Google and Affiliate Marketing

[hfactor]

Tweet

Like others in the forum, I too have been hit by the new and improved Google. We run a number of financial web sites that promote financial products (loans, insurance, etc.). We have affiliate relationships with a number of large financial companies. These affiliate partners tell us specifically what we can put on our web site when promoting their products.

With the new and improved Google, I've been told that we don’t rate very well with their new landing page scoring system. I’ve contacted my Google representative and told them that we are very limited on the content we can add to our landing page. Our representative has told us that when you pass though the client to the parent, Google does not view this as a good landing page. What?? This is the foundation of affiliate marketing. You attract interested parties to your web site, and then when they buy from the parent, you get a commission. Am I missing something here??

So my question to you, is Google trying to kill affiliate marketing? If we are limited on what we can put on our web sites, how can I satisfy Google?

Any and all input will be appreciated.

Thanks,

[DutchRomano]

If we are limited on what we can put on our web sites, how can I satisfy Google?

I always ask myself the question: "Do you satisfy the customer" ?

[OLBG]

I think google are trying to improve the user experience by removing a click from the process. Im sure there are "intermediary" landing pages that add value but I bet there are a lot that are just pass on and get the cookie set

[pricethat]

Not exactly killing affiliate marketing but i can understand what they are trying to do, in effect when a customer is looking for something affiliates are just "in the way" of the real results which is of course the merchant. Now in "some" cases the affiliate website or resource is actually better for the customer than going directly to a lot of merchants sites, especially when you have a very good price comparison for example but for the most part 95% of affiliate sites for each given subject are just nuisances to be honest. Very rarely do you find an affiliate site that actually is better for the customer in terms of real use, of course we all make sales because people have to buy things and it just so happens they clicked on our links but without us they probably would of still gone to a merchants site and bought something.

Unfortunately it is one rule for all so the good guys get hit just as hard as the bad ones but i think the new changes serve more than just one purpose, foremost changes have to be good for google at the end of the day and if it means having to make things better for the consumer then the better, with the latest round of changes the benefits to google are as follows:

1: Less click arbitrage (in theory)
2: Greater increase in revenues from existing traffic
3: More click throughs on ads as less price comparison links where multiple clicks can take place
4: Greater increase in ad quality (basically making us work harder to make their ads look more appealing, thus more money too)

Personally i think it is quite clever what they have done and can understand the hundreds of places their thinking breaks down. We did not get hit so hard but one of our sites got completely wiped out of adwords on anything and everything, oddly is the same site design and model as all of our other sites. Personally i think they relaxed the rules of it shortly after they hit everyone as any new site i am adding seems to do fine on the same keywords with the same content and exactly the same code that generates the pages.

[Brendon]

Yeah, I've heard similar complaints from elsewhere. WH sites are getting slammed, BH stuff works just fine.... as smart as Google can be, they really are clueless on occasion

>> So my question to you, is Google trying to kill affiliate marketing?

Not specifically, although some of the things they've done will make certain aspects harder. Its an evolution, same as the one that killed the "page full of banners" affiliate model. Some people will innovate and survive, some will crash and burn

[dialtosave]

I'm clueless too. What are WH and BH?

p.s. Go back to clash. Pretty pretty please.

[drivetowin]

WH = White Hat
BH = Black Hat

I think!!

[mikey_freedom]

WH / BH - White Hat / Black Hat SEO I assume

Ooops: realised I was just echoing the previous post

[Brendon]

>> WH / BH - White Hat / Black Hat SEO

Um, oops, correct

[Sandis]

Visitor experience and relevancy.

[DreamPrints]

for the most part 95% of affiliate sites for each given subject are just nuisances to be honest. Very rarely do you find an affiliate site that actually is better for the customer in terms of real use, of course we all make sales because people have to buy things and it just so happens they clicked on our links but without us they probably would of still gone to a merchants site and bought something.

Maybe it's my product, but I usually meant it to be rather a good match to the affiliates' sites. Say people reading about celebritiesmight want to buy her/his poster. In this aspect, affiliates just offer the visitors of their sites a greater range of opportunities rather than are a nuisance.

Unfortunately it is one rule for all so the good guys get hit just as hard as the bad ones

That's a great pity I must admit.

[tijan]

...new landing page scoring system. I’ve contacted my Google representative and told them that we
are very limited on the content we can add to our landing page. Our representative has told us that
when you pass though the client to the parent, Google does not view this as a good landing page.

and

Not exactly killing affiliate marketing but i can understand what they are trying to do, in effect
when a customer is looking for something affiliates are just "in the way" of the real results
which is of course the merchant.


....95% of affiliate sites for each given subject are just nuisances to be honest.

...Personally i think it is quite clever what they have done and can understand the hundreds
of places their thinking breaks down.

Quoting from a thread i read yesterday which i have not been able to source out unfortunately,

If you search for your company`s name or anything unrelevant to-ebay- is likely to be one of the top likely result,

I dont know how the landing page scoring system works anyway but the question is does Google view this as a good landing page. Could it be right to pass the clients to irrelevant parent in some cases?.

Quoting pricethat (....95% of affiliate sites for each given subject are just nuisances to be honest.) Does the new improved google deals only with affiliate nuisance?

Google must be right if the proper things are checked.

Brendon. great evolution indeed.

[Bob Saver]

Is it a coincidence that Google are launching their own CPA model at the moment? Google launch a mechanism whereby advertisers pay a commission on sales rather than conventional click charges and in the same month Google gets heavy with affiliates under the guise of improving user experience!

You have to say that there is a load of clutter about, but this feels pretty disingenuous to me.

[norton radstock]

You can see what Google likes or dislikes in the "Spam Guide for Raters" report which talks about what they call thin affiliates. This is a must-read document.
<A HREF="http://beta.search.live.com/results.aspx?q=spam+guide+for+raters&mkt=en-us&FORM=LVSP&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Search">&quot;Spam Guide for Raters&quot;

[drivetowin]

Interesting document - not too sure of it's authenticity as a Google document but some good points made in it.