Click to Reveal Banned!

[loquax]

Tweet

why are you so negative towards the IAB?

This is an observation - but my guess is that it's misconceived as a protect the network/merchant body rather than one that is there to protect the affiliate also.

Perhaps it's unclear to many grass root affiliates how/what The IAB is doing to protect them and/or perhaps the messages coming from various quarters doesn't encourage them on to The IAB bridge and off the Suspicion Shore.

What is also worth considering is that many long term affiliates have seen things where others have "gotten away with x" with apparently little recourse and now straddle the affiliate world like a colussus. That can be quite hard to stomach and incredibly frustrating... a fact of life .. but frustrating none the less.

But before anyone says the obvious, yes we all need to move on from that. The nature of a fledgling industry is that until rules/guidelines come in things don't get set in stone. To create an ethical industry it requires unethical people to be involved somewhere along the line.

It also requires the body who are working hard to sort things out to better communicate their work, but it also requires everyone else to support it, and also understand that new rules/guidelines don't come into force overnight.

That can't be done with the spats that are evident in this thread and I can understand why some affiliates feel wary about others in this industry when they see some of the reactionary posts made here.

The only saving grace is that it's nice to see people are still very passionate about affiliate marketing and where it's going.

Jason

[hpops]

Perhaps because it doesn't work on the majority of votes, there could be 1000's of affiliates saying ban CTR, but because the minority who have the final say still don't want it banned, then it wont be banned.

Then the question has to be asked, why don't these minority want it banned, and because we have not yet heard a valid reason, then people are naturally going to get suspicious.

Lee

I am really trying hard not to post here as it seems so utterly pointless to try and be the voice of reason.
However....
Personally, I do not agree with CTR (interesting how that no longer means click-through-rate!) however consensus states that the industry currently accepts it. If this consensus changes, the rules will too.
As voucher sites are a significant sector in the industry with a lack of undertanding of their potential value and/or pitfalls, the AMC collectively created legislation aimed at curbing their excesses whilst maintaining their valuable contribution to the sector. Many elements were discussed including CTR, misleading consumers, out of date codes, differentiating between codes and offers etc etc. This legislation was bought before the industry at many levels with multiple viewpoints sought and included in the discussions. The AMC, as representatives of the industry then passed the legislation consistently requesting feedback. Furthermore, networks agreed to take part in extensive monitoring of the rules. After a short period, the rules included an addendum to tighten up practice. This was again monitored and implemented. The vast majority of voucher sites became compliant and ongoing checks are now in place. Several affiliates were warned of non-compliance and one was banned. During this entire process feedback was sought and invitations were made to attend meetings or submit suggestions.

So, your intentions are to...

a) Undermine a frankly incredible cross-industry initiative.
b) Insist on immediate, non collabarative change on the basis of 75 stakeholders, rather than the several thousand companies involved
c) Refuse to enter the established process for affecting change, thus undermining your own arguments.

I, agree with you, but your methodology is impossible to support in any meaningful way. Work with us, and perhaps the wider picture will come into view and you can feel more confident that you are being listened to.

[Mogga]

Personally, I do not agree with CTR (interesting how that no longer means click-through-rate!) however consensus states that the industry currently accepts it. If this consensus changes, the rules will too.

A large group of affiliates (Should we all turn up) wouldn't mean a consensus without all other stakeholders agreeing.

So even if there's a consensus amongst affiliates it wouldn't change the rules necessarily. I think from an affiliate point of view that's very frustrating.

[hpops]

A large group of affiliates (Should we all turn up) wouldn't mean a consensus without all other stakeholders agreeing.

So even if there's a consensus amongst affiliates it wouldn't change the rules necessarily. I think from an affiliate point of view that's very frustrating.

Sure, point taken Mogga and fairly argued. Consensus is a very very very hard thing to acheive in any walk of life. And yes, you may have an argument that isn't agreed with and things won't change. But a lack of representation can mean that the argument isn't heard. Outreach has been a theme of the AMC since its inception, and consecutive chairs and members have consistently sought affiliate representation and feedback. Although this thread has hardly been the way any of us would choose to receive it, it remains welcome.

[Leeky]

My intentions are

e) To simply remind people that something is wrong and needs changing.

It's not my place to do anything else, i'm merely an affiliate and a forum user.

My methodology maybe wrong, and it more than likely is considering i've so far been accused of...

Not listening to anyone elses opinions
A joke
An embarrasment to the industry
Trying to wreck the industry
A spoilt child
A whinger
Trying to be a demi god

... Just because perhaps my methods are wrong, but at least there has been no valid points as to why my views are wrong on this subject.

So why not just ignore how I go about things and concentrate on the real problem.. and that certainly is not me.

Lee

[Julie H]

WOW! Just stumbled upon this thread this morning and have laughed, taken deep breaths and been totally shocked. As I have attended the AMC's meetings most months for the past 2 years does this make me an exclusive member of the 'old boys club/network'? We've all been screaming out for more affiliates to attend as sometimes it feels like there are only 2 or 3 of us in the room (oh, wait there is)! Decisions are made with the majority, unfortunately thats what happens in a democratic society, I have argued the toss on wording before but as a single voice in a room I lost. I also know that it can be hard to get to London for the meetings, I have to get childcare for my kids for me to attend so I know it's difficult, I have to undertake an hour on the train and bus to get there which believe me is no picnic when you live in the sticks! If you'd like an issue raised and you don't trust any networks or agancies to bring it up then DM me and I'll do it for you, everyone who knows me will tell you that I'm not quiet and I definately don't sit on the fence.

It would, however, be nice to see some new faces (especially affiliate ones) at the meetings as looking at the 'old boys club' (said with tongue firmly in cheek) takes a strong stomach and gets a bit wearing at times ;-)

Plus, some of us more social people go for a pint or two after!

[moneysavingspy]

2 points:

1. There has to be some sort of policy in place for making changes to legislation. That's where these meetings come in. I know people have issues with them, but that's the way it is, so any changes have to be decided at those meetings. If anyone could just decide what they wanted as and when they wanted to, I think you'd agree that there'd be mayhem. Anyway I think someone pointed this out already.

2. One thing that has not been mentioned is the psychological aspect of voucher codes. When a user finds one that works, often there is a moment where they feel some success, as though they've gotten something for nothing, or gotten one-over on the retailer, and I'm sure this could affect conversion positively. I've not got enough data on this yet (it's not an easy thing to test) but I am sure there are instances where a user has the same product open on multiple sites in different windows, ready to buy, and is simply looking for the voucher code that gives them the biggest discount. (That's just one example.) In this case, you could argue that the site that gave them the code ultimately did help the sale, in which case 'Click to Reveal' has done it's job. Anyway, I think there's more to this subject than the arguments that have been pointed out. While they are certainly logical, they do not take into consideration psychological factors. For the record, I am on the fence when it comes to CTR.

Mani

[Mogga]

There has to be some sort of policy in place for making changes to legislation. That's where these meetings come in. I know people have issues with them, but that's the way it is, so any changes have to be decided at those meetings. If anyone could just decide what they wanted as and when they wanted to, I think you'd agree that there'd be mayhem.

That's fine.

Give me membership criteria, minutes of meetings and constitution of group - what makes it quorate, who can vote and everything else associated with normal organisations that make rules.

I'm trying to establish the mechanism by which affiliates (ie: me) can input into meetings without attending in person.

And over the last day or so I've found out that Matt and Julie H will put affiliate views forward.

[Leeky]

In this case, you could argue that the site that gave them the code ultimately did help the sale

Mani

At last a very valid point for keeping click to reveal

The thing is though everyone promotes the same codes, so it wouldn''t necessarily be the site that gave them the best code who got the commission, in most cases it would just be the last site who did nothing apart from use click to reveal.. unless however the code was exclusive, and so should also benefit from being able to use click to reveal on just exclusive codes for taking the time and effort to get an exclusive code for their visitors.

Lee

[Mogga]

At last a very valid point for keeping click to reveal .

Lee

No it's not. Unless that cookie was set when they put things in the basket they didn't help with the sale at all.
They help with the discount.

I genuinely don't believe people put things in the basket with the intention of getting 10% off at a later invisible point in the future.

I believe the shopper picks things they want, hunts down a voucher code (which if there was no CTR would stick the cookie where it was before and not modify it)

CTR cookie-naps. And that's the problem with it.

[thebusiness]

2. One thing that has not been mentioned is the psychological aspect of voucher codes.

Yes, but this isn't the point. Whether voucher codes work or not; or whether CTR is a legitimate means of rewarding affiliates is a valid one is not the issue.

The issue is that it provides a simple mechanism for abuse - in other words: it provides a dishonest affiliate the means to force a click and install a cookie where no code is given in return.

The reason some people want CTR banned is because this activity is allowed to continue. Banning CTR would eliminate the problem.

Yes, it is unfair to honest code site owners but nobody has yet suggested a better alternative other than maintaining the status quo?

[Leeky]

No it's not..

Yeah i know as outlined underneath in my post, but as far as valid points go, it was the most valid so far.

Lee

[moneysavingspy]

At last a very valid point for keeping click to reveal

The thing is though everyone promotes the same codes, so it wouldn''t necessarily be the site that gave them the best code who got the commission, in most cases it would just be the last site who did nothing apart from use click to reveal.. unless however the code was exclusive, and so should also benefit from being able to use click to reveal on just exclusive codes for taking the time and effort to get an exclusive code for their visitors.

Lee

You're absolutely right - the vast majority of voucher codes that I've seen are non-exclusive. However, if done rightly and fairly, I don't think that CTR is such a bad thing - if the code is valid, that is. We pride ourselves on always hiding codes that have expired, and in over 99% of cases not showing voucher codes that are not yet valid. The times we have been caught out are when we've not been given sufficient information from the retailer. Anyway, I'm going off-topic...

Back on-topic, here's another example of when CTR could be considered valuable: Let's say I send an email to our database of users telling them about an amazing new voucher code that is now valid. Users come to our site, but without CTR, they can just copy the code and use it whenever they like. They might not even buy anything until later. Now if they have to drop a cookie to see the code, then again, I think this is a fair swap - they get a code, we get commission if they buy something.

On the flip-side, if someone finds a product via our product listings, clicks through, but then gets a voucher code from another site to make the sale, we've lost out. So I can see it from both sides. I think we're quite an unusual affiliate in that respect, because we do have voucher codes listed on our site, but they are becoming a smaller and smaller part of our site as time passes. Anyway, going off-topic again.

Perhaps the IAB needs to be more vocal with regards to minutes, etc? I'm pretty new to this field and 6 months ago I knew very little about them. I do think they need to be pushing more info more often, as well as trying to get more people involved. I'm not suggesting that they're doing nothing, but certainly when I first started looking at affiliate marketing, I wondered what this IAB was all about. I'm not sure how they could get more exposure but I think it would help them. It's a tricky one, because it's easy for everyone to say things like this, but offering a solution is a lot harder. It's easy to say 'they need to be doing more, disseminating more information', etc, but when you actually stop and try to think of ways in which they could do this, it's not that straightforward. Not to me anyway...

Mani

[PhiltheBear]

I'm not quite sure why there's a fuss.

I could put a button on my site which says "Buy Here" and which launches a merchant site.

I could put a button on my site which says "Read More" and which launches a merchant site.

I could put a button on my site which says "Get your voucher here" which then shows a voucher and which launches a merchant site.

I could put a button on my site which shows a Voucher code and the text beside it says "Click the code to get your discount" and which launches a merchant site.

My guess is that 99% of people use versions of the first two. Both will lay down a cookie - and, arguably, one is misleading.

If I use the third method a) it's not misleading and b) immediately presents the viewer with the opportunity to use the voucher. It also lays down a cookie.

If I use the 4th then it immediately presents the viewer with the opportunity to use the voucher. It also lays down a cookie.

In all cases exactly the same cookie is laid down and, in all cases, the viewer has had to instigate the action. As far as I can see the vast majority of networks use the latest visit to plant a cookie. So, if the viewer doesn't buy immediately but returns later then, in all cases, either the cookie is there, it has expired or it has been overridden by someone else planting a new one. The cost to the merchant will be identical.

However, if none of the buttons are pressed then the merchant won't be paying out. Yet, arguably again, the viewer's visit to my site was the reason for the visit to the merchant's site - but this time I don't get rewarded.

As it happens I don't use CTR and I don't plan to. But I've seen no convincing argument put forward in this thread for banning it. What am I missing?

[moneysavingspy]

No it's not. Unless that cookie was set when they put things in the basket they didn't help with the sale at all.
They help with the discount.

I genuinely don't believe people put things in the basket with the intention of getting 10% off at a later invisible point in the future.

I believe the shopper picks things they want, hunts down a voucher code (which if there was no CTR would stick the cookie where it was before and not modify it)

CTR cookie-naps. And that's the problem with it.

Do you have evidence to back this up? I'm not saying you're wrong, but what you believe and what is true aren't always the same thing. And anyway, what really matters is what the retailers believe - you need to convince them. And look at it from their point of view: they're making money. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If they ban CTR and suddenly sales drop 10%, what then? Reinstate it? I think ultimately merchants will decide what's best for them - some will work without voucher code sites, and some will. If enough merchants stop working with voucher code sites, then maybe things will change.

Bear in mind I am not trying to start an argument with you - I just want you to see this the way merchants will see it. If you were a merchant, would you risk the loss in revenue or just try to keep things the same? Especially in the run-up to Xmas!

Mani