One thing that has been troubling me for a long time is the reality that the cookie from a publisher within a closed brand bidding group ultimately overwrites the same cookie from ‘more natural’ affiliate activity - dare I say it the affiliate who has potentially pre-sold the product or service in the first instance.
Would it not be prudent therefore to ensure that an affiliate’s cookie who is specifically bidding on brand does not overwrite a content based affiliate, who again dare I say it is more deserving of the reward?
This opens up a number of technical issues which can be easily overcome by the brand bidder and network, but also the last referrer question.
I appreciate the multi-channel approach taken by many merchants and the subsequent distribution of the sale - but this is not applicable for all merchants who operate brand bidding groups through an affiliate link.
We could even take this further and suggest to agencies that search activity on 'brand' terms should not overwrite content based affiliate actvity.
Should the well respected last referrer wins strategy be sidelined for this particular scenario?
Personally I believe it should, and I’m very surprised that no-one has questioned this before or implemented a solution within a network - I guess that raises its own questions!
This article has been backed by the following people.
This article has been slapped by the following people.
Whether or not this is a last referrer issue or a more general "value vs volume" argument I'm not sure. I doubt a technical solution will ever cater for the various value add situations
I'm in complete agreement and blogged about it a few weeks ago.
http://www.leemccoy.co.uk/2007/11/economics-of-0-commissions-brand.html
It's certainly something I've been campaigning for for a while. And look forward to hearing the views of some networks and merchants.
When you think that some merchants de-dupe across many channels, including their own internal emails, then it looks like the affiliate is always bound to loose out - and the networks with their over-ride too.
Lee
Hoseasons In-house PPC
In the coming week you may notice that we will begin to bid on the brand term in Google as well as the other search engines, please be assured that the affiliate cookie will not be overwritten when a customer returns via one of these ads.
Well from a network point of view, 30% override is 30% banked regardless of who gets paid out for the sale so there's no real impetus for them to even look at the dynamics in play when the network till is ringing, at least not whilst the merchant isn't asking any questions and the rest of the affiliates are happy to sit back and let the tail wag the dog
Seems to me that the harder an affiliate works the more he's struggling to get paid for the actual work he does, it would appear the super easy stuff like [brand name] and nothing else wins hands down in the effort v reward scenaro
Looks like brand activity is going to have to evolve from the middle ages to the digital age in 2008
However, I think the question should be expanded to encompass cashback and incentive sites too. Every new user who joins a cashback site and every new merchant that is listed on the cashback site makes life that much harder for other affiliates in exactly the same way that a brand PPC ad does.
This will at least put everyone back on a level playing field, eradicate this overwriting issue and those affiliates that can effectively monitor ROI to a keyword level still get the volume and return.
This is partly why earlier this year moderators jointly asked networks on the forum to disclose or at least mention within the program details whether a program has a closed group or not, to at least establish who, from which affiliates can make their inferred decisions from there. A few networks were forthcoming & a few were not, when comment was made to those, it got a bit PC on the forum & a few affiliate comments were removed.
A few networks were unmoving, a few as you expect were top a banana, but it is still not clear enough on the information pages on most networks.
Putting display URL options to one side, content affiliates pre-selling a merchant are simply lining the pockets of the closed group brand bidders for those bidding on brand & hybrids, but then we have a long drawn out discussion where a few have had to now bid on generics to cover the cracks.
But we could go on & on with that.
But in answer to your question "Why not remove closed brand bidding groups completely?" ... yes I agree .. because this is one the scenarios why I want to know who has closed groups so I can select another merchant in the same category. Whilst all networks could do better to keep have the information clearly seen if at all (a couple are good so no big brush) there a few who just won't from Buy.at to CJ to Affili.net for example and on the whole is one of the aspects on the ugly side of affiliate marketing.
I saw some client data 2 years ago that said there were an average of 13 clicks to a merchants site before a holiday was actually booked, so that's not just pub statistics.
I hope you can forgive me, as i had no intention of dis-agreeing with your comments, because i found them very intuitive and helpfull.
Again, sorry
Terry