Removal of Myvouchercodes from Play.com

[arcticsunrise]

Have to say I don't agree with naming and shaming.

Like most agencies and merchants, we occassionally have the need to remove affiliates from a programme for breaking the rules but don't feel the need to make a public song and dance about it.

MVC and others have until January 1st to comply with the new IAB guidelines or they will be removed from all participating networks programmes. It is to be hoped that by January 1st those networks who at the moment feel unable to commit to the new guidelines will also have subscribed to them. I sincerely hope that no network, agency or merchant will seek to make commercial gain from not taking part.

[morleymouse]

since when has AM been about PR? I thought it was results?

If it was play announcing it directly, maybe that would have softened the blow as its a direct merchant > affiliate quibble, but this, its a agency thats supposed to maintain good relationships with both parties. How is mark going to feel working with any other merchants managed by summit?

are agencies really doing this sort of thing these days to win favour with the majority of affiliates?

[dougs]

So now PLAY are not dealing with MVC what does he do with the traffic he has......to imply clicking will take you to PLAY is legally passing off.



Doug

[MattSweet]

since when has AM been about PR? I thought it was results?

If it was play announcing it directly, maybe that would have softened the blow as its a direct merchant > affiliate quibble, but this, its a agency thats supposed to maintain good relationships with both parties. How is mark going to feel working with any other merchants managed by summit?

are agencies really doing this sort of thing these days to win favour with the majority of affiliates?

Okay, fair point. It's Summit rather than Play that are attempting the PR. But I still think it's pretty obvious why someone has taken the public announcement route - however ill advised.

And since when has business not been about PR? Maybe at grassroots we can avoid it (and I do) but that's not the case for everyone.

Removing MVC is going to affect results on the programme, Therefore, some people at Play who may not be educated in the affiliate world will want to know why figures are down....

All I'm saying is I understand the thought process of it regardless of the wisdom.

[affiliateadvocate]

Oh dear.

It's a real shame that it's been announced this way on the forum, not sure why the guys running the programme would have done it other than for a bit of PR.

One issue that I think has been ignored here is that Play.com *really* don't know how to do voucher codes - does anyone remember (a few years ago now) when they issued a £5 voucher to some customers that didn't have a minimum limit? I belive there were some on moneysavingexpert at the time who setup upwards of 50 accounts to get lots of free stuff for Christmas.. perhaps they are now wary of voucher code sites.

A lot of people on this forum seem to be on a witch hunt against MVC, many will of course be envious of the success of the site - as an affiliate I'd be a lot more worried about some of the tracking solutions out there (doubleclick, etc) and poor deduping that goes on than I would about MVC, that's where the real sales are being lost, not by the overriding of cookies..

Personally, I've dealt with MVC on a number of occasions, I've always found that they answer emails and pick up the phone and action on anything we've asked them to do - the only thing that they won't do is take away a merchant page, which is fair enough.

Sure, there are some elements of MVC that should probaly be changed, they have pushed AM to the limits on occasions but without limits being put in place that was always going to happen but overall customers love the site and most merchants don't seem to have a problem with it.

Perhaps we can stop the witch hunt soon, there's bigger fish to fry..

[loquax]

Not sure either way on this... on one hand I guess it's an important annoucement and perhaps reflects the ways things are in AM these days. Perhaps it's better in the open and transparent ... at least it means there's no gossip/rumours etc.

MVC have courted controversy for considerable time - so perhaps this was inevitable?

On the other - perhaps it should have been dealt with between the parties involved unless MVC chose to go public (cf quidco/affiliate window earlier this year).

Still never a dull day in the world of AM is it..

[jd77]

Yawn.

I don't know why everyone has turned this in to a 'should they have announced it on the forum' debate.

Let's have a look at the bigger picture.

Are Play right. Of course they are.

Should other merchants do the same? Of course they should.

Forced clicks to display expired vouchers is taking sales away from a lot of people who work hard in this industry. Some voucher codes I've seen do a fine job without wasting the customers time and raping fellow affiliates.

[Barry]

I think that it should have been announced in facts and without names.

It would have been enough to mention that Play don't allow distribution of codes outside the affiliate channel. And that recently one of your biggest affiliate(s) had been kicked from the program for ignoring this. I know that most of us would twig who it was in the end anyway as we all know who the big vouchers sites are and we can all see that the Play page from MVC has been taken down (a first I think) but that's besides the point.

The announcement has had its effect though and is definitely a shot across the bows for loads of other voucher/deal sites, as I notice that there are loads of sites still promoting old and out of date play vouchers as well as the offer available via RAC (including details on a fake RAC membership number to use)



On a slightly different note, I did nip over to my site and expire the Sony code for play as it no longer works (thanks DannyW) and did notice that I had another code on for them. The reason for this is that I have recently been experimenting with 3 different sites offering a 'voucher code feed' and importing them into my database. Unfortunately my script is not as knowledgeable as me of my merchants restrictions... this is the second 'rouge' entry I have found (the first being an alpharooms voucher appearing as a click to reveal rather than just an advert with no click to reveal).

It just goes to show that nothing is simple and it takes a real human touch to keep my voucher site going and within the boundaries of my merchant partners. This also goes as a warning to sites distributing codes via feeds that they could be dropping lots of voucher sites and affiliates in the poo-poo for supplying feeds with restricted vouchers in.

Ta

Baz

[Lawcom]

There is no two minds about it, that is an infantile, school ground finger and there is no place for it in any proper business manner...

[Rynert]

I would hope that all at Summit have their facts very clear as I suspect there could be legal comeback if not.

I don't see what legal comeback there could be unless MVC have not been violating the T&C of the Play programme re: displaying codes.

[buspassjohn]

Could it be that Play think they are so well known they can stop paying out commissions to the affiliate that they pay the most for sales? is MVC getting better known to the public than Play?
There was no need to make this public, merchants are not stupid and can make their own minds up about such things.

[mattb811]

I would like to answer some of the questions that have been raised about why I do not think this situation should have been handled as it has been done. Networks and agencies across the country spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to overcome deepheld uncertainties that merchants have about affiliate marketing and position it as a professional industry. Episodes like this one set that process back continually.

Imagine the scenario if a journalist from the trade press was reading this thread. Then all it takes is one article about how voucher code sites are dodgy and the entire voucher code market is set back for years and merchants are once again questioning the validity of the affiliate channel as a whole.

I think we have a collective responsibility to protect the industry of which we are all part by safeguarding it and presenting ourselves as professional.

Matt

[mdrussell]

Having looked at this thread since last night I thought I should post something.

I think the decision to announce that the affiliate was MVC on the forum was a bad idea, as I think these conversations should be between merchant, network, agency and affiliate and as such not open for public debate.

I don't think you can question if this it is right or not to suspend MVC from the programme given the situation that Summit have stated, if an affiliate doesn't respond then this is what should be happening as communication is key in affiliate marketing and affiliates should be aware that if a merchant asks you to do something then you should (but you put be realistic in timescale to make an affiliate do this).

I personally have worked with Mark from MVC on several of our campaigns as we do with many other affiliates and if I have an issue with any affiliate I will request that they deal with it, and 99.9% of the time it does (I have always found Mark at MVC to do as I have asked), if any affiliate doesn't do as we request then we would also look to suspend that affiliate, but as I say this is very infrequent.

The new IAB guidelines are great for the industry and will be a massive movement forward and will make the industry even better, and people will have to abide by them if all the networks join force.

These things are sent to try us and we as an industry have to deal with them (Voucher codes now, brand bidding before as well as Cash Back Sites), and it is good to see all the networks and agencies coming together and trying to make this industry more professional, which - lets be honest - the industry has needed for a few years. But I think naming and shaming is bad for the industry as this is like playground tactics, and personally I don't agree.

[John Jupp]

Imagine the scenario if a journalist from the trade press was reading this thread. Then all it takes is one article about how voucher code sites are dodgy and the entire voucher code market is set back for years and merchants are once again questioning the validity of the affiliate channel as a whole.

I think you can take that as a given.

[Dave@Profitistic]

It is my opinion that the relationship between affiliate/agency/network is a confidential one and the details therein should not be disclosed to any third-parties without prior consent.

I agree with Baz in that the 'message' from this particular merchant could just have easily been relayed to the affiliate community without the need to name names.

This has been counter-productive because now we are all talking about the ethical stance of the poster rather than the issue the post was written to raise...