You know the folks at Performics better than I do and if they would be up to the task. From what I heart about Google Pay-Per-Action is that they currently miss the boat and not do the things I referred to. Performics expertise in affiliate marketing could be leveraged by Google to implement the few things of optional manual control a number of publishers and also advertisers are looking for.

I could be overestimate Performics ability here. Only because they SHOULD know does not necessarily mean that they DO know. A perfect example about not knowing their publishers was the CJ LMI last year, where one of “our” famous networks forgot what their publishers are and what their needs are.

I am referring to the type of publisher who is also not interested in Google PPA. CJ forgot that those publishers make up a big chunk within their network and can’t work with this kind of technology.

Google has the advantage that they do not have this kind of publishers and thus only should worry about the ones they could get, if they do it right.

That was also part of my notes, but I did not wanted to make the post longer than it already is. Google should also use it’s own “brain” to figure that one out themselves hehe.

That stated, I do not believe Performics significantly enhances GOOG’s position — other than to give its new PPA offering a full set of clients. I suppose that is a plus.

Performics clients that qualify will likely jump at the opportunity to access what everyone (Performics included) has failed at delivering — offering advertisers the deadly combination of scale and a CPA/PPA payment scheme. Indeed, you are wise in pointing out CJ’s failed CJ evolution not to mention ValueClick’s failed attempt to scale the network using a new linking structure.

Your separation of different type of affiliate/publisher sites is valuable perspective that people should be paying attention to.

Keep up the remarkably insightful work!