I’ve spent a good portion of last week and this week looking into what many in the affiliate space believe is a clear cut case of conflict of interest.

Of course, I’m talking about whether employees of affiliate networks, or even the search companies, with access to crucial affiliate data (or that deal directly with affiliates), should be allowed to also be affiliates themselves.

This issue was brought to the forefront a couple of weeks ago when three Commission Junction employees left after the company restated its internal policies to say that CJ workers can not be affiliates.

During this hubbub I received dozens of emails, instant messages and phone calls asking me to further investigate the matter. In my 20 months covering the performance marketing space, I had never seen so many people from this community rally around a single point, so I gladly jumped into the fray. Plus, I spent much of my previous journalism career prying top-secret product information and business strategy from insiders at Apple, Microsoft and IBM. I love digging around for things people don’t want me to know.

In fact, Revenue magazine, which is planned several months in advance, thought this was such a hot topic we swapped out another story in order to accommodate a short piece on this topic. Talk about cutting it close, I’m still working on the story and the magazine goes to the printer in just a few days.

The article covers all the main points, but there was just no way to explore all the salient points in depth in only a couple of pages. Such are the constraints of the traditional publishing model. However, I have so much material that there will certainly be another full-length feature story in the following issue (May/June).

I’m not going to give away everything that I found out (you’ll have to read the March/April issue to find out the specifics), but here are some highlights from my reporting:

*ValueClick COO Jeff Pullen was quick to get on the phone with me about the subject. He was forthright and to the point. However, some of what he said regarding the way the information was communicated to the masses (read CJ affiliates) took me aback.

*It was like pulling teeth to get people on the record regarding this sensitive subject. Many industry leaders even took to posting in forums or on blogs under pseudonyms.

*Companies that don’t have policies in place to prevent this behavior don’t return phone calls or emails.

*Affiliates and even some affiliate managers want the issue to be addressed on a wider scale.

*The phrases “class action suit” and “government regulation” were brought up by nearly every party I spoke with. While all insisted they were no way advocating that outcome, many expressed fear regarding the direction this matter was headed.

“Also a big favorite in the affiliate vocabulary “nip it in the bud.” So many of you trotted out that phrase as a rallying cry that I wondered if there had been a meeting or a group email that I missed.

*This is issue far from over and unless addressed more openly could get really ugly.

*Already secretive affiliates claim they will be even tighter lipped than ever about disclosing anything about their sites.

Let me know what you think on this issue. lisap@revenuetoday.com