Who is breaking Voucher Code guidelines

[confuscius]

Tweet

What would really help me is if ALL networks could identify in big red letters on merchant information pages whether a merchant provides / has provided / will ever provide voucher codes. All content affiliates can then simply drop voucher code merchants from their efforts and the voucher code scene can disappear up its own derriere, as far as I am concerned.

[dougs]

Even though this is quite influencial, this really is a sit down and chat. Not a formal thing like a court case.

If interested then come along

Doug

[befuddle]

Bazza99 if you do copy a voucher code it does indeed suggest you want to use it at the merchant's site. Why, realistically, would you copy it otherwise?
--<br>Posted via my Mobile Device

[sgpratley]

What would really help me is if ALL networks could identify in big red letters on merchant information pages whether a merchant provides / has provided / will ever provide voucher codes. All content affiliates can then simply drop voucher code merchants from their efforts and the voucher code scene can disappear up its own derriere, as far as I am concerned.

Makes little difference.

We manage a couple of upmarket sites who never discount and yet they still end up on code sites. Even ones we've rejected from the programme. I'm sure there are affiliates who stick the merchant brand into Google, see these guys at the top of Google and just walk away, assuming we're working with them.

I certainly wouldn't want the top sites just wiped out as there are other (mainly price led) merchants for whom they provide good incremental sales, but it seems you can't have one without the other as things stand.

I actually don't think that things will change until the last-click model is revised. The whole publisher side of the industry is hell-bent on being the last click and consequently we now have a number of models like vouchers which take place often after the decision to buy has been made. Not all of them by any stratch but certainly a fair chunk.

If I could just come up with a model that would get people to visit my site when they reach the credit card page I'd be minted. :tup

[buspassjohn]

I urge you then to come along to the IAB meeting next week, so you can see for yourself whether networks meet your standards.

I wish I had the time but our decision is already made so whatever networks do is purely academic as far as we're concerned.

[fizzbird]

We manage a couple of upmarket sites who never discount and yet they still end up on code sites. Even ones we've rejected from the programme.

If they don't have a voucher code box then the customer isn't going to go looking for a voucher.
The merchants who wake up and remove these will find that they have an army of honest affiliates just waiting for a chance to promote on an even playing field.

I think the response that John got reinforces this view?

[bazza99]

Bazza99 if you do copy a voucher code it does indeed suggest you want to use it at the merchant's site. Why, realistically, would you copy it otherwise?
--<br>Posted via my Mobile Device

It absolutely doesn't suggest that at all. Just as likely you already have the merchant's site opened because you were about to make a purchase and then spotted the voucher code box, so you thought you'd check to see if there was one available.

This technique is simply dropping a cookie. It's clear that it's a forced click. No mention is being made that the user is about to open another (the merchant's) website.

If an affiliate wants to direct a user to a merchant's site then it must be made clear that's what will happen when they click on the link. Any other approach isn't just an issue relating to voucher code sites - we're talking about something that can undermine the whole industry. It's fundamental to the way in which we all work.

[befuddle]

So you're saying that you're willing to use the code but that the affiliate who sourced the code, built the page and optimised the page so that you could find it via a search engine, shouldn't get rewarded for your purchase?

[dougs]

I think this is a simple wording exercise so the user knows what will happen:

Click here to get code and goto site

Or something similar

Doug

[Hero]

Why not video and post to the forum?

With the exception of affiliates, the rest of the participants in the AMC need to be members of the IAB. Therefore video streaming the meetings is not an option. However, for all affiliates who are concerned over what actions networks are taking, the meetings are free to attend; please do come along, your input is really important.

Although I appreciate the frustration that guideline-abiding affiliates feel, all this "put-networks-against-the-wall-take-aim-fire" approach is not justified. Someone's called us elephants (which I don't take personally, I assure you :blush), more jumped onboard shouting, and now networks have to prove we're not elephants.

As quite a few network people have already stated: we have dedicated resources for this issue, we all spend a significant amount of time going over affiliate sites (not just voucher ones, may I add), discussing with them the problems and working with them to make their sites compliant.

Wherever necessary, we will be taking action against affiliates who are not interested in promoting merchants correctly.

If all this is not good enough for certain people in the community, what can I say... shoot us.

Just to add a real life example: in Greece, a couple of weeks ago there was a court case against a play that was deemed to be religiously blasphemous. The people who shut the theatre down and prevented the play from being staged and sued the theatre company admitted to not having seen the play at all, not having read the script, not actually knowing the story. The case was dismissed obviously.

Moral of the story: don't judge if you don't know.

[bazza99]

So you're saying that you're willing to use the code but that the affiliate who sourced the code, built the page and optimised the page so that you could find it via a search engine, shouldn't get rewarded for your purchase?

I'm saying that if an affiliate wants to send a user to a retailer's website then they need to make it clear that that will happen when the user clicks on a link. Failure to do so is an attempt to fool the user - nothing more, nothing less.

When a user attempts to "copy and paste" a code (as instructed by the affiliate) then we can only be sure of one thing about that user's intentions (ie that they intend to copy and paste the code). By automatically doing anything else, we are forcing behaviour that has not been chosen. That's a forced click.

[dougs]

This is not IAB guidelines but I think this is a simple wording exercise so the user knows what will happen

Click here to get code and goto site

Or something similar

Doug

[bazza99]

Doug - yes, I generally agree with that.

In some senses it's a shame that this has cropped up in a voucher code thread because this is a wider issue - it just happens that a few sites mentioned in this thread are using the technique.

It's been well established for some years that forced clicks are unacceptable within affiliate marketing. It's something that can be dealt with pretty quickly but if it's allowed to continue then it can only be a negative - it doesn't take much thought to see how this situation could be manipulated by other affiliates looking for short-term gain at the expense of the wider industry.

[Tel]

Morning,

I see that the conversation has shifted to Comet's new T's and C's rather than this rather lengthy post.

I'm afraid that it looks like the proof is in the pudding. Comet will undoubtedly analyse all sales that would have been coming from online over the period and do some pretty damn deepinvestigations on the true incrementality. Obviously there is quite a lot of commissions on the 'Vouchercode' line on the P&L for the Christmas period.

I'm also concerned that the reduced 'lifetime value' against new customers is driving these types of investigations (I know Comet isn't alone.) Continued commissions for the same consumer is seriously damaging some merchants (as opposed to initial customer acquisition through a discount.)

We can only hope that this case study doesn't result in this affiliate genre's reputation being tarnished for non-compliance and potential cookie spamming related issues.

Remember the notorious merchant who pulled brand bidding /search affiliates after a similar investigation revealed there was apparently no impact on volume? I'm sure the communications will be handled better in this case however, whatever the case...

Col.

[aotagain]

I wonder how far back merchants records of affiliate sales go, because the only reasonable 'test' of incrementalness would be a before and after vc/cashback assessment - is that around 3 years worth ? I suspect there are too many variables for that to mean something, unless the results are really marked.

It may be a case of someone saying 'right, prove to me that it IS working', or we'll stop it, which has more scary implications for the industry.