MyVoucherCodes - Please Stop!

[jrisby]

Tweet

My view on all this is that Mark has not done anything technically wrong and kept it , when he's been pointed out to do something banned by networks, etc he has changed it.

Sorry, you're clearly ignoring the facts. It took almost a year for him to remove our "vouchers" and then only when we kicked him off the programme. Others have had similar problems where he has ignored them.

And if you consider the threats he made to damage my business "not technically wrong" then thank God you aren't a business lawyer.

[mainlime]

I do think this is turning into a bit of witch hunt

He turned me into a newt ......

... I got better.

[Affility]

He seems to be suffering from Tall Poppy Sydrome...

This is certainly not my perspective. If Mark had copied a large chunk of your newsletter, and put up AdWords on your brand-name claiming to be "Better than xxxxx", perhaps you would understand my feelings on this.

[max99]

Sorry, you're clearly ignoring the facts. It took almost a year for him to remove our "vouchers" and then only when we kicked him off the programme. Others have had simialr problems where he has ignored them.

And if you consider the threats he made to damage my business "not technically wrong" then thank God you aren't a business lawyer.

What im saying is that if some of the things brought up against Mark were wrong then networks would be involved and would have put a stop to it. He says he works very close with networks and so some of his ways might not be good for other affiliates but the networks seem to be happy with it otherwise they would have chucked him off the network or programme in question...and those that have already then his actions there maybe questionable but I cant comment on them

This is certainly not my perspective. If Mark had copied a large chunk of your newsletter, and put up AdWords on your brand-name claiming to be "Better than xxxxx", perhaps you would understand my feelings on this.

That was wrong and he admitted the mistake that one of his employees did and apologised from it, in the end you probably gained from it rather than suffered. And yes its wrong to have adwords saying "better than xxxx" without proof but I think he's changed it to "Bettter than xxxx ?" which is allowed...i believe. So maybe not ethical but not wrong

[Barry]

Personally if I was a merchant who wanted to beat myvouchercodes or any other code site for that matter to the top of google with the phrases 'brand + discount code' or 'brand + voucher code' etc etc I would make a section of my site that was optimised towards those phrases and try to knock them off, lots of merchants do this.

I can't see anything wrong with making a voucher directory and listing every or any site on the internet and asking users to submit deals or vouchers to that directory when or if they are found.

I would however add that if a merchant contacted me and asked me to remove my affiliate links I would do it straight away.

What some merchants don't realise is that they may be giving some traffic away to affiliates when customers are find our sites when searching for discount coupons, however if they have a good voucher and some good prices they may gain traffic from our sites from a merchants page that has not got a token.

For example if any one comes to my site at the moment and finds no currys vouchers, I can direct the to empire direct voucher page who have got a voucher at the moment. So empire direct has gained a customer in return for giving me a good code to promote.
I also have a whole range of traffic coming in on different phrases eg 'discount car hire', no mention of anyone looking for a code, just someone looking for cheap car hire, if any car hire company wants that traffic they have to be on the site and they also have to offer a good deal, a code sometimes helps but is not essential.

All in all, as voucher sites are becoming more popular isn't it best to work with them and not against them?

Ta

[loquax]

What im saying is that if some of the things brought up against Mark were wrong then networks would be involved and would have put a stop to it

From my experience the networks either didn't know or turned a blind eye.. it was until iframe cookie dropping was questioned did any network make any attempt to put things back in order.

As for using "Bettter than xxxx ?" - I'm not convinced that that is allowed either... although Advertising Standards would be able to rule on that... it's not like the landing page is a comparison of Site 1 vs Site 2, so it's simply using the name of another site to suggest that you're better, which is wrong (imo).

Witch hunt? Who knows, but it's about time things got sorted out in the open rather than swept away and hidden away. Too often issues crop up, networks make nice noises about sorting it out, then nothing gets done... and as a long term affiliate I am seriously peed off with the things that some affiliates get away with because people don't enforce quality control.

Jason

[loquax]

All in all, as voucher sites are becoming more popular isn't it best to work with them and not against them?

As long as they work ethically and within the terms other affiliates have to adhere too... I dunno, it does seem like there's one rule for some affiliates and rules for others.

Networks need to set some standards, make them clear, let affiliates know, then enforce them!

Then threads like this may not exist.

Jason

[bapages]

From my perspective, some of the merchants here and possibly netwoks need to be very careful what you publish as you maybe putting Mark in a stronger legal position. After all you may have a contractual relationship with mark and disclosing any information, especially deflamitary is a 'no no' as you are deemed to respect the privacy of the contract both parties have. Especially one who is publishing e-mails sent could land you in very hot water if Mark insisted on persuing further a claim.

[jrisby]

From my perspective, some of the merchants here and possibly netwoks need to be very careful what you publish as you maybe putting Mark in a stronger legal position. After all you may have a contractual relationship with mark and disclosing any information, especially deflamitary is a 'no no' as you are deemed to respect the privacy of the contract both parties have. Especially one who is publishing e-mails sent could land you in very hot water if Mark insisted on persuing further a claim.

Not sure if you are referring to me in your last bit there but the fact is once someone receives an email it is theirs to publish as they see fit.

[bapages]

Without going through the thread again, I am sure it was not yours.

[Kandevil]

I just posted this on Kieron's blog but it is worth mentioning here too I think:

My solution to help some of this, from an affiliates perspective, is for merchants to remove the promotion/code/offer box in the basket when an affiliate asks for it not to be there via their links.

This way if a customer gets to the basket they aren't going to go off looking for a code.

We can get merchants to remove their phone number when going via affiliate links, why not via specific affiliate links, then it is up to the affiliate to opt out. It might solve a lot of the last referrer problems.

Also if a merchant has a lot of affiliates asking for this, they might question why and be forced to learn more about this subject.

[aotagain]

I think there's a general point about ethics to be made here. One of the most depressing things in current society is the way that grey areas are interpreted by some businesses and individuals to suit their own objectives.

Quite some years ago I had 2 bits of advice from someone who was quite old, wise and successful in business. "Give the people you do business with plenty of free rein, while watching them closely - that way you'll see which ones will shaft you when it suits them and which ones you'll like doing business with". When I asked what he meant, 2 things came up to look for:

1. Whether the person pushes the grey area to the edge of the law because they can.
2. How the person behaves on an ethical level when noone appears to be looking.

Always found that tells you a lot about someone.

Someone mentioned Tesco earlier on. Its not surprising they get a lot of stick - its not just size that causes it. A local campaign this year stopped them from opening an off-licence on a new garage/store.

A couple of months later they ran a petition to reapply which local people only found out about by accident. Of course the petition was petitioning the people passing through the garage who don't live very locally and for whom an offy might be quite convenient on the way back home, who wouldn't be aware of the reasons for the initial refusal.

So they would have been able to say 'look what our customers wanted'.
Fortunately locals found out and it appears the petition disappeared shortly afterwards.

But it just shows what happens when you're not looking.

[Frostie]

Mark

I see that my unique discount codes are appearing on your website yet again. Can you please rectify immediately!

The website is below and attached is a screenprint;
Uplifted Lingerie Voucher Codes (upliftedlingerie.com ) Discount Codes, Promotional Codes & Money Off Vouchers
Can you please ensure my exclusive codes do not appear on ANY of your websites, not just MVC.

What im saying is that if some of the things brought up against Mark were wrong then networks would be involved and would have put a stop to it.

Sadly Max that isn't the case. That is what would happen in the perfect world with all networks but it doesnt. Some networks are taking action, others continue to stick heads in sand and hope it all blows away.

I do think this is turning into a bit of witch hunt as I can cite quite a few other affs doing the same thing and an irony one of them is shouting Mark Down.

Jess

Its not a witch hunt. He has been asked to carry out certain things, and when he joins a merchant he is asked to stick to certain T&Cs. If he blatantly ignores all of these then he only has himself to blame and therefore I have no pitty for anyone in this position.

Everyone makes mistakes, but to carry on making them, threatening people (according to JRis), iframing merchants up until yesterday, copying codes again (mine have re-appeared) is simply asking for complaints.

Im disappointed that some see this as a witch hunt as this is obviously not the case, yet I am not willing to let this get washed over and no action be taken. If I did exactly what he does, and continues to do, then I would expect exactly the same treatment and wouldn't try the 'oh sorry', 'everyone picking on me' or 'feel sorry for me' approach. He's not stupid, he is well aware of what he is doing, and is well aware that in some cases he is breaking network and merchants rules - yet he gets away with it.

Its wrong and needs to stop otherwise we may as well all ignore the rules and make lots more money.

I dont even bother checking Rays, Barrys or Joes websites for codes of mine as there is trust between us. I would rather Mark came into this category as everyone working together is obviously better for everyone involved, however I refuse to work with someone until the play by the rules.

[bapages]

Frostie,

Look at the bottom of the screen shot. I think he may not be stealing them but people are posting them.

[purple]

Can you please ensure my exclusive codes do not appear on ANY of your websites, not just MVC.

I am sure it was just an employee mistake