One Network or Multiple Networks?

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Tweet

As an affiliate would you prefer a program to be on just one network or multiple networks?

Consdering factors like service you receive, tracking, reporting, payment, spyware etc...

[1st Stop]

I think it would be good to have them spread over most of the major networks!

Then the network would have to take care of its affiliates better to stop them jumping ship to their competitors!

It would also ensure that Merchants get maximum exposure!

[justnozy]

Wouldn't multiple networks mean a proportionate increase in expenses ( set -up costs, admin, extra bank chg's etc ).
Therefore in theory reducing either their competitiveness or ability to offer higher commissions ?

I would also think that by sticking to one network they are more able to manage the programme more efficiently.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

There are points for and against, but personally I would prefer it being on at least two networks.

Since we are in a PBM (Performance Based Market). Networks should be relying on CPA rather than £300 per hour consultancy fees. I believe merchants and affiliates would be better looked after in order to establish a rapport and/or trust with that party, whther it be network / affiliate or network / merchant, effectively leading to a better service and better managed programs.

I don't disgaree with networks having an initial set up cost or monthly retainer, but the quotes are quite diverse and some are fairly excessive / extortionate which can be a barrier to entry.

[Fraser]

2 networks suits me, I like to have a choice of which network to use and also I do think it makes the network work harder to provide for their client.

I think any merchant that only signs up to a network which tolerates spyware could suffer.

I do think Justnozy has a point and when merchants start running programs on 4 or more networks then the costs of monthly fees etc would be better passed on to affiliates instead.

[Helen]

Costs do vary on networks, as a consultant the biggest issue we have from merchants is their limited knowledge of this area and complete believability of the networks. I heard recently some networks have been claiming that leading affiliates will only work with their network, if they sign an exclusive 12 month deal with them as a network they will get the costs lowered for set up and admin costs - all in an attempt to stop them getting on another network

I guess from a merchant perspective 2 networks are beneficial if the costs are set right and the reasoning is clear. The key is that an affiliate only works with one of those two networks so their sales data isn't spread over 2 networks for reporting and management purposes! When I worked on a retail account some affiliates would have links from both programs which took more time to understand their performance and allocate the right commission tiers etc

helen

[Mike_M]

We use four networks now on which to advertise Car Credit UK and Life180.

We haven't had to reduce commissions as a result, and it has meant that we receive at least 3 times as many leads as we would have done on one network.

The main advantage is that it gives our affiliates the choice of which network to use. Every network we use, one or more affiliates has a problem dealing with that network for some reason or another. In most cases they will just promote us on another network because the commissions are the same.

It also puts the onus on the network to work hard to keep its affiliates loyal and happy.

Mike.

[john924]

I would prefer them to be on alot of the networks as some networks have better tracking than others, have different linking methods, different payment plans, etc.

You will even find that exactly the same programs in some networks pay different amounts than in some of the other networks.

[Jamster]

There is certainly a degree of dimishing returns when spreading over several networks.
Jamster! has recently consolidated onto just two networks.

Some factors influencing me towards fewer networks:

Tracking is simpler.
Program management is easier.
Costs are lower.
Technology implementation is simpler (product feeds etc).
Most publishers are registered across several networks anyway, so access to larger numbers of partners is still available.
Overall communication is more effective.
Program maintenance is simpler (creatives etc).
Partner segmentation is easier.

[Jean]

One or two networks works better for me. With two many networks you would spend all day checking stats. Some networks are able to obtain better content than others, thereby giving us more options.

You may also lose an element of the personal touch and the ability to negotiate better return rates if spread too thinly.

[Malcolm Cowley]

Hard to box this one up .

I think two - The one they choose and the one I like to use :-)

As I said hard to box up as how does the merchant know which network I like without asking me .

Merchants choose agents who choose networks or they choose networks themselves and in both cases its normally for different reasons than who do affiliates like to use.

Not often you get a Blue Chip actually doing its homework on affiliate preference , you only have to look at Ladbrokes for that one - did they ever come to me and ask where I would like them to get a program ? Of course they didnt as I would only be one of the biggest sportsbook afilliates so why keep me happy - doh! Suffice to say they dont and wont receive any traffic from me until they open another scheme somewhere else

The day merchants wake up to the fact that networks sell themselves and ultimately affiliates are the ones they need to consider then the better off we will all be.

If I was a Blue chip I would get myself in google - type in the main keywords one would look for if they wanted my service or a competitors and drop the top sites in their a mail asking their opinion.

Happy affiliates do twice as many sales - the problem is when a merchant doesnt know their potential for sales they see a load come through any network and think woohooo - what they should be thinking is I wonder if my affs are totally happy as the amount they are so chuffed about might be half of what they could achieve if they were somewhere else.

Choice is a good thing as you cant please everyone all of the time so there will always be affs who like certain networks - exclusives are bull and if your offered one for a perceiveed business reasons run a mile as to be asking you for one is to show a weakness / fear of loss against competition.

If you do set up two programs then create a totally level playing field and then you can see where the best affiliates migrate to and ultimately which network you should then consolidate with.

Ta

Mal

[pistol101]

In theory there is really only the need for one network as merchants should be working with working with the affiliates to get them on driving the business.

It makes sense to be on two networks:
1. Networks do feck up and it's not been unknown for networks to go bust. I'm sure it will happen again.
2. Some networks do have a better reach at picking up affiliates.
3. Affiliates do have preferences over networks
4. There are now exclusive affiliates, both for networks and against certain networks.

I can't see the point of more than 2, affiliate managers should be out working with affiliates rather than uploading banners, creatives, paying bills etc.

Set-up costs and network costs shouldn't be an issue if your programme is succesful enough.