Search Partners - Close bid groups

[bapages]

Tweet

Is there a perception that networks who have closed bid programs have unethical relationships with certain affiliates that only the same ones get on these programs?

[Qui Gon Jinn]

There is "maybe" the perception as discussed or mentioned in several other threads and maybe a further question of actually "how deep does the rabbit hole go?".

This isn't assisted though by the lack of transparency in this sector of the industry & the procedures for tendering. So much so we have moved a lot of business away from three networks we feel may not be exactly upfront or affiliate support has been poor.

However I do ask who should be tendering who? and what is more valuable and / or more competitive .. the generic or brand term.

[hpops]

short answer - yup
long answer - there are certainly close relationships between networks and those publishers able to launch large scale closed bid programs (I say able because there are LARGE barriers to entry to many of these programs). The ethicality of these relationships is being debated at the moment for a number of reasons. Firstly, they don't allow for new entrants into the market - they can create cartels and they are open to abuse (bribes etc - although I have never seen any evidence of this - the lack of transparency leaves open the possibility). Secondly I think that theres a misconception that its easy money - it isn't - and there is a large feeling by some publishers that they are being left out in the cold.
Its a hot potato of an issue - those networks who increase transparency and allow applications to these programs from the whole community will be in a great position next year. Other networks are putting far too much power in the hands of a select group.

[bapages]

OK in a particular scenario we had recently, a merchant has a completely 'open' keyword policy and we came to be number one position above an advertiser whom has been there for as long as I can remember.

We complain about the advertiser's double serving ads on numerous occasion hence inflating costs to the network with compelling proof, but we are the one's told to drop our ad in favour of the previous advertiser.

Is it me or does this not sound right?

[pricethat]

Nope, dont agree with you. Most of the time "the same people" get asked to do the bidding because of a large demonstration of being able to generate normal sales or as a condition that they generate an equal amount of sales in the normal way.

When a network gets the task of handing out those agreements they need to make sure they are completed and in a way that wont damage the relationship or the opportunity to do so in the future and so place it with people that have done so for years etc.

The quickest way for anyone wanting to do brand bidding etc is to demonstrate to the networks that you do high volumes of sales in the first place. Simple :-)

They are hardly ever licenses to print money, we have one or two ourselves, they are not closed, we are not privvy to anything anyone else in this forum doesnt get, we have to commit to targets, meet them, be willing to lose money if we have to. One of them we have to meet brand sales with an equal amount of generic sales, will the people that complain about these types of arrangements be able to promise to generate 1000 sales a month normally as well as extend a 50,000.00 GBP budget to maintain the generic brand bidding as well?

The answer in short is no for 95% percent of people which is why you probably find the same things get passed to the same people all the time, would you take the risk on a new affiliate that barely does 3k a month in commissions? when you need to clock off early that day to meet the mrs?

I love it that some people think that there is something out there that they are unfairly missing out on, challenge to those who dont believe, start doing 30k-60k a month in commissions with Tradedoubler normally and i am sure you wont go short for the odd ppc arrangement that you think is something you should have.....then feel let down that it isnt anything to get so excited about as its only what you would expect in terms of ROI when you shelled out that much cash...

[Qui Gon Jinn]

If we are flippantly chucking network earnings in the air, I personally don't think this makes hardly any difference. On the assumption you are doing volume via a network in the first place, if you move that volume away (ensuring that you don't sacrifice your own revenue, which is easy enough) you'll won't be surprised that some merchants want it back. So they are left with a choice of including you or moving their program or going dual network (with a more amenable network) by explaining your reasoning .... or even going direct instead .... all the above has happened.

If enough affiliates voted with their feet, which won't happen as there is too much inertness sometimes, it would soon come to a point whereby the network will have to decide that via alienating, are they losing valuable override from the aggregated group or one or all those affiliates. It's just a question of which way the scale is currently balancing.

What we must remember and already stated that before it was a gravy train, but "some" of the favoured few who are non controversial or keep their gob shut & like brown nosing a bit were originally on brand, thus doing the volumes & got the nod. This had a catalytic knock on effect where they enjoyed subsequent deals. Only a small percentage of these offer anything other than sit on brand. But because they are the networks lap dogs or golden boys it doesn't matter and something similar to the following quote is given. Just analyse a few at G2G's with vaseline smiles and greasy handshakes, sometimes it makes you cringe with laughter at the falseness.

When a network gets the task of handing out those agreements they need to make sure they are completed and in a way that wont damage the relationship or the opportunity to do so in the future and so place it with people that have done so for years etc.

In theory true, but when a buddy buddy system is so in force, this is the illusion or spin a network can give to a client. But this shouldn't be the decision or influence of the network in their control. There needs to be a more independent way. But in general this doesn't just pertain to PPC, it's a prerequisite for an affiliate to present a merchant fairly or correctly PPC or not, so in that sense most affiliates should qualify in that aspect.

At the moment some affiliates are clambering to get on brand, but soon the pendulum will swing the other way & the merchants will be clambering for those affiliates with budget who are strong on generics & haven't included that merchant or network.

I do agree that sometimes you have to make a loss on some, not all, of the generics, which is off set against brand profits in order to produce volumes. However brand name bidding is a good litmus test in itself, it's surprising how many big brand merchants cannot even convert on their own brand.

Look at how many networks don't have an internal mail system, again as mentioned before, like CJ's fairly good system. Also look at the networks who don't allow you or offer you contact details to communicate with a merchant directly to get included.

We need an independent communication platform, one in the form of a matchmaking directory of merchants in respective categories & affiliates showcasing their sites in this directory .. one seeking the other. Then this is encompassed with an internal mail system, where neither has to divulge email addresses or telephone numbers unless both parties mutually consent. This would at least take subservient control away from some of the networks. One downside would be affiliates being protective of publicly listing any of their sites. But with time & fruition the benefits would outweigh this understandable protectiveness. Potentially a win win situation for all three main parties.

The crux of it is, DON'T rely on the network, the network need to be encouragesd or levered into disclosing which programs on the network have a closed group policy, this is just a small part of the transparency which is needed. Then decide if you wish to continue working with that merchant or approach the merchant directly, without relying on the network in being forthcoming with contact details.

As someone already mentioned there is a barrier to entry, but not just one. There are barriers for relatively new affiliates with budget at their disposal, there are barriers for established affiliates with budgets, applying to those already heavily involved in PPC or not. Basically there are barriers in multiple directions. How do we break those barriers down? Well, i doubt enough affiliates will group together to use leverage on a network .. so i guess make your own nest & contact merchants direct & to all intensive purposes leave the network out of the loop & vote with your traffic without sacrificing your own earnings. But when contacting a merchant make sure you have a strong proposition & highlight a few examples where the closed group affiliates are obviously missing traffic on both brand, hybrid, product & generic terms. Basically a proposition that clearly demonstrates how a few simple things supercede the existing closed group and let's the merchant realise by raising the question "why some are still on the gravy train?"

On a side note, I 'll think you'll find the product & generic term gravy train is a much bigger & faster ride, just be very selective on the merchants & networks you use .. and don't include those with closed groups you're not invited into.

Please note when i refer to network, i only have a few in mind.