Get Your PPC T&C right!

[Romain]

This is a thread for both Merchants and Account Managers:

Please get your PPC terms and conditions right.

PPC (paid search, keywording... whatever you want to call it) is in essence about linking ads to a merchant / advertiser domain directly from a search engine (Google, Yahoo, MSN...).

If an affiliate bids on keywords on any search engine for their own site, then they don't qualify as PPC affiliates.

Equally, merchants allowing affiliates to run PPC campaigns so long as they don't link to their actual domain is a non-sense.

The only T&Cs I can think of on a affiliate programme are:

1) PPC allowed or not. (once again: direct linking allowed or not)

2) brand name variations restricted or not. (i.e.: can the affiliate bid on the merchant's "brand")

3) other restricted generic terms or brands.

That's it.

Just earlier today I was doing some generic ads and keywords for a merchant who had restricted their PPC policy:

"Affiliates are kindly requested not to bid on brand name terms or derivations or misspellings including but not isolated to: (...)
No affiliates are allowed to have adverts appear for searches on these or similar terms. To avoid broad match issues please include restricted terms as negative keywords in all your PPC campaigns (...)
Affiliates found bidding on restricted terms may have pending transactions cancelled or face temporary suspension from the programme."

That to me was clear, and I was happy to comply.

However I just found out that the merchant didn't wish to allow direct linking in the end... which wasted 3 hours of my precious time.

Nevermind, my traffic will go to their competitors instead.

[nim-b]

PPC (paid search, keywording... whatever you want to call it) is in essence about linking ads to a merchant / advertiser domain directly from a search engine (Google, Yahoo, MSN...).

If an affiliate bids on keywords on any search engine for their own site, then they don't qualify as PPC affiliates.

Not sure if I agree with this. A lot of affiliates don't direct link but will build a simple landing page around a merchant's terms, which in my mind still qualifies them as a PPC affiliate. But you're a lot more experienced with this than I am.

I agree with you that there needs to be some clarity around what are suitable PPC terms and conditions for affiliates to understand easily. Its one of the points I believe should be covered by the Merchant Best Practice guidlines being produced by the AMC . In my mind, a good clear PPC policy will cover the following points:

- Are affiliates allowed to direct link and use the merchant's display url?
- Are affiliates of any kind allowed to bid on the merchant's brand terms? (plus what these are).
- Does the merchant undertake their own PPC activity, or have a closed group of affiliates who do it for them? (this one is open to debate, but I think it should be disclosed).

[QualityNonsense]

I agree with Romain: there's nothing more frustrating than sinking time and money into a campaign for a new merchant, only for them to shift the goal posts post-hoc.

Disallowing direct linking seems to be the current vogue.

[Romain]

Not sure if I agree with this. A lot of affiliates don't direct link but will build a simple landing page around a merchant's terms, which in my mind still qualifies them as a PPC affiliate. But you're a lot more experienced with this than I am.

Dear Naomi,

thanks for your reply.

Landing pages are in a grey area indeed. But one thing is for sure: search engines are not keen. Having met with Google a couple of times and having discussed the matter with them, it turns out that one of the reaons they have introduced LPQ (Landing Page Quality) is because they cannot legally just black-list landing pages.

Google (just like Yahoo and MSN) see "mockup" sites and landing pages as a trick advertisers and affiliates use to artificially increase their chances of getting traffic their way. According to them (and I have to admit I agree in most cases) landing pages add zero value and pollute the relevancy of the results and the users' experience.

I'd be really careful with those. I heard (unofficially) that too many "low quality" landing pages could reflect badly on the advertiser in terms of quality scoring too, especially when the domain names are really similar.

We chose to stay well clear of those.

[QualityNonsense]

Exhibit A: no notice for change to PPC rules.

"There has been an alteration to The Magazine Group programme structure on AffiliateFuture in regards to their PPC policies.

There should be no direct pay per click activity to The Magazine Group without prior consent from the merchant or AffiliateFuture.

[snip]

Please check your affiliate channels to ensure that you comply with this as soon as possible."

[drivetowin]

Equally, merchants allowing affiliates to run PPC campaigns so long as they don't link to their actual domain is a non-sense.

Have to disagree with you on that one - with Google's current 'one url' rule there are very valid reasons for merchants not allowing affiliates to link to their actual domain.

[Romain]

Hi drivetowin.

In order to explain what I meant by that "non-sense" I could put it another way around.

Say merchant domain is: www.cheapdvds.com, and the affiliate domain is www.comparedvdmerchants.com for instance.

If merchant "allows" affiliate to run PPC on www.comparedvdmerchants.com, should this affiliate be thankfull, or just laugh?

Essentially, I think the "non-sense" is getting authorization from merchant to run PPC campaigns for your own (affiliate) site.

Maybe "non-sense" is a bit strong, but I guess you see my point.

[drivetowin]

Sorry my mistake - I thought you meant ppc direct to merchant.