nite
08-12-2011, 07:59 AM
I have an over-all economic question to pose here.
I know that Prosperent has its own expenses to deal with, such as salaries, office building, and server costs, and to cover these expenses Prosperent relies on their affiliates to generate income. But just how many affiliates are generating this income?
The reason I'm asking this question deals with the long term stability and viability of Prosperent as a company -- if the largest income is being generated by the fewest number of people, then the company's viability rests on the performance of just a handful of individuals, and these individuals have the power to determine the fate of everyone else. In other words, should "something" negative happen to these individuals, where would the rest of us be?
Prosperent has a reward program for these few individuals that includes a higher commission rate and access to special information. But isn't such a philosophy counter-productive to fattening Prosperent's bottom line using as many people are possible? Sure, high performers should be rewarded -- and they are. The size of their commission is reward enough. But for the company to further fatten the cow who is already fat in the first place seems out of place.
Prosperent has stated elsewhere that the API is the biggest earner, however, using the API also requires a special skill set that not most people have -- the ability to program in PHP. Using Performance Ads doesn't require any skill set at all; so, as one possible conclusion, it would seem that there are a handful of API developers who are earning the majority of Prosperent's bottom line. I could be wrong here.
So, what's the point of this post (for those of you who respond with thoughtful "tl;dr" remarks)? The point is that if Prosperent, as an overall company, is relying on a handful of PHP developers to bring home the bacon, then these individuals have the power to dictate Prosperent's policy ... because if these individuals get pissed off and decide to leave, then what other legs are there to stand on?
I know that Prosperent has its own expenses to deal with, such as salaries, office building, and server costs, and to cover these expenses Prosperent relies on their affiliates to generate income. But just how many affiliates are generating this income?
The reason I'm asking this question deals with the long term stability and viability of Prosperent as a company -- if the largest income is being generated by the fewest number of people, then the company's viability rests on the performance of just a handful of individuals, and these individuals have the power to determine the fate of everyone else. In other words, should "something" negative happen to these individuals, where would the rest of us be?
Prosperent has a reward program for these few individuals that includes a higher commission rate and access to special information. But isn't such a philosophy counter-productive to fattening Prosperent's bottom line using as many people are possible? Sure, high performers should be rewarded -- and they are. The size of their commission is reward enough. But for the company to further fatten the cow who is already fat in the first place seems out of place.
Prosperent has stated elsewhere that the API is the biggest earner, however, using the API also requires a special skill set that not most people have -- the ability to program in PHP. Using Performance Ads doesn't require any skill set at all; so, as one possible conclusion, it would seem that there are a handful of API developers who are earning the majority of Prosperent's bottom line. I could be wrong here.
So, what's the point of this post (for those of you who respond with thoughtful "tl;dr" remarks)? The point is that if Prosperent, as an overall company, is relying on a handful of PHP developers to bring home the bacon, then these individuals have the power to dictate Prosperent's policy ... because if these individuals get pissed off and decide to leave, then what other legs are there to stand on?