Nuffnang works really hard to steal your 1 dorra. - Narcissism is Necessary

Nuffnang works really hard to steal your 1 dorra.

If you follow the blog advertising scene, chances are you have already read the article about Nuffnang on TechCrunch. I am not going to link to it as I won’t dignify its lack of credibility. It’s pretty normal to come across blog posts that are written with no depth or research, after all the blogosphere is a massive sandbox. Anyone can play in it and there will always be kids with no manners trying to spoil everyone’s day. Just another day on the blogosphere.

But when such a blog post appears on a supposedly credible website, it becomes a question mark. The author claimed to have used a credible source in his comment section, but whether it’s credible or not is entirely up to his interpretation. The article, among others:

1. Claimed that Nuffnang DID NOT INFORM Singaporean bloggers about imposing $1 Sing cheque processing fee.

FACT:It is a fact that before ANY blogger cashed out his/her earnings, there was a clear notice that the transaction fee will be deducted from the cashout amount. Nuffnang has also sent an e-mail to EVERY blogger in Singapore in addition to their announcement in the Nuffnang blog.

But the complainants are saying that if Nuffnang had informed bloggers MUCH earlier, then they would have an option to switch advertising network as the other network does not charge $1 Sing. So let me get this straight…

I’d imagine that these people who decided to sign on with Nuffnang had obviously calculated in their own ways and have decided that Nuffnang would be the better blog advertising network.

Does that mean, to these people, losing 1 dollar from a cashout with a blog advertising network that they themselves chose in the first place is enough of a reason to switch to another blog network, that mind you, has not even started earning money for them yet? The answer is this: It’s not even a valid reason to begin with.

Sound like shooting one self in the foot twice….replacing an opportunity to earn money with definite uncertainty because of 1 single dollar.

The fact remains, Nuffnang did inform all of its Singaporean bloggers about the fee, and did not sneakily deduct 1 dollar from their earnings. I must applaud Nuffnang for delaying the deduction anyway for the few bloggers who felt that they were robbed off an opportunity to replace Nuffnang with the “are-you-sure-it’s-gonna-perform-ad-network”.

2. Claimed that a number of “prominent bloggers” are unhappy with the fees imposed.

The number, ladies and gentlemen, is three. I have not heard of either of them. Two blogs have traffic of average 87 – 91 readers a day. The other one has 874 on its counter (for all time). I have 400 readers daily on a very bad day. I rest my case.

3. Posted a link to a Nuffnang hate blog and connecting it with the $1 dollar fee.

Firstly, the site was obviously set up by someone with a personal grudge against Nuffnang. For what reason other than pure jealousy or Schadenfreude, I have no idea.

Hate site over $1 sing? I have stronger faith in people than that. That hate site has no place in TechCrunch’s article and it baffles me as to how it ended up there. It not only belittles the intelligence of TechCrunch’s readers, also the intelligence of all three “prominent bloggers” who are resting on the same line with the hatesite.

Will you believe the words of people predicting the downfall of a company over one buck? I’m sorry but even I have more faith in Singaporeans than that! You know what they say, you know you’re there when you’ve got a hatesite.

16 Responses to Nuffnang works really hard to steal your 1 dorra.

  1. eyeris November 7, 2007 at 12:18 am #

    those ‘singaporeans’ who complained about their ‘one dorrer’ being ‘stolen’ must be malaysian in disguise who realised that if convert back to RM, Nufnang is stealing their HARD-EARNED RM2.35! Can pay for toilet at KLCC oledi! GASP!

  2. Jason November 7, 2007 at 12:50 am #

    Those Singaporeans are even stingier than I thought. Just because of RM1, they made the whole issue to a full blown one. I wonder why they didn’t target the competitor for its “unsecured” login algorithm and many other loop holes.

  3. Harry November 7, 2007 at 4:16 am #

    In your essay, your points are selective and biased itself.

    There is nothing wrong in implementing $1 or $100. Ultimately policies are implemented themself and people just obey under the TOS right?

    Problem, they failed to give advance notice. How much advance should be given, has already been raised, discussed and debated over many blogs, forums and essays so lets not go into detail on that, but we can safely describe it as insufficient in this case(well, according to the consensus)

    Second, if you gone to certain websites, you would had realised, the owners of Nuffnang actually gone onto blogs of their publishers to reply, debate, and question, just short of begging bloggers to sympathize with their circumstances with reasons such as 20cent envelop, mobile bills not paid, and in one sentence it described “Labour is more or less subsidised and free in this instance.” (

    How can labour is free? Labour in any sense is part of your overhead which of course is part and parcel of any business. Therefore in any business, your labour is not free, because you are in it for profit making and any profit that you make, you pocket. So you are theoritically trading your labour for money which is the profit. Their public debating are simply superfluous. Their action is uncalled for, because of the fact, bloggers do not depend on them to blog. They depend on the bloggers to publish their advertisements.

    The blog was of course not started because of $1. I would believe you are smarter than that to think that $1 trigger off unsatisfaction comments in blogs to the point of a website and forum being setup.

    The downfall of the company would not be decided by this 1 buck issue or the website or any forum. The fate of the company is in the hand of Timothy and Ming and if they make a mistake in something again and get publicized again in Techcrunch, it is not because they are victimising them. When you have something for others to write, they will write. All these are part and parcel of being in the limelight eventhough its not much to your liking.

    It is no longer about the $1. Given another company, another man, another time, another day, a $1 issue might not even go to the news. It went to the news because the person who was chosen(or maybe volunteered) to handle the public was not up to the mark and he left offending bloggers and readers with his remarks all over the web and illogical reasoning. That triggers everything off. And suddenly, they became the enemy of the public eye, but thats a fair game. You play well, you win, you play badly, you get bricks thrown at you.

    If at this point, the Nuffnang owners still have not understood what had gone wrong, then my prediction is that they would close shop before mid of next year.

  4. Freethinker November 7, 2007 at 7:37 am #

    Harry, I am really surprised that you used the phrase “selective and biased”. Please refer to your piece which you make a reference from HongKiat. The article which was originally discussing both Nuffnang and Advertlets miraculously have all “advertlets” censored out.

    I wonder if that’s called “selective” and “biased” as well.

  5. Harry November 7, 2007 at 10:10 am #

    If you go to the blog and read the title, the address, everything all over the blog, you can say the blog is biased. And now i can say you’re biased, because refering and connecting from something in the past which you assumed was biased and had accused me so to this essay where i justify how the author had been biased in her writing are simply nothing more than trying to start a tautology discussion.

    Show your substance and debate the real issue.

  6. DK November 7, 2007 at 10:43 am #

    I also don’t know why I ganna referred at prominent bloggers. Am far from there.

  7. aw November 7, 2007 at 10:54 am #

    OK, “Harry”. Or, a.k.a., the person linked to the hate blog.
    Or, JOSH.

    Shut the fuck up.

    Tenthofmarch, we need you track this bozo down. Anyone who writes such a verbose, overly-defensive spiel of a comments is Josh himself.

    Anyone who is reading this, do read Josh’s (yes, the guy from Advertits) previous comments and tell me if it does not have the EXACT tone.

    “downfall of the company” – what an arsehole
    “Timothy and Ming” – yeah, you know Nuffnang so well, huh?

  8. Putera Emas November 7, 2007 at 10:59 am #

    Hello Kimberly, Can I be your friend? Haha.. Please read my post that Harry given to you. See when it was written and check when they sent you email to inform you about the $1.

    There was “NO” clear notice that the transaction fee will be deducted from the cash out amount before ANY blogger cashed out his/her earnings before my post. When did you check that it is stated on the cash out page? Is it before my post or after my post? Please don’t give facts that are after my post!

    If you don’t know the real situation, don’t write! Anyway it is NOT really about $1, it’s about their PR!

  9. Syed November 7, 2007 at 11:18 am #

    unfortunately, the only public in the PR thing this Putra guy’s been rambling about are him and a couple of the so-called “prominent” bloggers. hahaha

  10. eyeris November 7, 2007 at 4:07 pm #

    What’s wrong with their PR anyway? I’ve seen shoddier PR elsewhere. And Nuffnang’s has been pretty transparent, I must say.

    seriously, when I saw that RM1 would be deducted from the total of my earnings for the transaction fees, I didn’t really care. I took it for granted. It’s quite a common practise anyway innit, especially for bank transactions?

    So what’s the fuss all about, eh?

  11. Freethinker November 7, 2007 at 4:39 pm #

    Surprise, he still hasn’t counter argue with me on the Miraculously missing “Advertlets” from that supposedly “emailed” by HongKiat….

  12. Harry November 7, 2007 at 6:41 pm #

    I am not interested to go into a debate for the sake of debating. It is my right to call the author biased and i went on to prove in my points clearly. It is your right to describe me and i am not going to stop you from exercising that right. And now i am also calling you biased. So what more do you want? Do you want to spend 10 more hours discussing the word bias?

    Why not try to discuss the real issue instead? (chortle)

  13. TenthOfMarch November 8, 2007 at 4:02 am #

    Why me? Not like I can hack into Kim’s account to get Harry’s IPs. LOL. Anyway, I doubt Josh would be that foolish to play his old tricks here. However, I do wonder who is that too-free-nothing-to-do person who created that hate blog. Harry’s frequent and persistent comments are causing me to scratch my head as well.

    Apart from Josh, I really don’t recall anyone else who has such a strong desire, time and energy for the job. However, that doesn’t mean Harry is Josh.

    “If at this point, the Nuffnang owners still have not understood what had gone wrong, then my prediction is that they would close shop before mid of next year.”

    You wanna bet on that?

  14. Harry November 8, 2007 at 8:18 am #

    Want, what kind of odds are you offering me?

  15. MadSeason November 8, 2007 at 2:04 pm #

    Lol @ everything. ok.

  16. eyeris November 9, 2007 at 11:19 pm #

    wow. Singaporean know how speak Malays. I imprez

Leave a Reply