Closed Affiliate Groups Next On The List

[Frostie]

Thank goodness I don't rely on my discount codes website too much, as yet another silly merchant decision has been taken, one which I am not sure fits in with IAB. After all, isn't the IAB there to protect everyone - affiliates, merchants and networks alike?

Sweaty Betty has decided not to allow discount or voucher sites promote their... erm.. voucher or discounts (and sales) but will be getting in touch with me if they reverse their decision. Why? I've no idea because I will be telling them where to stick their offer of re-opening a business relationship with them!

Oh hang one... it doesn't apply to all discount sites. No... they've "selected our highest revenue driver in the voucher code space as an exclusive partner but won’t be working with any other voucher sites as of Monday, 29th June 2009".

It's bad enough with closed groups being allowed to bid on keywords and brands, but now we are seeing closed groups of "types of sites" being allowed? Come on - where is the fairness in this? Anyone for a game of monopoly?

[kcheung]

i think this simply highlights that affiliate managers in-house or other wise should be taking it on themselves to educate merchants, not enough investment into educating merchants happens, which results in things like this happening.

what really annoys me is it seems a lot of the time, affiliate managers and networks do the merchants bidding without really advising on the implcations, sometimes its important for Affiliate managers and networks to push back against the merchant, after all its all in our best interest that the campaign are successful and fair.

equally merchants need to listen more to advice from the people they pay to manage their campaigns, we're not giving advice to blow steam, we're doing it because we believe it will actually make a difference to the campaign...

meah, no one listens anyways.

[loquax]

I hadn't noticed the "exclusive" part of the email... as was too annoyed by the fact that another network/merchant combo can't grasp that some affiliates are capable of removing a merchant from a code directory but can still promote them in a non-code capacity in other places.

I think by offering exclusivity though the merchant now runs the risk of other affiliates leaving up code pages for Sweaty Betty and redirecting to alternative stores who do want to work with a range of affiliates.

Jason

[ash]

I had not noticed that part of the email either, and i really appreciate the lengthy notice period given too...

[scriptmonkey]

Oh hang one... it doesn't apply to all discount sites. No... they've "selected our highest revenue driver in the voucher code space as an exclusive partner but won’t be working with any other voucher sites as of Monday, 29th June 2009".

It occurs to me that as affiliates, we vote with our mouse, there's a button that says remove, and I have just clicked it, I will not work with any company that runs a protectionist scheme and marginalises some affiliates for the benefit of one affiliate. Goodbye Betty. Kisses etc.

[Leeky]

Deleted them with pleasure, this also removes them from loads of promotional pages and sites which have nothing to do with voucher codes.

Lee

[Mogga]

Sweaty who?

I've never heard of them and apparently it's saved me some work this afternoon! Hurray!

[Hero]

It's bad enough with closed groups being allowed to bid on keywords and brands, but now we are seeing closed groups of "types of sites" being allowed? Come on - where is the fairness in this? Anyone for a game of monopoly?

It's up to merchants who they partner with and what kind of affiliates they work with - surely, that's their prerogative, no?

This is yet another change in a program's Ts & Cs, and I would expect the merchants to give the standard notice to alter them. Furthermore, they are advised to state in their Ts & Cs what closed groups they have, be that brand or voucher or cashback or any other type of affiliate.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating that this is the right decision, I'm just saying that, if they choose, they have an affiliate program with one ppc, one voucher, one cashback, one email, one this, one other type of affiliate should they feel that this is the desired path for them. In which case, they will have a provate program, rather than a public one. Or take it in house.

[kcheung]

It's up to merchants who they partner with and what kind of affiliates they work with - surely, that's their prerogative, no?

(not to single Webgains or hero out)

this is basically where the problem lies, yes it is the merchants perogative, but i don't think merchants realize just how much of a 2 way conversation it is and how damaging to their brand (in the affiliate world) and their campaign a decision like this can be, without first speaking to someone in a position to give them factual impartial advice.

and that impartial and factual advice comes from the networks and agnecies, thus, on that basis, agencies and networks represent affiliates to the merchant and should advise accordingly.

[scriptmonkey]

I think you're wrong Hero, I think that if they distribute voucher codes, then any site that promotes via voucher codes, as long as they meet the guidelines, should be permitted to promote them. This kind of private deal which excludes all but one affiliate has a nasty taste to it, and shouldn't be encouraged.

If they want to work with only one voucher code site, or one cashback site, then they should remove themselves from the network. PPC is acceptable to limit to one affiliate, voucher code promotion is not.

Terms and Conditions seem to only work one way in this arena, and any merchant who makes amendments like this should be shunned by the community as a whole.

[Frostie]

It's up to merchants who they partner with and what kind of affiliates they work with - surely, that's their prerogative, no?

Yes it is, but don't you think it's a dangerous persidence to set? I would be horrified if Webgains official stance was that this is acceptable but I do feel that maybe Webgains jump to defend merchants decisions a little too easily of late!

Remember the roots of this industry. Little man can turn into big man overnight and can be a valuable business partner. By offering in effect a closed affailiet base, and giving the monopoly to one site only - is this not dangerous for the industry? Do you think others will now follow? Despite what others may think and want - I don't want this industry to become closed and clicky. It's meant to be heading towards transparency for goodness sake!

Remember I don't work for a merchant, and a merchant doesn't work for me. It a 2 way business relationship and should be treated professionally. No wonder I and others are bemused by this industry of late! The people who disagree have been involved in this industry longer than many others, so I and others who have commented know that merchants are entitled to their opinions and it is their perogative. We weren't born yesterday!

[Hero]

(and that impartial and factual advice comes from the networks and agnecies, thus, on that basis, agencies and networks represent affiliates to the merchant and should advise accordingly.

Absolutely, merchants should discuss whatever ideas they have with their network and, I would add, with their affiliates as well where possible, prior to making any changes to their program's terms.

What my argument is is that this is very much on a per case basis and it's not a blanket rule for all to follow.

As to whether this sets a precedence, Chris, every action every merchant takes can potentially be taken as a precedence. Common sense is also a precedence and I would like to think that it can prevail for most merchants' decisions.
With grubby-gate, we were all afraid that more merchants would follow suit - to my knowledge, it's only been one.

[Leeky]

It's up to merchants who they partner with and what kind of affiliates they work with - surely, that's their prerogative, no?

It is slightly annoying someone saying "it's their prerogative", everybody knows this, thats not the issue, the issue is the 'what appears to be an unfair decision' and if this effects someone then they are bound to complain whether it being their prerogative or not.

Nobody would complain if 'sweaty betty' decided to close altogther, even though that is also their prerogative it wouldn't be blindly blanket banning certain affiliates who are more than likely more above board than the type of affiliate they have decided to keep onboard.

Lee

[kier]

PPC is acceptable to limit to one affiliate, voucher code promotion is not.

Why is one OK but not the other?

[scriptmonkey]

Why is one OK but not the other?

Because Kier, when we sign up to merchants, we accept the terms and conditions, which mostly seem to be about PPC. I'm fairly certain that if the terms & conditions of any merchant stipulated no voucher code sites except for one, no cashback sites except for one, no organic search partners except for one before joining them, then the majority of affiliates wouldn't touch that program. Of course I could be wrong, but, I don't think so. I happen to think that closed PPC groups are wrong as well, but, I agree to the T's & C's in those cases where I believe it's possible to make money without spending money.