Closed Affiliate Groups Next On The List

[kier]

Tweet

Certainly only working with one affiliate in various classes of promotion would restrict who else could promote you and for that reason I'd advise against such a program set up but I don't see that that means merchants shouldn't be allowed to make such decisions.

[scriptmonkey]

Of course they can do as they please, but, surely a retrospective change of T's & C's must be agreed by both parties?

I mean that a retrospective imposition of change shouldn't be allowed by the network, without first seeking agreement with those affiliate who may be affected by this?

Of course, looking forward, any change of T's & C's for new partners is the prerogative of the merchant.

[kier]

Yes a change to t&cs needs to have an adequate notice period.

[Frostie]

Webgains (as a collective you all seem to agree with each other) what we are asking is whether this should be accepted or challenged. I and obviously others who have been involved for a very long time, think maybe it should be challenged. You, as a network, obviously disagree which is fine - that's your decision.

However, as has already been highlighted, saying its someones perogative isn't adding any value to the discussion and can be taken as being patronising to some. Can you answer specifics such as...

Do you not think that by banning all sites but allowing 1 in particular is being transparent, open and fair?

Remember, the reason why they've chosen to allow 1 is because they make a lot of money for them - no other reason, and this was highlighted in the email. The decisions hasn't been taken because of their stance on discount code sites, the use or distribution of discounts or vouchers. They've therefore banned others because they don't make enough money for them.

Is this the way you, either individually or collectively, wish to see Affiliate Marketing progress in the future? Only the big people can promote certain programmes? Do you not think that there should be 1 rule for everyone?

I'd also appreciate clarification as to whether the previous comments/views are that of individuals or if they are Webgains official stance.

[loquax]

If, as some shoppers do, go hunting for voucher codes - and, if as some shoppers do find them on a voucher code site... and if there's only one site offering such codes... how is that incentive for anyone to promote a merchant who only offers codes to one affiliate?

It's not - no affiliate in their right mind is going to promote this merchant - even more so when you buy something the first thing you see on checkout is a box asking for a discount code.

You may as well just have "one affiliate per merchant"!

At a time when people are asking why affiliates don't do content or don't use this that and the other creative... stick yourselves in our shoes when you arse about with terms and conditions.

Affiliates just want to get on and work with merchants, earn a living, run a website... imo networks should be facilitating that... on paper it's a simple equation that only gets mucked up when people start trying to be clever and marketing like.

Jason

[hpops]

I actually think it is transparent and open (not so sure about fair?)
We are doing this, this is why. Thanks very much

You don't agree with their decision, fine, criticism and discussion of that is commendable. Advocating boycotts and the like are at best petty and at worst completely contrary to this industry having a future.

I'm not entirely in favour of what they've done, but their decision is pretty clear. If one code site makes them the most money, and they have decided that the resources involved in managing relationships with the others aren't worth the investment, then I can see why they've chosen this action, the negative PR aspect is unfortunate (but frankly, a little bit self-perpetuating).

My only real concern is (and here comes the controversial moment...........) Did the code site in question take a comms cut to cut his competitors out the market???

Aside from that potentially terrifying comment I have to say that Affiliate Marketing comes in many different flavours, maybe not all of them great for all different affiliates. Its a shame, but its commercial reality.

In terms of it being a partnership, what if you decided to only feature one merchant from a sector on your pages, would you even go to the trouble of informing the merchant?

[John Jupp]

Just as an aside but relevant to this decision.

Was an analysis conducted to see how long from visit to this code site to transaction carried out? If it's a matter of less than ten minutes or so for example, it wouldn't inspire confidence that the code site was generating the most sales, merely that they were better at offering a discount code in the SERPS and concluding the sale had been potentially driven by another affiliate.

Just my tuppence worth.

[Hero]

Webgains (as a collective you all seem to agree with each other) what we are asking is whether this should be accepted or challenged. I and obviously others who have been involved for a very long time, think maybe it should be challenged. You, as a network, obviously disagree which is fine - that's your decision.

However, as has already been highlighted, saying its someones perogative isn't adding any value to the discussion and can be taken as being patronising to some. Can you answer specifics such as...

Do you not think that by banning all sites but allowing 1 in particular is being transparent, open and fair?

Remember, the reason why they've chosen to allow 1 is because they make a lot of money for them - no other reason, and this was highlighted in the email. The decisions hasn't been taken because of their stance on discount code sites, the use or distribution of discounts or vouchers. They've therefore banned others because they don't make enough money for them.

Is this the way you, either individually or collectively, wish to see Affiliate Marketing progress in the future? Only the big people can promote certain programmes? Do you not think that there should be 1 rule for everyone?

I'd also appreciate clarification as to whether the previous comments/views are that of individuals or if they are Webgains official stance.

You are drawing conclusions out of thin air. Kier and I are participating in a discussion on the topic you raise. This is not our merchant and we are not discussing the specific decision; it's a wider discussion which has nothing to do with the particular merchant.

What I'm advocating is that merchants should be able to make decisions on what affiliates they work with and how many and on what terms. Provided that:

a)they reach the decision after discussing thoroughly with their network and have understood the implications for their program and the pros/cons
b)they adhere to the required notice period to change their terms
c) they state the existing closed group of whatever affiliate section they have put in place in their terms

Then I don't see the reason why they should be forbidden from enforcing their decision.

I also believe that it's the affiliates' decision whether to promote a merchant with the afforementioned terms.

To the question - should a decision to have a voucher closed group be accepted or challenged? If you have been given the reasons that have led to the closed group, then you accept or challenge them. You don't challenge them without information, and you don't dismiss them without information.
As an account manager, if the merchant expresses their idea to me, I will seek to find out where this stems from. I will have a discussion with them to understand what they're trying to achieve. I will counter-argue, if I don't see their point. I will counter-propose, if I feel a compromise agreement can be reached. I will lay out all the downsides of their decision. If I do disagree and we cannot compromise, I have to yield, but I also make it clear that if the program takes a turn for the worse, they have been warned.

Both Kier and I, as do the rest of the AM team here, have common sense. And that is the stem of the Webgains "stance" on all matters - understand, discuss, explore, decide, for each individual case separately.

I do not believe there is one rule to follow for all affiliate programs. Each program is tailored to each merchant's needs. This is where the "prerogative" kicks in.
I'm not advocating that merchants should do this.
I'm also not advocating that merchants shouldn't do this.
I'm advocating that merchants should make informed decisions based on their business needs.

And, I'm a strong advocate of transparency, especially in closed groups. If they do decide to have one, they need to tell affiliates.

Both you, Chris, as well as the majority of affiliates know that Webgains doesn't bend over to ridiculous requests by merchants, just because they expect us to. So to be accused, to a point, that we would leave things unchallenged if we don't agree with them, is quite disappointing.

[KevinEdwards]

To add a slightly different slant to this, if an affiliate gets an exclusive code that isn't available to other 'code affiliates' is that unfair? If an affiliate gets a higher commission rate is that unfair to those that don't?

For anyone who didn't attend the recent IAB meeting we're about to launch code of conducts that all member networks can push to merchants. They will recommend merchants have specific T&Cs for the various affiliate types as well as encourage merchants to give adequate notice of changes to their programme details. This will hopefully remove any possibility of perceived network bias as it's 'IAB approved', best practice conduct.

[Sabcom]

Why don't they just scrap codes all together and lower their prices - then they may be able to compete with the likes of Amazon...

[scriptmonkey]

Advocating boycotts and the like are at best petty and at worst completely contrary to this industry having a future.

Standing behind a merchant which makes unfair amendments to their T's & C's is surely one way to drive this industry into the ground, and, the more that stand behind the merchant, the quicker will be the decline.

As partners, yes, partners with merchants, we have in this particular case, been completely disregarded by a retrospective change to T's & C's, which should not be allowed without discussion with the affiliates who are affected by such amendments.

The issue isn't limited to the specific merchant, who aren't a particularly big player in the marketplace, but rather, to the disregard for affiliates who signed up to a program under T's & C's which were acceptable to both parties, but, are now acceptable only to the merchant in question and one affiliate

if an affiliate gets an exclusive code that isn't available to other 'code affiliates' is that unfair?

No, Kevin, but that's not what's being discussed here, this is a completely different matter, this is many affiliates being thrown out in favour of one.

Can one party unilaterally change the T's & C's that both parties agreed to? If that's lawful, then it shouldn't be.

[KevinEdwards]

I can see several issues here, my first comment was aimed at the idea of all affiliates being treated the same and the latter about adequate notice periods.

As mentioned the IAB will be arming networks with best practice guidelines they can issue to merchants to avoid short or inadequate notice.

There is a collective will amongst networks working with the IAB that more 'education pieces' are needed when talking to merchants about a range of issues. Hopefully this will be developed upon further this year.

[Leeky]

It appears to me the merchant has simply decided to put all their eggs in one basket, and we all know what happens when you do that.

Lee

[hpops]

It appears to me the merchant has simply decided to put all their eggs in one basket, and we all know what happens when you do that.

Lee

I agree with that statement entirely. Its a dangerous predicament for any merchant to put themselves in

[kcheung]

re: IAB - sorry to be blunt, but surely all the networks should have preempted this kind of action by a merchant already? - to clarfy my point, as people working in the UK affiliate industry surely we all know what the potential consequences of any decision made to a campaign structure will be?

re: Sweaty Betty specifically - seems like the damage has already been done, just shows how little respect for affiliates they have, they've effectivly shot themselves in the foot.