Conflicting Affiliate Cookies

**uksports** · 23-10-04

Actually uksports, I was just thinking, if your system was actually better you wouldn’t need to flip a coin to see who gets paid

Once again, I think your'e getting your thinking and reading a bit mixed up - the problem was seen before the new system was put in place, not after so that statement is irrelevant

<snip rest> It's a very simple system that works.

Yes, I can see that, but our new system was put in place to aid all sorts of current and foreseeable maladies across the whole business; solving affiliate tracking problems under current conditions was just one element of the equation and we will continue to work to solve issues like cookies being blocked from the users browser - because we can track the whole session now, one way may be for IP of the person clicking the link to be tracked and matched as well - that has it's own problems (browser IP blockers, AOL etc) but is something that is being looked at.

**Supercod** · 23-10-04

Originally posted by uksports
Once again, I think your'e getting your thinking and reading a bit mixed up - the problem was seen before the new system was put in place, not after so that statement is irrelevant.

Not really as I read what you first posted and you didn't say anything about a new system in your first post. You made statement like "which is what we do" as if to imply this is what you currently do, but then in a follow up post you talk about a new system that solves the issue, that as you can see is very confusing. Also I am still not 100% in that your system works on return visitors and also knows who the last network was to send the customer and only show its tracking code to stop duplicate sales from showing.

Anyway on to your other point, if you don't actually work with your networks to solve the no cookie issue then your work on it is pointless (unless your doing an Indy Program) as I already pointed out the networks you work with can't track without cookies (there is a few exceptions to this when certain details are being passed to the merchant and they upload CSV files however most merchants I have seen doing this still use cookies anyway).. Only Paid On Results has had a system in place for over a year and half now that can track without the need of cookies, all be it only for maximum time period of 6 hours.

However I do admire that your taking positive steps to ensure your affiliates get payment from non-cookie sales and that is excellent as many a merchant couldn't careless, but this is certainly not true of the majority who post here as by that very act they are showing they actively care about the affiliate marketing side of the business.

**Rich** · 23-10-04

we have now gone beyond the practice of local cookies so that the whole visitor session is now tracked and recorded so that we can be completely sure of where all our sales come from

I can't see how that is an improvement over local cookies. Just in case anyone isn't clear, bylocal cookies Supercod is meaning setting a cookie to say what the source of the last visitor was, if it was from a source the merchant has to pay for.

E.g. you could have a 'source' cookie that you set to networkA, networkB, OurPPC depending if the user came from affiliate network A, network B or your own PPC efforts.

Then, on your checkout page, you can just show the network A tracking image if the 'source' is set to networkA, etc.

As long as you are keeping the local cookie for at least as long as the network cookie (it really should be for as long as possible) then you should have a reliable solution that will avoid duplicate commissions and mean you don't pay on leads from your own expedature.

The important thing is you only overwrite the local cookie if some one else is to be paid for the traffic - e.g. it wouldn't be fair to overwrite it if the user comes from natural search results or from a non affilaite link.

So if you're tracking users by session I can't see how that improves things. Say a user visits from network A affilite X, then returns the following day from network B affiliate Y, then returns the following day by directly typing in your web address and places an order, I can't see how session tracking would help you decide which network to track the commission to.

**pistol101** · 23-10-04

I have to say that local cookie systems are a nightmare and cause more problems than they solve. It's taken networks years to develop tracking systems and local cookie systems just never have the technical expertise behind them and cause problems. I've never seen a system that has actually tracked sales correctly or caused more work than they actually save in cross tracking sales.

By not displaying the tracking codes correctly then the affiliates are losing sales and promoting merchants less. We only allow local cookies on affiliatefuture on new merchants if the merchants shows the tracking on every confirmation page.

Merchants buy advertising on TV in magazine, on buses etc, there will always been cross tracking sales and merchants should pay out for them.

If however the % of sales starts to rise then the issue is not how to stop the double commissions, but why are the happening. In Darren's example at the start the visitor has clearly wanted to buy the product, the merchant needs to convert this visitor the first time. I can bet you that some visitors haven't come back and made a purchase with them. Darren has issues over promoting this merchant, and this should have never happened and Darren earnt the money. The merchants PPC should never have been needed.

**Supercod** · 23-10-04

Originally posted by pistol101
I have to say that local cookie systems are a nightmare and cause more problems than they solve. It's taken networks years to develop tracking systems and local cookie systems just never have the technical expertise behind them and cause problems. I've never seen a system that has actually tracked sales correctly or caused more work than they actually save in cross tracking sales.

Pete this is an issue where you don't know what you’re talking about. Advanced MP3 Players had a huge problem (documented on this form) with sales showing on AF, AW and TD.. no one wanted to help them, in the end I stepped in and offered free advice and got the problem sorted. The solutions they got (not from me) was drop all the other networks and just use us only.. talk about looking after yourself and not the merchants best interest.

Local cookie systems are very, very simple. And solve loads of issues the only nightmare part is when networks can't be bothered to take the couple of mins to explain how it works.

Originally posted by pistol101
By not displaying the tracking codes correctly then the affiliates are losing sales and promoting merchants less. We only allow local cookies on affiliatefuture on new merchants if the merchants shows the tracking on every confirmation page.

Yes I agree if they are not displaying them correct, however that's got nothing to do with local cookies, what that's got to do with is merchants that don't set there systems up correctly and networks that can't be bothered to test them.

Originally posted by pistol101
Merchants buy advertising on TV in magazine, on buses etc, there will always been cross tracking sales and merchants should pay out for them.

Yeah that's fine, no one said anything to the contrary. However merchants should not have to pay out or the same sale over 2 of even 3 networks and they certainly should not be picking at random who gets paid.

Originally posted by pistol101
If however the % of sales starts to rise then the issue is not how to stop the double commissions, but why are the happening.

No the issue is if systems are set up correctly then double commissions will never happen, it's only when they are not and are given bad advice that these issues happen.

From network side of things, we often come across merchants that are give very poor advice that is not based on any technical knowledge of the area and this is very frustrating not only for us but for them as they don't know who to trust on the subject. The good thing about this forum is I can point them to countless posts where people have had problems in the past and then show them a full technical argument for using the system should they wish to be on more than 1 network. Just like if tracking codes are not put in correctly then they won't work and the same is true if local cookies are not set up correctly but it's the networks duty to test and make sure it works before making it live for affiliates.

Edit: this issue is very close to my heart, as I have been campaigning for correct practices from merchant in affiliate marketing for some time as anything less is directly effecting my affiliate income.

I think the only way to have it solved is for me to work with the other networks and thrash out a “standard” for merchants on more than one network that everyone should follow (who has agreed and singed up to this of course).. We are about to see an explosion in new networks in 2005 and many of them wont’ care or have a clue about such issues so I can only see it getting worse before it gets better.

**pistol101** · 25-10-04

[QUOTE]Pete this is an issue where you don't know what you’re talking about. QUOTE]

No my experience is dealing with a number of merchants with live programmes. I've seen at least 20 different tracking issues with local cookies and thats still growing. If you don't believe me then it's something that you'll learn with experience.

The actual issues of genuine double commissions are very minimal, however there are a number of issues which by using local cookies you will miss.

Firstly - Spyware, we have a clean network however i know others don't. I've also seen spyware free networks have affiliates using it. I've seen merchants buy the traffic direct as well.
Secondly - Site name bidding. Someone comes through my site decides not to buy some envelopes, go off check out to check other sites, then type in the merchants names to google. Type in Euroffice, there are 10 affiliate links here. Who is the right affiliate to earn in this case?
Thirdly - incorrect tracking. I've seen merchant put tracking into the wrong place.
Fourth - The user signs up to a newsletter and then buys from the newsletter links setting local cookies.
Fifth - Cookie stuffing.
Sixth - Domain name squatting

I can go on with this list.

At the end of the day the merchants need sensible marketing advice not a technical solution which could potentially demolish their programme. It's the merchants programme and they need to run the programme so that it works for them....just within sensible guidelines.

If you believe that local cookies are the way to go then thats upto you. The affiliates will be the first people to question your integrity as a network when the conversions aren't there.

**amanda1** · 25-10-04

In response to the original post from a Merchant view:

We keep track of the first visit from an affiliate on our system and if the customer were to revisit our site directly or through google via our own PPC within 60-Days the affiliate would still receive the commission for this sale. Even from a merchant stand point I can not understand how they could reject your sale unless they have a short cookie and your cookie had already expired? The point of having say a 60-day cookie is to our honour our trusted affiliates with promoting us, with the knowledge that it sometimes takes 3 or 4 visits before a customer will actually buy.

The only other instance I can think is that if the customer clicked through via another affiliates link which would therefore credit the second affiliate with the sale.

Hope this helps.
I'm still learning, but this I know.

Amanda Hayes

**lakrasia** · 25-10-04

Glad to hear from Amanda that this merchant works in the way I expected and the way I think is correct.

I realise it's complicated though, so won't argue with the rest of you.

*****
Linda

**Barry** · 25-10-04

Fundamentally I think if the 'customer' clicks on one of my affiliate links and then returns to the merchant through the merchants own PPC activity I think the merchant should be awarded the sale. I know I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but its only fair.

If however the 'customer' clicked on my affiliate link and then the next day came back through google (natural listings - or froogle for that matter) I think the sale should be rewards to me.

I'm not getting involved in the network *****in' goin on

but I do think that it the responsibilty to overcome this problem by using local cookies is one the networks should be taking onboard. It can only help to raise commission rates offered by merchants as their program become less costly to run.

**Supercod** · 25-10-04

Originally posted by pistol101
No my experience is dealing with a number of merchants with live programmes. I've seen at least 20 different tracking issues with local cookies and thats still growing. If you don't believe me then it's something that you'll learn with experience.

Pete, are we talking about the same thing here? I really do think you got this mixed up on this issue, going by what you said in your full post. By the way lets not question my experience in affiliate marketing, I never questioned yours

Originally posted by pistol101
The actual issues of genuine double commissions are very minimal, however there are a number of issues which by using local cookies you will miss.

Very minimal ah? I take it 50% of sales showing over 2 networks for a merchant is minimal then, please read this post http://www.a4uforum.co.uk/showthread...threadid=13357 and see the quote from advancedmp3 "We have an affiliate program with Affiliate Window and a program with Affiliate Future. At the moment, the reason why there is such a high cancellation rate with Affiliate Window is because nearly 50% of sales that appear on our Affiliate Window account are duplicated on our Affiliate Future account. These duplicated sales are for the same item, ordered by the same customer and at exactly the same time."

So I wouldn't call that minimal.

Yes there is a number of issues with local cookies if not setup correctly and tested by the network; however the ones you give below are not issues.

Originally posted by pistol101
Firstly - Spyware, we have a clean network however i know others don't. I've also seen spyware free networks have affiliates using it. I've seen merchants buy the traffic direct as well.

You do know that when a merchant is using local cookies that the affiliate still has to use the links supplied by the network and not link direct to the merchant. This is where I think you have got the term "local cookies" mixed up with "local tracking", if you have it’s no big deal. It is better to say so everyone is clear what we are talking about.

Originally posted by pistol101
Secondly - Site name bidding. Someone comes through my site decides not to buy some envelopes, go off check out to check other sites, then type in the merchants names to google. Type in Euroffice, there are 10 affiliate links here. Who is the right affiliate to earn in this case?

The right affiliate would be the last one to send the customer to the merchant site last before the customer makes a purchase. The rights and wrongs of merchant name bidding is a whole different post and nothing to do with local cookies as it's an issue that also effects normal straight forward links.

Originally posted by pistol101
Thirdly - incorrect tracking. I've seen merchant put tracking into the wrong place.

I have seen merchants do the same without local cookies, again this is not an issue that only effects local cookies it affects all links. A network should always test a merchant when they make a major change to their sites.

Originally posted by pistol101
Fourth - The user signs up to a newsletter and then buys from the newsletter links setting local cookies.

A merchant should not be doing that and a merchant could for example be using the network links in their newsletters so again not an issue to do with just local cookies. If any merchant was doing this they would be found out and outed by the affiliates, that would soon put a stop to them.

Originally posted by pistol101
Fifth - Cookie stuffing.

??????? Again I point out the affiliates have to use the networks links, so no issue here.

Originally posted by pistol101
Sixth - Domain name squatting

??????? Not just a local cookie issue, but again I point out the affiliate needs to use the networks links.

Originally posted by pistol101
I can go on with this list.

Please don't unless they are real issues that relate to local cookies.

Originally posted by pistol101
At the end of the day the merchants need sensible marketing advice not a technical solution which could potentially demolish their programme. It's the merchants programme and they need to run the programme so that it works for them....just within sensible guidelines.

Yes of course the merchant needs sensible marketing advice, however what do you think affiliate networks do for the override, they should also be giving technical solutions to things that are big problems for merchants and affiliates alike. If you want to read that post by advancedmp3 again you will see that many affiliates were not happy that the merchant was picking to approve AF sales over AW one's. The merchant was with AF, AW and TD yet it was me that told him how to solve the problem and even talked to their development company over the very basic steps needed to make it work.

Originally posted by pistol101
If you believe that local cookies are the way to go then thats upto you. The affiliates will be the first people to question your integrity as a network when the conversions aren't there.

I truly do believe that this is the only solution at present that allows merchants to work on multi-networks without problems for them or the affiliate. It should not affect conversion rates in the slightest if set-up correct. Merchants that don't, often get hit by fraudster affiliates trying to cash in, it's a real shame as that ultimately sees good affiliates commissions staying low to compensate for money they are losing from fraud. Anyway Pete I am not getting at you personally as I know you know your beans however this is one issue I put a lot of research into, and posts from people like yourself that are not correct damages, what is a very good and effective system. I still think you have mixed up "local cookies" with "local tracking" and as your not the technical chap in your company this is understandable. Local Tracking has far too many things going against than for it and should only ever be entered in to if you trust the merchant 100%.

Here I will explain “Local Cookies” for everyone to read and understand that is not technical, I hope this clears it up for everyone.

Local Cookies don't track sales, because they can't track sales. The name make it sound something special - it isn't, a local cookie is simply a normal everyday browser cookie, but it is set on the merchants web site (the merchants domain name) and not set by the affiliate network on the networks domain.

When you click through an affiliate link, the affiliate network will set a cookie, and this still happens, but merchants using this system will also set there own cookie on there own domain. For people who are not aware, cookies can only be read by the domain name it was set by. So no other web site can read a cookie set by an affiliate network, only the network itself can.

Now local cookies need only be used when a merchant is on more than one network, and tries to solve a problem where the commission for a sale appears on more than one of the networks. To track sales most merchants just add some HTML code to the last page in there order system, normally a “thank you” or “order is complete” page. This code calls the network by an image tag or JavaScript, and then the network can read the cookie set by the network, and see if an affiliate referred that visitor to that merchant to earn commission and if so create the pending sale on the network etc.

Now if a merchant is showing the tracking code for 2 or more networks, then each network could find its own tracking cookie and credit an affiliate on both networks. This could happen in the following situations.

- Visitor is looking at a number of PPC ads, and clicks on two or more to do with the same merchant, each PPC ad could be through a different network - an example on Google is keyword Euroffice, each PPC ad on the side is for a different network. A visitor could easily click on more than 1, and end up with a cookie for multiple networks for the same merchant before making there purchase. However they have always used local cookies from day one.

- Visitor goes to "Franks Free Stuff" web site everyday, the web site owner lists offers from different merchants on many different networks. This visitor clicks through an offer which goes to merchant A through network A, but doesn't buy anything. Later that week the web site owners switches the links for merchant A to a new network because he wants higher commission. Later the visitor returns to "Franks Free Stuff", clicks through the same offer, and this time goes through network B (because of the change by the web site owner). Now the visitor has 2 cookies for the same merchant on 2 different networks.

Now imagine a solution to this, what if the merchant remembered what network last referred the visitor? Well that is what local cookies does, every time a visitor clicks through an affiliate link to the merchant, the merchant records the name of the network in a cookie "the local cookie". So now, the visitor can click through any number of affiliate links through PPC ads, or content based web sites etc, but the merchant knows which was the last network the visitor clicked though.

In other words, the merchant knows which network the visitor last used an affiliate link from. Nothing to do with the affiliate themselves, just the fact of which network the visitor last came through. If the visitor returns directly to the merchant, the local cookie should not be set or updated. It should only be updated when the visitor returns to the site through a different affiliate network.

Now armed with that information, when it comes to showing the network tracking code, instead of showing the HTML tracking code for every network on the order confirmation page, the merchant first read the local cookie. After reading the cookie if it has the name of a network in the cookie, then only show the tracking code for that network. If the cookie is blank or invalid name, then show as normal the tracking code for all networks.

**Supercod** · 25-10-04

Originally posted by Barry
Fundamentally I think if the 'customer' clicks on one of my affiliate links and then returns to the merchant through the merchants own PPC activity I think the merchant should be awarded the sale. I know I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but its only fair.

Some merchants don't care, others have told me they wouldn't allow PPC affiliates to take part in a program if this kind of thing happens, some merchants on just 1 network will actually use the networks links to track and record how the conversion rate for sales is going (that has the same effect as using a local cookie).

Originally posted by Barry
If however the 'customer' clicked on my affiliate link and then the next day came back through google (natural listings - or froogle for that matter) I think the sale should be rewards to me.

I fully agree and I think everyone agrees on that also.

Originally posted by Barry
I'm not getting involved in the network *****in' goin on but I do think that it the responsibilty to overcome this problem by using local cookies is one the networks should be taking onboard. It can only help to raise commission rates offered by merchants as their program become less costly to run.

LOL yeah sorry about it coming across as "network *****in" it's an issue so very close to my heart as I was told many years ago as an affiliate that their didn't exist a solution to this, and I know some affiliates have been flagged as fraudulent affiliates for just swapping links or accidentally leaving old links in place when they moved from a spyware network to a spyware free one.

I fully agree the networks should be taking responsibility on this one, however many of the sales staff don't know about the issues and when it comes to set-up if a merchant has not told you they are on or going to join another network this can add problems as local cookies is only need when on more than 1 network. Anyway I guess education is the key here, however I really do hate this fire fighting approach of waiting until a problem happens then fix it, when everyone should be aware this is real and is a problem.