Reversed commissions, policy changed, expert help please!!!

[Ambski]

Tweet

Hello all,
Hope you are well and can help me with a problem.

A CJ merchant 'Ashley Madison', has reversed hundreds of pounds in commission and I need your opinion on whether they are justified. Here's the full story:

1) Ashley Madison T & Cs as of time of PPC advert publication:
"Please use any keywords that you would like. Note: Cannot use any form of Ashley Madison or slogans, descriptions etc associated with Ashley Madison."
"Protected Keywords: ashley madison,ashley madison agency,ashley madison com,ashleymadison"

2) I believed, as i do for other merchants, this EXCLUDES mis-spells as this company does not own any rights to these. As such a PPC campaign based on misspells is launched earning a commission.

3) Shirley @ Ashley Madison emails me and asks how I managed to earn my commission.
I answer truthfully as detailed above regarding mis-spells.

4) 48 hours later a receive an email from Shirley @ Ashley Madion stating:
"Actually it is not Ok that you use our brand misspells keywords because those are still using our trademark and this is not allowed. We have a note under "Usage Recommendation" where we let affiliate know that can not use any form of our name and slogans. Any commissions generated in July were reversed because of this."

5) A review of Ashley Madison CJ T & Cs NOW shows:
"Please use any keywords that you would like. Note: Cannot use any form of Ashley Madison or slogans, descriptions etc associated with Ashley Madison."
"Protected Keywords: ashley madison,ashley madison agency,ashley madison com,ashleymadisonashley madiosn, ashley maison, ashley mdison"

What the hell!!! Is this a huge 'moving of goalposts' of what? Please help.

[gadget]

I think they realised that they had made a mistake by not including the mis-spells as exclusions and so changed their terms. However, an honourable merchant would have honoured their outstanding commission as they had not excluded them at the time you conducted the campaign.

Have you raised this with CJ?

[Ambski]

I think they realised that they had made a mistake by not including the mis-spells as exclusions and so changed their terms. However, an honourable merchant would have honoured their outstanding commission as they had not excluded them at the time you conducted the campaign.

Have you raised this with CJ?

I have now. I sent CJ the entire post.
I understand they may have made a mistake and I may have exploited it but can they justify wiping out my entire comms? They still got HUGE sales because of my PPC...which cost ME money! Grrrr...

[Ambski]

CJ Offical Reply:
"Anthony,

Thank you for your email.

As Ashley Madison did include in their Ts and Cs that publishers cannot use any form of Ashley Madison in their PPC campaigns, this included misspellings and in this case the advertiser had the right to reverse your commissions.

Regards,

Network Quality"

Really? Did they?
Is 'ashlet mad9son' a trademark of Ashley Madison?
Isn't the change to the T & Cs an indication that previous terms were misleading?
What about the Thousands of Pounds in sales that was generated, via the money I spent directing traffic, to their website which would NEVER have reached them?

Is this acceptable? Would be interested to read what the experts/gurus and self confessed 'guardians of Affiliate Marketing' have to say.

[ParisEngLtd]

They had no right to take your commission, if they change their T&Cs they can't do it retrospectively, you have spent out money advising their company on the terms they published and you are now out of pocket. If you have got nowhere with CJ I would write to someone high up in the company directly (and politely in the first instance) as it is probably a jobsworth who is responsible for clicking the button to reverse the commission.

I wouldn't mention 'exploiting a mistake' though, I would put more as a standard practice for promoting a merchant that doesn't ban these activities otherwise you are kind of implying you knew you were doing something wrong!!

[Ambski]

Hi All,
Thanks to those that stood up and where counted on this issue. I really appreciated it.

Alas, I fear this is a lost cause and ultimately not worth the energy.

Also CJ have gagged me from relaying their obviously 'pro-merchant' responses.

Hundreds of views but few posts? Beware the moving goalposts Affiliates, you are not immune.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Their T&C's may have implied that it pertained only to specific keywords & thus should have been taken as that ie negative keywords or simply don't use these words. Simply they should honour your commissions & inform via an appropiate notice period to all affiliates changes in keyword policy, if indeed they did sneak these in, then yet again it's a blemish on the merchant & network. If they want to prohibit mispellings & variations, though I would love to see them try & register all these with Google, they they should have said.

As a safegaurd, if it is assumed negative terms are suggested, then put them in as exact match negative terms, however there is a whole case as to why affiliates should not be forced to put in negative terms on any campaign.

Was there previosly any mention about restricting brand name in ad copy?

But bottom line they should pay & in future any affiliate give this merchant a wide berth if they are in the wrong.

Please could you elaborate on the gagging from CJ, I can imagine, but they cannot stop you from publishing correspondence you disagree with, no matter what wording they may have exerted, unless they wish the wrath of the affiliate community to contend with. But it is something to be expected & all this is not with my moderators hat on. My personal opinion is that if they want to hide behind a plc re no comment on the forum & don't address issues then they shouldn't be permitted to post promotional only comments on this forum nor have any comment on what is posted on here. Influence of discussions in public forums or blogs is not their or anybody's domain.

When are CJ going to support the affiliate?

If you can't post here, then blog all the correspondence, that's your property & they have no rights over it whatsoever.

Matt, feel free to edit as you deem correct, though I don't know the whole ins & outs of this particular case, is censorship of affiliate comments & gagging orders the way a network should proceed in this industry & that is from our own personal experiences.

It is disappointing, you haven't received a wider opinion from forum members whether for or against, but apathy is what seems to be the norm & what is happening recently, which will only affect the future course of the industry & the influence affiliates will have in the future. Thinking short term not long term. With a few networks, if you want the cream of the deals affiliates have to keep their gobs shut.

[hpops]

It is disappointing, you haven't received a wider opinion from forum members whether for or against, but apathy is what seems to be the norm & what is happening recently, which will only affect the future course of the industry & the influence affiliates will have in the future. Thinking short term not long term. With a few networks, if you want the cream of the deals affiliates have to keep their gobs shut.

Quite right its disappointing - so I'll jump in.
No change in terms should be (or can be) applied retrospectively - you should definitely not have the commissions reversed.
CJ as a network don't really get involved in resolving disputes like this - or thats my perspective. Either that or they are just wrong in this instance. The problem is that if they do not get involved they should state so publically so we know that they operate as a "commission junction" and nothing more (which would obviously influence which links to use).
If they support the merchants decision then they should tell you why and you should be able to interpret their dialogue for the benefit of other forum members.
I am constantly suprised that they're aren't more posts on CJ - perhaps there is some wholesale gagging going on. If the above implication is true (cream of the deals) then it hardly bodes well for our "transparent" industry.
Just as a CJ side note - our affiliate account log-in has been broken for around eight weeks now - with no end in sight - I'm a bit "arms length" from that side of our business now but find it very odd that if I'm not alone in this no-one else has posted.

[gadget]

I think this case highlights one of my main frustrations with the networks, and not just CJ. Rules are rules and if you get caught, put your hands up and accept it. However, this case, like so many others, is not rule breaking - it was something that fell into "the grey area" of not being excluded by the rules.

It was a merchant who doesn't understand either their own business or affiliate marketing. Ambski broke no rule. I suspect that the Marketing Director is a typically old fashioned "let's love our precious brand" and protect it like an over-bearing parent. The reason merchants are in business is to make money. Ambski was helping them do that. There was no negative impact on the brand, after all, it was the customers who mis-spelt the brand name in the first place so they obviously haven't got that strong a brand .. lol.

The networks always side with the merchant. They never support the affiliates. There never seems to be any arbitration. Shouldn't the networks be the middle man, the ombudsmen, the arbitrator?

I agree that this merchant should have paid the commission, altered their T&Cs and given an appropriate notice period to change contracts.

I wonder what the outcome would be if it was taken through the courts? After all, it is a legally binding contract we all sign up to.

Come on Networks .. make a comment.

[kier]

The networks always side with the merchant. They never support the affiliates. There never seems to be any arbitration. Shouldn't the networks be the middle man, the ombudsmen, the arbitrator?

Come on Networks .. make a comment.

Well, as you asked - You're making a huge generalisation here which is simply not true. Networks don't always take the merchant's side and they do support affiliates. Please don't tar us all with the same brush because every situation and every network differs and regardless of what has happened in this case, networks do work hard for affiliates every day.

[hpops]

I agree with Kier - this, to me at least is a network specific issue

[Ambski]

Hi ,
Thanks for getting involved. I really appreciate it.

I do feel really weak in this situation and don't know which way to go. It was (to me) a lot of money but I can't see this ending in anything other than a stalemate.

I agree with Funky Monkey statement regarding grey area. Virtually ALL other merchants that prohibit mis-spellings state so clearly in their terms. That's why I feel the 'goalposts' have simply been moved.

The latest CJ responses (hope your right Qui Gon Jinn!) are on my blog here:
Boxing Man: The Ashley Madison - CJ 'Affair'...

Interested to know your thoughts. Let me know.
Anthony.

[gadget]

Well, as you asked - You're making a huge generalisation here which is simply not true. Networks don't always take the merchant's side and they do support affiliates. Please don't tar us all with the same brush because every situation and every network differs and regardless of what has happened in this case, networks do work hard for affiliates every day.

Yes, you're probably right.

Out of interest, with your Network hat on, how do you think CJ should have responded?

[gadget]

Also CJ have gagged me from relaying their obviously 'pro-merchant' responses.

If I write to a newspaper or magazine and they publish my letter, are they ignoring my proprietary rights too?

I'm not legally trained but it sounds a bit much for CJ to adopt such a bully-boy approach on this?

[kier]

That would depend on several other factors which I have no knowledge of so I couldn't really say.

What does seem clear though is that the restrictions are ambiguous. As such my advice going forward is if you are in doubt about something like this, ask before you do it because you will save yourself a lot of heartache in the long run if things turn out bad.