Click to Reveal Banned!

[Mogga]

Tweet

Click to reveal is a problem because of the setting of a cookie at that point.

It's the cookie-napping that's the problem.

Merchants, content and even other non-ctr voucher sites all can be cookie-napped.

[Leeky]

I think it's about time this whole thing against 'VC Sites'' stopped, they are not the problem, it's 'CTR Sites' which are the problem and they should be treated as such and shouldn't be confused with vc sites.

Lee

[moneysavingspy]

CTR won't go away unless it's banned. Why would people with sites that are making money risk that by turning it off?

(In case you're wondering, last month, less than 1% of our commissions were via voucher codes - if CTR was banned, I wouldn't fight it)

[Leeky]

CTR won't go away unless it's banned. Why would people with sites that are making money risk that by turning it off?

(In case you're wondering, last month, less than 1% of our commissions were via voucher codes - if CTR was banned, I wouldn't fight it)

You would probably find that if CTR was banned then you would see an increase of sales.. whether you operate ctr currently or not.

It all depends on how many cookies you have stole to how many cookies have been further stole off you. (ie, how much your site relied on ctr in the first place to make the commission)

The only ones who would see a significant decrease in sales are the ones which stole most cookies, as these cookies will then stay with the rightfull affiliate.. and so the merchants would still get just as many sales but would be distributed more fairly.

Lee

[hpops]

God knows how this ridiculously circular thread is continuing. I actually think Leeky has a valid point. Any attack on the AMC is just tosh though and I think has derailed the thread significantly. Also, any thread with Doug and Leeky in together is next to useless.
I'm going to make sure we cover CTR in our Affiliate Apocalypse panel at Expo to get some more views. Also, I'm 99% certain we'll cover it off at the next AMC meeting. There's also a meet the AMC panel at EXPO where it could be raised. What I'm saying is maybe just stop the thread for a couple of weeks and gather a bit more useful input.
Finally I'd like to add that "stolen cookies" is a nonsense. No-one is "stealing" anything. The central mechanism behind affiliate marketing encourages rewarding publishers as close as possible to final purchase. Thats not theft, its perfectly sensible. I'd argue that the mechanism is therefore flawed but obviously thats for another thread!
Peace people

[Leeky]

any thread with Doug and Leeky in together is next to useless.
........[chop]...............What I'm saying is maybe just stop the thread for a couple of weeks and gather a bit more useful input.

I agree with this, but i'm also not stupid and know full well that Doug posted for that very reason, and why some people then also use it to devalue / disregard anything I have to say, thankfully the majority can see through the sludge.

Best to close this topic in my opinion as it is going round in circles and started to get meaningless as soon as Doug posted.

Predictable outcome as usual.

Lee

[maverick]

Couldn't the networks step in with a technical solution which would reduce cookie napping for merchants which are exclusive to the network.

Something like this;

1. Customer clicks through content affiliate link, cookie is set, network records fact that cookie was set via content affiliate link with date/time.

2. Customer sees voucher box on merchant site goes off and finds voucher on VC affiliate site, clicks to reveal it.

3. Network checks if existing cookie is set for a non-VC affiliate within defined timeframe if so then doesn't overwrite cookie otherwise VC affiliate cookie set.

This does then add the dimension that not all cookies are not equal but would surely help those who are often cookie napped and I would include myself in that camp.

cheers,

mav

[ian]

Couldn't the networks step in with a technical solution which would reduce cookie napping for merchants which are exclusive to the network.

I agree. How about posting this on the IAB Expo suggestion post as something to be discussed at the Expo, or if that isn't the right place for this discussion, email it over to Matt Bailey and ask if it could be added to the agenda for the next AMC meeting.

It would be a change to the status quo and I doubt any one network would go it alone, so it's perfect for them all to dicsuss together at the AMC.

[moneysavingspy]

Couldn't the networks step in with a technical solution which would reduce cookie napping for merchants which are exclusive to the network.

Something like this;

1. Customer clicks through content affiliate link, cookie is set, network records fact that cookie was set via content affiliate link with date/time.

2. Customer sees voucher box on merchant site goes off and finds voucher on VC affiliate site, clicks to reveal it.

3. Network checks if existing cookie is set for a non-VC affiliate within defined timeframe if so then doesn't overwrite cookie otherwise VC affiliate cookie set.

This does then add the dimension that not all cookies are not equal but would surely help those who are often cookie napped and I would include myself in that camp.

cheers,

mav

This would be open to so much abuse. All it would take is a voucher code site to add something that is classed as 'content' and to be classed as a content site. Then their cookies would be worth the same. The voucher code sites wouldn't just sit there, they would evolve - that's what you need to bear in mind. They'd do the bare minimum to get classed as a content site, just to give their cookies more weight.

And you've also got the problem of content affiliate cookies overwriting the cookies of other content affiliates - would it then become first-cookie wins? Picture this: user goes to content site A, clicks link, cookie gets dropped. User goes to site B, but 2 weeks later. Cookie for site A is still valid, but site B has probably been the more relevant click, wouldn't you say? The cookie rules would become convoluted.

Just my 2 quid's worth.

Mani

[Hero]

3. Network checks if existing cookie is set for a non-VC affiliate within defined timeframe if so then doesn't overwrite cookie otherwise VC affiliate cookie set.

so are you arguing that "vc sites" play no role at all if a "content site" has been mixed in? Shall we start distinguishing between content as well - this content is better than that content, so this site's cookies are more important?
what if the "vc site" is a generic campaign id used for all sites? shall we force all affiliates to use separate ids for each site of theirs?
who would be responsible for categorising the sites in the network d/b? and how often will we be required to revisit them to check the categorisation is still valid?
what if a "content site" also lists codes, will you accept them to keep the commission? for those who deem that a vc affiliate should only receive commission if a code was used - what about specials, offers, sale etc?

[jondbm]

I'm a newbie here so sorry if I'm massively misunderstanding and be nice when you shoot me down, but...

As far as I can see, the reason people here (who as far as I can tell are mainly merchants, is that right?) are complaining about click to reveal is that without it they wouldn't have to pay affiliates anything for the sales they receive.

But surely there are a few flaws in this... here's how I understand the theory goes...

A buyer may be on a site, about to purchase, then they decide to look for a discount, go to a voucher site and get the code.

If they have to click to reveal the code, a cookie is set and the voucher site gets a commission. If the code is not hidden, the user can just copy the code (or get it from Google results of the affiliates site) without the merchant having to pay a penny to the affiliate.

I can see why this would appeal to merchants who dislike paying commission to affiliates, but this assumes voucher sites will exist with codes regardless of whether the owners get paid or not. Most voucher sites aren't charities, so if the commision stops, the incentive to display codes will stop. I'd say if you resent people getting money off, don't publish codes or take part in affiliate schemes at all.

I've read the argument that voucher sites *should* stop as they don't add anything apart from showing a code... and sure merchants make even more money if no code at all is used, but what if a customer is comparing two merchants, and one is cheaper with the code he finds? Id' argue this makes it a key part of the buying decision. The assumption seems to be that a buyer will purchase a product regardless of a code being found, which isn't always true.

As an affiliate, there's no incentive to promote a code for the hell of it. The only way a system of just displaying codes on the page with no cookie tracking could work was if there was no such thing as a generic code, but instead each code was unique to a specific affiliate so the merchant could track, without cookies, exactly which site the code came from. Otherwise it could have come from anyone.

[Mogga]

This would be open to so much abuse. All it would take is a voucher code site to add something that is classed as 'content'

Cookie-napping is the key.

If someone uses the given link "buy this now" or "use this voucher code at this merchant shop" then that's entirely different from "click to reveal code (and we open a window whether you like it or not and set a cookie)"

CTR will perhaps lose income. Merchants won't. They might gain from the removal of CTR.

If you're not a CTR site this shouldn't affect you at all.

[dougs]

Its just so easy to wind him though...keeps me amused Duncan Maybe we just fundamentally disagree about life

I promise to try and bite my tongue

Doug

[buspassjohn]

Most of CTR is just pure fraud but the easy way to stop the abuse is for merchants to dump any affiliate that uses it, we don't use codes and we don't knowingly have any affiliates that use CTR.
Simples!

[dougs]

BusspassJohn

So you are telling me you have no affiliate using anything to entice someone to click to go to your site?

Noincentivised clicking then:
Get info
Buy now
Checkout out details
More info
etc
etc
etc

Then no one will be visiting your site and I doubt you have much of an affiliate business

Doug