Merchants - What do you really think of us affiliates when.....

[NaturalInstinct]

Tweet

Originally posted by Emma AdSelect


I think it's fair enough for a merchant to want to make sure their brand is being represented in the way they want.

It's certainly fair, it's their decision at the end of the day. However it still seem to me that they are being a bit silly. If they really do understand the market as has been suggested then I can't believe they would put these restrictions in place.

I can see why they want to be in total control but surely if it's a the risk of reducing sales then they would be sensible to let some of that control slip ?

[Spreader]

Hello all,

Good question that - just what I needed as I was on my way home on a Friday night

My answer would be: "not really".

Don't get me wrong, it's great when you type in one of our keywords/product titles and we top the pile, but I also appreciate that affiliate marketing is a massive part of our marketing mix. In fact it's the biggest part of our marketing - no questions asked.

So, I'd much rather see 10 links on the first page of google, all (eventually) leading to Prezzybox.com (via my affiliates) than to my competitors any day of the week.

And lets face it. In the majority of instances you guys are much better at SEO than we are, so it makes sense that you are higher than us.

Thats my two penneths worth. I'm off down the juicer!

Zak.

[Firebox]

In a highly competitive field like ours, I'd be happy for the top natural link to point to our product and not another retailer's. That it comes via an affiliate than directly means there is a cost, but at least we get the revenue less that cost rather than SFA that happens when that visitor ends up elsewhere.

[Spreader]

rather than SFA that happens when that visitor ends up elsewhere.

LOL!

I was sat here for ages thinking - "blimey. SFA, is that a technical term? - it's no wonder Firebox do so well, they know all the jargon!!!".

Then it dawned on me...

[tobyt]

The other point that I neglected to mention previously, is that if a merchant is shortsighted to ban any PPCadvertising that includes their name, they are actually cutting off their nose to spite their face...

.... why?

... because their are literally thousands of search phrases that are being used by potential customers that use the merchants name. Many include 3 and 4 word search phrases which it is absolutely impossible for the merchant to cover within their own SEO work - if in fact they do any. In a 3,4, 5 word search phrases it is possible for the customer to end up on a competitors site because the optimisation work has been done by that other merchant, or an affiliate of theirs, to place emphasis on the other words that are not the merchants brandname. So what happens, because they are not allowing and bidding on any phrases that include their brandname, they have lost the sale. And this is widespread, not the occasional instance.

Sadly I really believe that much of this is caused by the arrogance of the merchants management believing they have a God-given right to appear first in the list, when in reality the SE's are not about God given rights or expectations.

Interestingly enough, just as I suggested in my first contribution we have yet to see any contribution or answers in this thread coming from any of the High St merchants that actually ban the use of their names in PPC work. If in fact they have noticed this thread, I suspect they have no answers.... and are maybe realising that their initial decisions may have actually been based on an incorrect assumptions or lack of knowledge and planning. If that is the case, c'mon guys n' gals...you have anonymity, either make some comments or ask some questions....cause at the end of the day it is you and your affiliate program that stands to benefit as much as anyone else.

[jess1]

If an affiliate reaches top positions in the search engine listings for a merchant on their name (excluding PPC for the moment) then it suggests that the merchant is either not SEO savvy, has no time, does not have a budget to employ some one to do this. My take on this instance is, let the affiliate do what he/she does best and let them be, just because the merchant can't do it... does the merchant want sales or does the merchant not! I know what I would choose.

I am in two minds about PPC bidding on the name and it is a control issue. Most affiliates play fair, they do not mislead their visitors. The problem I have encountered time and time again, is the affiliate that thinks he/she can point their link to a page that is lacking in any content and is just a banner farm. It is misrepresentation and they are reluctant to seek advice/respond to my emails. ASOS would have no problems on affiliate bidding on their name, if we could ensure that the affiliates are representing ASOS.com in the best possible light or at the very least the link goes to ASOS.com ( I kid you not ) I do not have the time to keep policing this either. I am open to suggestions on this

My personal opinion, is... we dont have the resources for our own PPC so let the affiliates do it! We do have lots of discussions about this in the office... At the end of the day, its about making a sale and the point is do we want more sales or do we not? I think ASOS is at a crossroads re PPC on our name and Toby T, yup I agree for the most part in what you have said.

Jess :0)

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Realisticlly what is the difference between paid listings & organic search, they are both fall under the same banner of seo or search engine marketing, it's just the element of cost associated with each varies.

Merchants preventing brand named bidding can be associated with, hyperthetically speaking, Sony preventing Dixons from advertising in their shop window or any form of P.O.S. (point of sale which the store has paid for) that they sell Sony dvd players. I would go into any theories of whether the brand belongs to the company or the consumer.

My view on brand name bidding on ppc seach engines is that the merchant should allow the affiliate more latitude & freedom to operate, the results can be almost instantaneous and potentiall saves the merchant time & resources to redirect at other channels they have more expertise in. Leave search engine marketing to the professionals.

If the merchant is involved with ppc themselves, some very simple criteria could be incorporated to co-exist within the marketing arena without hinderance to anyone.

- With regard to their brand name restrict the maximum bid on that brand name, but only on the actual registered mark. Not phrases, permutations & combinations of keyword terms or even mispellings which may contain the mark. Due to the significant number of terms merchants generally do not have the resources to cover every single base, even though by ignorance they think they do.

- Any phrase containing the registered mark or suggestion of the mark should link directly to the merchant site only,

- The word affiliate or aff should be clearly stated with the advertisement copy.

Sometimes a merchants ignorance is purely due to lack of education or communication and affiliates may be a bit wiser on this front.

Imhotep, who wrote Egyptian texts & instructions in the wisdom tradition which first appeared around 2700 BC is quoted as saying.

"Do not be proud of being wise. Consult with the ignorant as with the wise."


Where merchants do fall down or their uneducated agencies representing them fall down, is when they still restrict brand name bidding it should only be on the ACTUAL terms they hold a trademark certification on or registered mark. Not any phrase that could contain the mark.

Brand name biddng is also a good litmus test on a merchant, if they can't convert on their brand name, it's little use focusing on more generic terms or product specific keyword phrases Whereby an affiliate will provide many extra sales. You'll be surprised how many merchants cannot convert traffic on their brand name, this litmus test can ascertain the effectiveness of a merchant & whether it's worth prioritising on your site, or pushing their datafeed or using ppc on non-branded targeted phrases.

Also for a merchant there are a significant number of keyword phrases for a merchant whereby they don't show up on the first page of an organic search, on average a merchant will lose about 50% of its potential customers.

Another reason is that either a competitor may do it or the results go to a page where there is the possibility of too much leakage to a rival company.

It can actually lower costs for the merchant (case by case).

Too many merchants clamp down on affiliates rather than organisations.

Retailers can easily establish such rules and reap the same benefits. Like say don't bid on the actual registered mark, but phrases mispelling are okay, even suggest a max bid. Some merchants take complete libertys by actually over extending their rights on the mispelings & variations and even generic terms.

For example BT Broadband, if they restrict BT Broadband they would be under the misconception that if someone typed in "BT broadband" only their ad would appear. But with broad matching, ads on Google would show for anyone bidding on broadband which would probably be their competitors. Inessence they are shooting themselves in the foot.

However one problem that has been around for a while and ever increasingly becoming a further problem are when agencies misrepresent the brand. Say they have a £100,000 budget on ppc. The agency prevents the affiliate from bidding, then they are frivoulous with their clients spend by over bidding but also getting a cut from both sides. 15% commission from the pay per click search engine & 15% of their clients spend. Effectively taking a cut from both ends.

With pcc there are more pros than cons on brand name bidding in essence protecting the brand at forefront of search for phrases and mispellings where the merchant wouldn't otherwise appear at the top or even the first page of organic search.

On tests we've conducted we have calculated merchants would infact loose over 50% of vistors / potential customers, plus the affiliate is taking the financial risk. So many, in fact most merchants don't even bid on their own brand.

As Toby rightfully suggested, nobody has any god given right to rank highly in search engines if its their brand or not and perhaps this arrogance needs to be addressed to those parties are are either misinformed or misinforming their clients.


http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNews.asp?id=12328

Typical example of a brand losing out:


Lets take Churchill Car Insurance, who enforce a restricted keyword policy. A popular mispelling is double "h" i.e churc[b]hh[/]ill. Where do you see their own site on the first page of organic search?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...hurchhill&meta=

Next type in "Churchill Car Insurance"

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...l+Car+Insurance

Granted they appear top in organic search, but then you have a large leakage of traffic for advertisers bidding on "car insurance" due to the broad match of Google adwords. In this instance they have taken an ad themselves to cover their bases, but many merchants don't. Have a look on espotting and you'll see the churchill ad trailing in 11th position

Scenarios involve their competitiors bidding on variations where by an affiliate will strive to push the traffic directly to the merchant without offering unecessary alternatives..., affiliates take the financial risk as well.

With all possible variations, permutations & combinations it ensures that the merchant stays at the forefront of the search listings. The merchant has an army of affiliates, a powerful virtual online sales & marketing force at their disposal but they want to gag it & constrain it.

The only thing that bemuses me is that cos sponsored listings are so prominent over and above natural search, some of these merchants that adopt a strict keyword policy don't even use ppc themselves on their brand, in essence being quite foolish or arrogrant once again.

Argos is an example who don't appear in sponsored ads on Google or Espotting for "Argos". The phrase "argos shop" is one of their most popular search phrases, but where do they appear in natural search or sponsored listings,,,absolutely no where.

I could demonstate this with 100's of merchants & thousands of phrases. There are merchants out there losing 1000's if not million's of £'s in revenue through ignorance & arrogance.

The only thing I suggest is that if merchants choose to restrict keywords, it's only on the ACTUAL trademarked term. Not variations or mispellings that they don't hold the trademark licences for, unless of course they have a ppc specialist team which is often an agency who charge their client well over the odds to make themselves look good when an affiliates could it at a lower cpa.

Often these restrictions are imposed by those uneducated traditional agencies who generally shun online advertising or don't understand it like affiliates do. Fortunately the agencies who participate on this forum DO understand affiliate marketing.

[jess1]

ASOS and asseenonscreen are registered trademarks

[goforbroke]

Definately a few interesting points raised so far. I used to work for a stair lift manufacturer and got them listed on page one on Google for key search terms. Part of my strategy was to link them from one of my own high ranking personal pages. When I left (just had enough and handed in my notice) the IT manager insisted I remove links to the firms website from mine! I don't think they've yet sussed why they can't get back on page one!

I don't actually use PPC, not very often anyhow, and stick with the good old fashioned way of trying to be tops naturally. Using mainly text linking, I am obviously going to use brand and trade names, else I would end up with text like:

"I know of a website which is extremely well presented and there brand product which I'm not allowed to mention should really be looked at as it can do this, that and the other. I'm not allowed to say who they are or mention any of their brands, but if you would like to visit their site, please follow this link!" - Yeah, right!!!

I believe there is one such company who state in their terms that you cannot use their name at all. For fear of getting into trouble, I cannot tell you who they are, or what they do! However, if I just say "European Money - Distant Sun" you will figure it out!

Whilst I'm on the subject, does anyone promote that company using the Euro Sherrifs Badge trade name? I do, and if they ever complain, there will be fewer trips taken by rail and more by air as far as I'm concerned. Same goes for any other merchant. This game is hard enough without having to try and work round silly stuff like that.

[mcol]

sometime last year I set up a little site specifically to promote one retro football shirt merchant.

It immediately ranked top dog on google and they responded by immediately suspending me.

Rang up to find out why and got some chinless wonder responding with "oh well we never considered anyone would actually do that" and accusing me (wholly incorrectly) of pirating their images.

Not a mistake I'll make again. Numer two is a good place to be.

[tobyt]

mcol - just for your information, if that merchant had not expressly forbidden you to do that when you joined and were accepted into that Affiliate relationship, they are actually breaching the terms and conditions of the Affiliate Agreement by suspending you like they did, and in theory you have legal recourse against them for doing that.

On most networks there are certain terms and conditions that are presented by the merchant ,and in signing up as an affiliate and in being accepted by the merchant, you are actually entering into a legally binding agreement with that merchant. Once you are in that agreement neither party can vary the terms and conditions of that agreement without the express permission of the other party. So in your case they would not have had a legal right to terminate your relationship for the action you took - assuming you represented them on your site in a professional manner.

I have had a number of situations like this over the last 5 years. In some situations where the merchant attempts to treat me arrogantly, I will deliberately leave the page up there in a top position and send their traffic to their competitors until they apologise and compensate me for taking it down. I currently have a dispute with a significant player in the flower market that breached the agreement we entered into with them. They are still trying to get me to take it down, 7 months later. And as soon as they approach the issue with some degree of respect I will oblige...but not until. However be warned, that if you want to do this you need to have some understanding of your legal rights, and the necessary disclaimers that you need to put on the page so you cannot be done for either misrepresentation or what is legally described as "passing off".

The other approach is to place on the "offending page", an apology to your customers for not being able to promote that particular merchant any longer, and provide for your customers a truthful and accurate statement of what took place. As long as you ensure that it is a true and accurate statement of what took place, you cannot be easily sued for slander or libel ....and often taking this approach brings a rapid communication from the offending merchant seeking some kind of reconciliation....primarily because customers love to read this kind of stuff about naughty merchants.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not mentioning this to appear as a bit of a smart-arse, but I hate and detest being treated like a mug, and believe that such situations should always be treated with both the merchant and the affiliate having a mutual respect for each other.

[BigB]

Hey mcol, please tell me how to optimise for that number 2 slot on Google - just can't seem to get away from number 1

[mcol]

What I never did work out is why the retro football shirt company had an affiliate scheme anyway as they have a virtual monopoly on most of the shirts.

Still, redirected the links to other footie sites and covered my costs well enough.

As to arguing the legalities - no thanks. I'd rather work with merchants who want to work with me instead of arguing with clueless wallys. Life's just too short for that. Of course if it had been a lot of money at stake I might have had a different attitude.

[Wardy]

Originally posted by mcol
What I never did work out is why the retro football shirt company had an affiliate scheme anyway as they have a virtual monopoly on most of the shirts.

There are absolutely tens of thousands of football sites out there to do with every club around. Not everyone knows that you can buy retro football shirts so no doubt they get a good number of sites linking to specific club shirts!

Cheers
Wardy