Post Impression Tracking - Very concerned

**Rich** · 21-12-04

PI tracking will just lead to whoever has the most traffic gets the most sales. e.g. ebay could put PI banners on their site, no one would every click on them as the users are interested in that site, but they would set a lot of cookies (and could easily serve banners in order to set as many different cookies as possible). This would be of little value to the merchant, but would lead to them paying out on a lot of sales - which will make the ROI of the affiliate program drop.

Having said that, if that is the way the big portals are already working, and their PI cookies are overriding affiliate click cookies, then thats something else that needs sorting. A network PI cookie working with 'local cookies' would be more complicated for merchants to set up.

**pistol101** · 21-12-04

Agencies have been using PI cookies for years to track the campaigns. Agencies will drop cookies on CPM deals both on the click and from the impression and obviously monitor the results.

The use of PI cookies to actually pay for campaigns has been growing bigger recently as the market for CPM advertising has been slowing.

From an affiliates point of view this is great as you'll earn more money however it is open to abuse and something that does need to be monitored correctly. Nothing new here.

Local cookies/tracking system this is another discussion. But yes if the last cookie stands rule is in place it's very bad.

**SillyJokes** · 21-12-04

I think the general public would be very disturbed by the thought that simply by visiting a web page they are subject to a 'drive by' cookie installation.

As it is they are not too happy about the whole affiliate marketing thing either, which is why it is so hard to get an honest article written about it.

They do not perceive affiliate marketing in the same light as the millions of pounds spent on something like TV and Magazine marketing.

They certainly aren't going to be very chuffed if someone is earning off of them because they were inadvertantly exposed to an advert which they did not even react to.

**Malcolm Cowley** · 21-12-04

Some really good points and views - it looks as though the majority think PI has its place as a backup tracking medium in a controlled enviroment but not as the sole tracking on an affiliate program due to the controllability of potential abuse being an issue.

It certainly wont be making an appearance on the buy.at network but if it does pop up ( no pun intended :-) ) elsewhere then I just hope the merchants and their advising networks are fully aware of potential issues so any negative PR resulting from mismanagment is not passed on indirectly to those who choose not to go down this route .

Thanks for all the feedback

Mal

**Azam.net** · 22-12-04

There is a potential for fraud, but also a chance for affiliates to paid for showing affiliate marketing banners which are usually created with an eye on generating brand awareness rather than clickthroughs. The evidence speaks for itself: check out the size of the merchants name or URL on banners at the various networks, then compare it to the size of the "click here", if they even bother to have one.

You know I have a LOT of respect for you Malcolm, probably more so than anybody in this industry, but I fundamentally disagree with the assertion "I think affiliate marketing on CPA is a great model and one that can work very well for all parties concerned". It is great for merchants, great for networks, but not always for affiliates.

If I were to show you our stats for 2004 for the numbers of banners we have shown for merchants - oftening running into the thousands - who have not earned us a penny in commission or very little, you would be shocked. Then you would perhaps understand why I believe there have to be fairer methods of renumeration.

CPA - without conversion stats. - only works when there is a fundemental power imbalance. It works because most affiliates don't have sufficient negotiating power.

Thank God, we are in a stronger negiating position now and turn down 99% of merchants who email or ring us offering us CPA deals. If they want to advertise with us we ask them for the dough up front. If they don't want to, it's their loss. We're no longer going to be scammed with 30 pence on the sale of a book that the merchant has made £4 profit on - and will often make profit on for years to come through repeat sales.

Try going into Sainbsbury's and saying "Hey, I've got a car hire firm. Can I place my leaflets all over your supermarket? The thing is I'm going to be pay you nowt, not a penny for showing them. However, I'll give you 3% of my earnings IF somebody decides to hire a car. Trust me, this is the best way and I'll definitely pay you as my tracking is in order." I don't want to describe what Lord Sainsbury's or whoever's reaction would be to such a proposition.

**Malcolm Cowley** · 22-12-04

Hi Nadeem

I know where you are coming from and when I say I think CPA is a fair model for all its broad sweeping and needs interpretation as much as anything else - even cold hard stats or epc's need interpretation but I do believe that when done right that all parties can benefit from a CPA relationship but thats one view mine and I am open for others of course.

One glove fits all does not work for our industry but I think hybrid Click and CPA model ran tightly is a much better way of compensating for the " free branding " that can and does occur through some CPA programs - rather than the much more uncontrollable post impression route.

Also thanks for the nice comments I also have a lot of respect for your good self and the work you have put in behind the scenes in educating a lot of merchants new and old on fair practices that benefit other affiliates and networks alike.

The industry is constantly changing and we - meaning the forum as a collective - have a good chance of shaping it to be a better place for all parties , it wont happen overnight but there are some good people driving it in the right direction so plenty of positives to be taken.

Mal

**Qui Gon Jinn** · 23-12-04

If it's just brand building they want then why not just pay CPM?

If it's a poor coverting program, then pay a hybrid of CPA/CPM or CPC/CPA.

I am curious to know if there is a "super cookie" scenario already happening, whereby we only get credited for the cookie placed if a link / banner is clicked but unfortunatey gets overwritten by an agency representing the same merchant, because their cookie is planted on PI overwriting the affiliates. (similar to that described by Potman).

Another "super cookie" scenario I am wary off is when the affiliates maybe the latest dated cookie yet a major portal gets priority / precedence either through an agency or own system. Whereby lastest cookie wins is a fallacy.

but of course clicks new or old should always take priority over PI cookies.

Totally agree, some kind of ranking system is required, where a PI cookie cannot overwrite an old or new click, but still be allowed for the normal cookie duration i.e. 30 days.

MK · 23-12-04

I think it's fair to say that the major adserving solutions are moving to a position whereby they can offer 'global' tracking and de-duplication across all of a clients online marketing endeavours.

An example of this are the inroads which Atlas DMT have made to create a 'universal action tag'. Through their (well respected and robust) adserving solution, they have now added the ability to include search marketing (and tracking) management through their acquisition of Go Toast.

If the merchant was to append a tracking tag into their affiliate URL, this would enable merchants to track all of their marketing activity through one system and eradicate any duplication issues which are incurred when using multiple tracking solutions.

MK

**Malcolm Cowley** · 23-12-04

Hi

Without going into the is it good or not too much one thing that springs to mind about universal tracking is whether or not it can actually track things ( seems a bit basic right ? ).

Doing some random testing the other day with the latest version of norton I noticed that not only some affiliate network links were blocked out completely on adwords but also ad.doubleclick which is used by many agencies to track campaigns for merchants on ppc was also not visible when using the latest version of Norton Internet security.

No links to click but impressions logged = rubbish campaign

Lower ctr = paying more money / constant replacing of ads etc etc

If you can click it then whats the point - this is only one Norton related problem thats effecting tracking as we speak , so universal tracking would have to be bomb proof or there is going to be some seriously dissapointed people in the relationship.

Mal

**Rich** · 16-02-05

Sorry to reopen an old thead, but I've just found an example of one of the problems with PI tracking that was raised earlier.

An affiliate is using 180 to detect when a user gets to Lloyds TSB Insurance and then showing a page that includes banners that set PI cookie's for that program via TD.

As far as I can tell this isn't against TD's adware rules as its not forcing a click (though it is forcing a cookie).

Since it seems the last TD said on the subject was that they don't do PI, we've no way of knowing if a PI cookie is overriding a normal cookie or if it is at a lower priority or how PI cookies on TD iteract with CJ cookies.

And even if its not affecting affilliates normal cookies it will be affecting their PI cookies and will be costing the merchant, with them having to pay out on sales that this affiliate hasn't helped to achieve (they pay out £10 on a PI sale) e.g. direct traffic.

I can't be sure if these are PI cookies, but as the merchant's description says they pay on Post Impression sales and these cookies aren't set when another TD merchant's banners are shown, I'm assuming they must be.