand a lot of PHP, Genesis will give a ton of functionality that you wouldn’t be able to obtain otherwise with a simple control panel instead of having to alter code. For the advanced, Genesis has incredible customization possibilities via Genesis hooks.

The theme is not only highly customizable, but it has allowed me to run Sugarrae more professionally, with a much more targeted focus on monetization than it ever has been able to achieve before.

You can find out more about Genesis below:


  1. Carrie from Denver Bargains says:

    I’ve used VigLink in the past, though I don’t anymore – mostly because I wanted to increase site speed time and the number of merchants that I do’t actively affiliate on my own is very small.

    I primarily liked VigLink because it did pay me on Amazon sales – as with other states, Colorado businesses can’t be Amazon affiliates, either. However, the number was very small, and really not worth it to me. In December 2010 using VigLink, I made about 25% of what I earned from Amazon in December 2009 – and traffic increased over 100% from December 2009 to December 2010.

    I’m not sure what cut they take from Amazon, though it seems that it would have to be more than 25%. OR, it’s also possible that Amazon has docked them to their lowest commission level, whereas I was making a higher commission level through Amazon directly.

    I like the idea, and think it makes sense for some publishers – just not for me right now.

  2. Ben Steed says:

    It seems to me lik VigLink and Skimlinks basically provide the same service for publishers.
    If not does anyone care to articulate the differences?

  3. Deborah Carney says:

    The problem I have and always have had with VigLinks is that they are specifically telling affiliates that they can get around the tax nexus laws which can very likely put affiliates and merchants in legal danger for tax evasion. Other comments I have about VigLinks and some of their actions and policies I will keep to myself for now. The tax issue and the issue of VigLinks allowing affiliates to “get around” being declined by merchants is huge.

    The other thing that bothers me is they aren’t saying what they really are, they are claiming to be an affiliate “tool” when in fact they are a sub-affiliate network.

  4. Rae Hoffman-Dolan says:

    Ben – no idea as I have never heard of Skimlinks (that said, I’d never heard of VigLink until a few days ago either.)

    Deb – He addressed the tax issue, but I found it a bit vague as well. As for the affiliate tool vs affiliate network, I think that has more to do with their target market. Their aiming for people who barely understand affiliate programs, so they say affiliate tool, because “sub affiliate network” would be greek. Those of us that are pros know they’re a sub affiliate network without being told. Kind of the same way we say duplicate content can cause a “penalty” – that’s not actually true – but it can result in the same effect for a site owner and they understand “penalty” more than “filtering.”

  5. Richard Kershaw says:

    The difference between Viglinks & Skimlinks? Skimlinks built the original tool doing this here in the UK, VigLinks is US-based w/ Google as an investor.

  6. Excellent interview Rae!

    I really liked the questions you asked, this can be an interesting monetization option for me, so thank you for bringing this platform to my attention.

  7. Rae Hoffman-Dolan says:

    Did some Googling Richard and saw your friendly with the guy behind Skimlinks. Without tone, it’s hard to tell the sentiment of the above comment. So I’ll reiterate that I never heard of Skimlinks to know “it’s the original” and had never heard of VigLink before a few days ago either. While I’m a career affiliate, I admit to being more involved in the “SEO sector” which apparently neither of these companies managed to really break into word of mouth wise. Additionally, that still doesn’t seem to go over the difference (or lack thereof) between them. If someone asks the difference between Google and Bing, you don’t say “Google was the original search engine. Bing copied what they do.”

    A more educational and effective response would have been that Skimlinks says they can geo-target links. Or that they advertise a forum specific solution. Or that Skimlinks also links words vs. only changing links (I wouldn’t find that appealing, but I’m sure many others would.) Skimlinks, like VigLink, looks like an interesting service. However, their press campaign didn’t put them in front of me, VigLink’s did.

    If Skimlinks would ever like to have a published conversation about their service, by all means. I’ve got no attachment to either company – my interest was in the service itself, which I’d never seen or heard of before from ANY company.

  8. Richard Kershaw says:

    @Rae – Apologies, commented without due care & attention. Wasn’t intend to sound snarky, rather a one sentence summary.

    I don’t have any interest in SkimLinks’ success (unless some little use as a publisher counts), but I know some of the team and have championed the tool from day one for one very simple reason: I think it’s an awesome product with an awesome team behind it.

    SkimLinks have been around for a few years, are an all-too-rare UK startup success story and are backed by heavyweight investors:

    VigLinks launched some time later offering what appears (not used it) to be an identical service: it turns regular links into affiliate links in exchange for a cut of your earnings.

    Hence my comment. VigLinks are the late entrant to the market but – crucially – are backed by Google, who obviously have enormous capacity to make it a success.

    Hopefully explains what I was trying to say with a little more clarity.

  9. Anna Cunningham says:

    For Carrie w/ Denver Bargains: Anna here with VigLink — If you saw a drop in Amazon revenue on the back of increased traffic, it sounds like something was wrong. We’re at one of the higher commission levels with Amazon (8.5%) so depending on what bracket you’re in you should be seeing equitable numbers or better using VigLink.

    If you’d send me your user id, I’d love to look into it. Obviously it would be tough to diagnose without the code on your site, and if you’ve moved on, I understand but I’d love the chance to try and fix things for you.

    Anna Cunningham

  10. Jack Bafia says:

    I’m not sure it’s super relevant who came first, but as far as we know, Driving Revenue, the company I founded with Raymond Lyle in August 2008 in Chicago was actually doing this first. Driving Revenue was acquired in August 2010 by VigLink.

  11. Deborah Carney says:

    Within a network the differentiation between a tool and a subaffiliate network is important, you and I see the difference but the less educated AMs and even OPMs might not look and see what exactly VigLinks is doing. They are not allowed in one network that I know of, but SkimLinks is. I think the differences are in the marketing and the fact that VigLinks makes it clear that affiliates can get around being rejected by a merchant or can avoid being a nexus for a company. To me that tells a lot about the company.

    As a merchant/manager/OPM I can go through the affiliates that are in VigLinks, but that adds a second layer of filtering that I don’t want to go through. My merchants are in the networks they are in so that we control the affiliates that promote our brands. That control is lost in VigLinks or SkimLinks, but not in services like PopShops or GoldenCan. If VigLinks gave control to the merchants to approve affiliates instead of blanket approving anyone that wants to run any program they want, they would get more support from the merchant community.

  12. I generally have a look into any post you make that I’m not already aware of or using, so i signed up to viglink not really knowing what to expect and whacked it on one of my sites.

    Then i played around with a bunch of posts and took a closer look at the viglink site for support to see what i can and can’t tap into. I have to say, the VigLink website is so ridiculously bare of any kind of information I’m left wondering WTF I can actually promote apart from the obvious.

    Since I’m already an affiliate with ‘the obvious’ I can’t see any reason to use VIglink at all.

    So Viglink, if you’re reading this – the ONE reason I would consider you as an affiliate link provider is if you’ve done the hard work already and negotiated terms for many affiliates that I may or may not know about, then allow me to find that on your web site (if it is there, it isn’t intuitively found) and perhaps I’ll see value to use your service as I can add additional monitization options that I’m not currently using – this would would increase my reach and offer potentially greater revenue.

  13. Deborah Carney says:

    Rae, I should have said that if Viglinks only allowed linking to affiliates approved in the networks/merchants instead of separately, that would truly make them a useful tool instead of a sub affiliate network.

  14. Suthnautr says:

    Interesting. First thing I thought was “another middle man” (gee, I thought the Affiliate was the middle man!?) …then realized, yeah, a guy like me without anything going on in the affiliate arena without a lot of time or any programming skills *could* certainly benefit from this. Realizing that there’s often a higher affiliate rate (due to size of banded together smaller affiliates through VigLink as the master affiliate) – so ok, they take a cut, but it’s a cut of a larger pie and likely worth it. Definitely a plus not having to deal with setting up a whole lot of affiliates on my own on a site that needs major content development, so focusing on content alone would then make VigLink sort of like a virtual assistant setting up affiliate links while I (or others I have working) build content.

    Ok, so what does that mean to me then if I start making a ton of money a year or two after my site starts rocking and I want to cut VigLink loose – all my affiliate links disappear. But VigLink makes it clear that I can have standard Affiliate links on the same page anyway, so I can prepare to cut VigLink if I want to by creating true (my own) affiliate links to replace the ones automatically showing up. My quest would be to find out first which ones of those VigLink auto-created links were the biggest earners and then manually replace them first, and going down the line replace them all in decreasing value.

    VigLink COULD be used the way SEOs use PPC on new sites – to test which keywords produce the highest click through rates and then focus on those first, quickly removing the PPC marketing.

Speak Your Mind