Stealing Exclusive Codes

[jrisby]

Tweet

After a gentle reminder this morning he has now removed some of the text I mentioned earlier but he still has the original page there complete with URL but minus any links. If you click on "visit site" or even our url it simply redirects back to his page.

Obviously there is no benefit to him in keeping this page up and all this means is there is now a page on his site designed to get into the search engines targetting our sites URL and brand which actively prevents people from getting to our site.

I know he's reading this and I can assure him this isn't the end of the matter.

[aotagain]

What's with the 'Share a code' part of the site then ? Surely this means anyone's codes could get submitted by any member of the public, having seen it on another site ?

So that could include codes given to other affiliates exclusively etc. etc.
Surely that compromises merchants agreements with other affiliates.

Presumably these 'shared' codes don't get automatically published ?

Can't see the networks doing much about this - the site will be far too big an earner. Nice business while you've got it !

[befuddle]

So that could include codes given to other affiliates exclusively etc. etc.

For this reason I now pro-actively ask merchants to offer me not only an Exclusive code but one that is branded with 'SC' or 'SHOPCODES' included so that they can easily be spotted by myself, merchants and networks.

Some affiliate sites will then filter these codes from being published after an email request.

[Barry]

Yep although my site is not as big as myvouchercodes, I vet all the codes submitted by my users (not that many people actually do).

Fair do's though I dont think he has any of my codes on his site anymore which is fair enough. I am also not to bothered about him listing my site at the bottom of his page, its all fair competition.

Ta

[aotagain]

Still the wild west out there really ain't it ? Still can't be completely sure whether the sheriffs have enough deputies to deal with the next gang to ride through town a whooping and a shootin'
;-)

"Once upon a time on the net" - that might make a good book !

[renegade]

Presumably these 'shared' codes don't get automatically published ?

Not on our site they don't. These days it's unusual to get a code we can share that we haven't got already.

[Frostie]

I am also not to bothered about him listing my site at the bottom of his page

Personally I am bothered and have requested to have my URLs removed. If I had URLs to others sites, and received requests to remove them, then I would oblige, and I therefore expect the same from every other affiliate.

I go back to my point of not advertising LaSenza on keywords such as BeCheeky. We are asked by networks not to do it, therefore the networks should ask affiliates not to bid on other affiliate websites.

I am saddened at the lack of input from networks on this issue. It seems to me that as long as the affiliate is bringing in money via whatever method or ethics they choose, networks choose to close their ears and put blinkers on, stick their head in the sand and hope that after months it will quietly disappear.

[Mogga]

I am saddened at the lack of input from networks on this issue. It seems to me that as long as the affiliate is bringing in money via whatever method or ethics they choose, networks choose to close their ears and put blinkers on, stick their head in the sand and hope that after months it will quietly disappear.

I too am saddened by this lack of action by networks. My only hope is that they are running it past their lawyers before terminating this affiliate and banning him for life.

[km8]

I am saddened at the lack of input from networks on this issue.

Which issue specifically?

The "publishing exclusive codes" issue or the "listing other URL's without hyperlinking them" issue?

Personally, I think the former is definitely something the networks should have a view on but the latter seems to have little or nothing to do with networks.

[aotagain]

I think some merchants are watching though...

[Cheapdvds]

Dear Affiliate,



There have been a few amendments to the BoysStuff.co.uk terms and conditions surrounding discount codes. These have been changed to the following:



If you wish to promote BoysStuff.co.uk discount codes then you must contact us directly and we will issue them to you via email. Using/promoting discount codes not provided in this manner will result in pending transactions being cancelled and/or suspension from the programme.

If a customer that has been referred to us by an affiliate, uses a discount code that we have not issued directly to that affiliate, we will have to decline the commission on that sale.
These will from today be applied to

[ian]

There have been a few amendments to the BoysStuff.co.uk terms and conditions surrounding discount codes. These have been changed to the following:

If a customer that has been referred to us by an affiliate, uses a discount code that we have not issued directly to that affiliate, we will have to decline the commission on that sale.



So if I send a customer to BoysStuff, they put something in their basket, and they use a promo code that isn't mine, I don't get paid? Even if I don't use promo codes on my sites?

IMO this is all getting to far out of hand. What should be handled as a case of copyright infringement and ungentlemanly conduct is turning into a re-write of the number 1 commandment of affiliate marketing "last cookie gets the commission". It should now read, "last cookie gets the commission, unless the customer happens to use a code over which you have no control, in which case we'll just not pay any commission or send it to affiliate who happens to have a promo code on their site, and contributed nothing to getting the visitor to us in the first place"

I'm not trying to insult the promo code sites over their place in the buying process, but I don't see why they should be attributed with a sale when they didn't source the traffic (drop the cookie) in the first place.

[philhancox]

If a customer that has been referred to us by an affiliate, uses a discount code that we have not issued directly to that affiliate, we will have to decline the commission on that sale.

I've been following this thread with anticipation of what's going to happen to the site in question and I'm very much of the view of taking action on this particular site.

However, I do think this new T+C is quite unfair. I know from experience when I'm shopping online that I go all the way to the basket (ie I might already have been converted by an affiliate to go to the site), see a voucher code box and think to myself, 'I wonder if I can find a discount code'. A Google search later, I'll grab the code and use it in my basket. The discount code site didnt send me to the merchant, the original affiliate did. The original affiliate should get the commission.

Are you going to cross check whether the affiliate who sent the sale with a discount code actually publishes discount codes? If he doesn't, he should get the commission because he didnt promote the stolen code, the customer found the code himself.

Hope that made sense.

[loquax]

Perhaps the logical step would be for merchants to devise specific discount landing pages so a user picks up a unique code or a system where the only way a discount can be picked up is by clicking through the affiliate link and it's automatically applied (no codes used)?

A lot of the issues surrounding the distribution of codes is imo because no responsibility is taken by the merchant or network to actually solve the problems with swift action and better solutions - not just rely on patch ups or knee jerk rule changes.

What I don't understand is why it might be so difficult?

On click - isn't the affiliate id available somewhere in a cookie? Why not use that as a code element? Is that not feasible/possible?

E.g. I visit Boystuff, my affiliate id is 28 - i click through "hello jason, we can offer you 10% discount with code BOYS28"

If I go off and seach for another discount... say BOYS100 and try and use it - the checkout goes "oi, sorry BOYS100 is not a valid code". The 100 is not the valid code for the original affiliate link.

If someone goes and posts the code BOYS28 and tries to use via say a direct link (no cookie set) - then again the system can throw out the code and tell the consumer it's not valid.

Ok, it's basic - but can someone with more techie ability - explain if that can/can't be implemented?

It stops the consumer using what shouldn't be "public domain" codes and should stop copying from fellow affiliates. Or is it just too simple?

Jason

[drivetowin]

Jason

I 100% agree with you - something like that should be easy to implement in 99% of checkouts.

There does need to be a solution to this growing problem - maybe the networks need to collectively lift their heads out of the sand (though doubtless some of them keep their heads there as it also keeps their nether regions at an ideal height for merchant satisfaction ) and work together on a solution. If a smaller network like POR can go 90% towards a solution, then surely the larger networks should be able to do likewise - as far as I'm aware the only other network with a solution is Affiliate Window - if any others do then maybe they would like to stick their heads above the parapet and announce it.

If working collectively we managed to pretty well eradicate spyware from the UK, surely we must be able to solve this problem which is 99% under merchants and networks control.

I also think that networks should be more willing to take action against those affiliates who repeatedly break the rules - I know some are starting to be more active on this (AW included) but it should be all of them being proactive, not just one or two. I made my opinions known on this to several networks at a4uexpo, especially in relation to a well known cashback site who also operate in the voucher arena.