Stealing Exclusive Codes

[lowndsy]

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?

It's too simple. It is completely implausable and unfair to offer anything which penalises or denies a benefit to a customer which relies on affiliate tracking. I wish it wasn't the case but affiliate tracking is not 100% effective and probably never will be.
Added to that the common symptom of duplicate cookies, and for your idea to work we would have to live in a world without anti-virus software, blatant cookie droppers, and with 100% effective cookie-less tracking.

The entire industry would also have to agree on and implement the same solution to the old question of whether the first affiliate to refer a visitor or the last receives the commission (and hence whose voucher is valid), which will happen shortly after hell freezes over.

[pistol101]

The technical solutions have been around for years, however i think you'll actually cause more damage than good.

One key issue is how many transactions are generated by these codes, probably not enough to warrant the actual cash spend to make the changes.

Stopping consumers using the codes, this has got to be one of the most dangerous ideas floating around. There would be such a drop-off of customers who are miffed that they can't use the code.

The merchants are actually now more interested in the customer journey and the value of that customer. Too many of these sites are busy sending back customers and not generating new customers. Merchants will start to change the type of vouchers available.

Back on topic, it's fairly difficult for us to monitor all the voucher codes and to know whats exclusive or not without tracking being put in place. I can give plenty of examples of exclusive codes that merchants are actually asking to push out. For example My Movie Stream have been pushing affiliates to promote the offer they created for the sun.

[drivetowin]

Would an answer be:

If an exclusive code is used and the last affiliate cookie is not the affiliate to who the code was issued but the sale is out of session (i.e. the customer has not come direct to the merchant from an affiliate site or ppc ad), the sale is awarded to the last affiliate cookie as normal.

If an exclusive code is used and the last affiliate cookie is not the affiliate to who the code was issued but the sale is in session (i.e. the customer has come direct to the merchant from an affiliate site or ppc ad (and therefore probably from a site which is showing the code without permission), the sale is awarded to the affiliate who was issued with the original code.

[loquax]

Stopping consumers using the codes, this has got to be one of the most dangerous ideas floating around

But you're stopping a consumer using a code that they shouldn't be using... why is that dangerous? It would make consumers aware that all codes aren't always public domain or a free for all?

Also Pete, as affiliates we're told not to promote certain codes... however some affiliates will publish, and earn from codes they shouldn't promote.. informing a consumer who's using the wrong code at checkout that the code they're using doesn't work (on a click/code affiliate basis and assuming that was feasible, although as pointed out above it probably isn't, but for now we'll hypothesise it's ok)... and even go as far as saying that the site they've got the code from is a pile of crap and is misleading them seems to me quite sensible.

Still I kinda see what you're getting at... and it's the merchant who's rep would probably end up damaged not the code site... shame my simple idea is based on everything working in a perfect world

Jason

[Maxafi]

Surely the easiest solution is for the networks to deal with 'rogue' affiliates that undertake some of the practices highlighted in this thread.

If the networks are seen to penalise those that 'take the p**s', perhaps everyone else will by default go the extra lengths to ensure they stay within the rules?

[lowndsy]

But you're stopping a consumer using a code that they shouldn't be using... why is that dangerous? It would make consumers aware that all codes aren't always public domain or a free for all?

Stopping truly unauthorised codes is fine, but you proposed stopping a consumer from using a valid, publicly available code because the cookie on his computer said he was referred by the wrong affiliate. That would be a terrible customer experience - "sorry, your 5% discount code can't be accepted because you visited another affiliate site since/before you picked it up, but if you had the code off another site it would work and you'd get an identical discount".

[ian]

Would an answer be:

If an exclusive code is used and the last affiliate cookie is not the affiliate to who the code was issued but the sale is in session (i.e. the customer has come direct to the merchant from an affiliate site or ppc ad (and therefore probably from a site which is showing the code without permission), the sale is awarded to the affiliate who was issued with the original code.

It's one way to go, but as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, they will be at the shopping cart phase and see that they have a promo code field and then go looking for one. The owner of the code would then be given the commission without contributing to the sale and lowering the merchants profit by 5/10/20%

I'm not sure why promo code affiliates are being given iron clad underpants and being shown as the losers in this process. It's primarily a problem created by a few affiliates in the sector, yet we all have to suffer the consequences. As a group, they appear to be policing themselves well, but are not being given the backup by the networks and merchants. If we want to stamp out the rogues, the networks and merchants need to update T&C's to clearly ban the use of promo codes unless given explicit permission. 1st strike gets you a warning, second strike gets you audited, third strike and wham - you're out.

Any affiliate who has an unmoderated forum or 'add a code section' needs to decide if they want to carry on pretending not to notice, or they can play by the rules and moderate their own site. If the same practices went on from blue chip companies, there would be blood on the court room floor.

[aotagain]

On reflection, for a minority that are abusing or bending the rules it would seem ott for anyone to embark on another level of tracking and checking, which would probably be only partially implemented and could result in all sorts of administrative problems - dealing with debates about who should have had what etc. etc.

As others have said, perhaps its best for the networks and merchants to take a hard line with particular individuals, using some stricter tos. Networks because they should and merchants because the misuse of the codes will damage their relationship with the bulk of affiliates who generate their sales. That's enough to provoke action I would have thought.

This is a long thread with plenty of comment and has put the issue on the agenda - so the other obvious thing is to make a big fuss on the forums.

[pistol101]

But you're stopping a consumer using a code that they shouldn't be using... why is that dangerous? It would make consumers aware that all codes aren't always public domain or a free for all?

Good luck to the mechant explaining internally why the customer drop-off rate has increased and loads of angry customers are posting across forums. Merchants do factor in some unathourised use. The codes we're talking about are in the public domain, as nobody here has an validation of who gets hold of the code. Maybe the merchants should be pushing affiliates to actually protect the vouchers.

We're not saying that something shouldn't be done with affiliates who deliberately break restrictions, as we do take action against lots of affiliates. However if your not careful what your trying to protect will damage you completely.

[loquax]

The codes we're talking about are in the public domain

But if you read back Pete, the codes I'm talking about are ones that are triggered on click - only ever published on the merchant site... so in essence they're not public domain.

Jason

[aotagain]

Maybe the merchants should be pushing affiliates to actually protect the vouchers.

Not sure how we could do that - surely any code can be got at to copy it by just following whatever path a real customer would follow. Solution presumably would have to be some sort of domain matching process for particular exclusive codes, but again that might be making things complicated for the sake of a few miscreants who would be dealt with by general policing.

As Pete you say in your last paragraph, we're probably in the area of networks and merchants keeping an eye open for iffy behaviour, as with some other issues, rather than trying wholesale changes.

[pistol101]

But if you read back Pete, the codes I'm talking about are ones that are triggered on click - only ever published on the merchant site... so in essence they're not public domain.

There's really not much difference in taking a url as to a code.

[loquax]

we're probably in the area of networks and merchants keeping an eye open for iffy behaviour

But it's because they don't seem to be able to spot iffy behaviour (iframe, cookie dropping) that we're in this situation.

Perhaps more goes on "behind the scenes" to protect decent affiliate's interests, but when you see people "getting away" with cookie dropping, iframes, code borrowing, publishing codes they shouldn't... it doesn't make you feel that confident in the system.

Jason

[loquax]

There's really not much difference in taking a url as to a code

I don't understand what you're saying - that actually makes no sense ???

Jason

[jess1]

With regards to merchant implementing a bit of kit to be able to control unique discount vouchers is cool for some. How ever some merchants use a third party and it was hard enough just get the tracking code in place, so some merchants for financial and human resource reasons may not be able to go down this route. I think its just a question of every one being diligent and if a code is spotted on some one elses site either inform the network or merchant and let them deal with it. Spotted one today, sent the aff an email ccd support at a network.com give em 24 hours, after this if the aff has not complied, tough.. commissions get removed and allocated to the affiliate who owns the voucher code. Job done! Affiliate may get suspended in worse case scenario. Merchants should have 100% control over their codes. Having codes all over the net is not good as the merchant inevitably becomes a discount store which is not how they want to be perceived. Control of vouchers codes is out of control and not just within aff marketing.

There is a place for voucher codes either temp or perm (offline and online) but there has to be some responsibility and it needs to be taken by every one.

My pennies