The March/April issue of Revenue is going to the printer in mere days, so needless to say I’m swamped with last minute editing, corrections, proofing and of course, finishing up two of my stories that are way too late.

Part of the delay is that I decided at the last minute to include a small piece in the magazine about the recent situation where three Commission Junction employees exited the company after the affiliate network decided to reinforce its policy that staffers are not allowed to be affiliates.

The fear that there might be a perceived conflict of interest (even if there is no wrong doing) is an important subject that seems to have struck a nerve with nearly everyone I speak with. Many have chimed in on the discussion started by David Lewis. There is no shortage of opinions, but what I’m digging for is facts.

I spent most of yesterday (and plan the same for today) on the phone calling all my sources, industry leaders and people that might be in the know about what went down at CJ. I have a lot of details but I’m still missing some key pieces of information. That’s where you come in. If you have any information about what happened related to this issue, give me a call at 415-321-2493 or drop me an email at lisap@revenuetoday.com.

Slightly off topic…two things that came up in the course of my reporting this story:

Conflicting interests. In the past some affiliates have suggested that in order to cover this industry that I (and others at Revenue) should become affiliates so we’d have a much better understanding of the space from the inside out. I’ve resisted for two reasons; one, I have a job that already takes up a huge chunk of my life; and two, I’ve always felt it would be a conflict of interest. It seems that after talking to some of those affiliates this week, they are coming around as to why having a neutral third party cashing commission checks from companies they write about might be a conflict of interest. (I know we, as a magazine, already take advertising money from businesses we cover, but that is an age-old media debate that I’m not getting into here). Now, if I could just get these hard working affiliates to see why I might want only one job and more than three hours of sleep per night.

The tables have turned. Also as I reported this story at least a half dozen people mentioned they might want to blog about my conversation/interview with them. In the old days, I could report a story without worrying that the interviewees were going to be publicly revealing what I’m on to (which might actually jeopardize the information I’m attempting to gather). I’m all in favor of the idea that bloggers keep journalists honest, hold their feet to the fire on facts, and are faster to get the story out to the masses before bigger media outlets. I applaud that. It was an eye opening dose of reality to have that extra layer of complexity added to my reporting. Now, I have to start off all my conversations by saying that my comments are “off the record.”

Let’s talk (on or off the record). lisap@revenuetoday.com