Should Merchants be allowed to specify Negative keywords

[Shane]

Tweet

I was just reading well worded update to hotel chocolat ppc terms in the CJ forum when the term "negative keyword list" reared it's head again.

personally I won't add anything to a negative keyword list, stubborn perhaps, but I'm happy not to bid on any brand term a merchant specifies, if they ask me not to bid on competitors I'll even do that, but I won't be told that I MUST add any phrase to a negative keyword list in my account.

Am I alone or does anyone else think telling PPC affs they must use negatives is like saying to the seo guys they can't mention those exact same terms on their site page either ?

Why should PPC which may only account for 20% of the traffic be told we must negative some terms yet seo and content sites which will account for far more business have free reign ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but PPC and Seo are basically identical, the only difference is timescale and control, it's faster to PPC and you can change the listing, url and terms in minutes, SEO is slower and fixed until it updates.

If it's different then I think I'll have to start seo'ing every "negative list" keyword for every merchant and mop up on the uncontested traffic with no ppc listings lol

negative lists need stamping on the head now, or it'll be "here's your 55 exact matched keywords, bid no more than 43p and any affiliate found bidding on any other keywords will be binned immediately"

[Qui Gon Jinn]

100% Spot On

[ChrisBishop]

Shane

You are very welcome to your opinion and naturally working for yourself set your own business rules I am not on forum for arguements or have any hidden agendas.

With regards the PPC guidelines I have set at Hotel Chocolat, I have worked closely with my network, search agency, my internal team; I did consider asking my Mum at one point but most importantly my affiliates...

My merchants/retailers invest phenomenal amounts of resource into the brand experience their consumers receive whether during the experience, in store and now more apparent online. As Online Marketing Manager of Hotel Chocolat is it my responsibility to aim for the highest possible customer experience online but from a holistic point of view to ensure multi-channel brand consistency.

Working closely with my search agency we strategically ensure that all the brand touch points are correct to achieve loyalty beyond reason from our customers. PPC is a the ultimate direct response tool, especially for emerging retailers (such as Hotel Chocolat) and it is one that a merchant can have total control. It is one I have decided to take control of, and I am already pleased by the response from affiliates in respecting that. Day to day I’ll continue working my PPC affiliates (who request/need the assistance) and my search agency to guarantee continual growth in our paid for search results therefore success for Hotel Chocolat online.

If you would like to discuss this further and/or like to become a member of the Hotel Chocolat affiliate program please feel free to contact me and I’ll call you or meet you to discuss.

I’ve worked in affiliate marketing since 1999 and I have seen first hand how the industry has matured year on year, this industry is one I am very passionate about as you can see in the following blog post. It technology and the skills within have become more and more sophisticated and I personally am all for an industry body or team. As the maturity and investment continues on all levels so must the regulations which naturally include PPC.

These do differ from network to network and merchant to merchant but for the longevity of affiliate marketing all parties must continue to promote the self policed best practice.

Thanks

Chris

[KieronD]

100% agree with you Shane. I never add anything that a merchant specifies to a negative keyword list.

Chris - seeing as you have entered into this discussion, I will use Hotel Chocolat as an example. Lets imagine a scenario whereby I have a website that lists say 5 or 6 sweetie merchants, Hotel Chocolat is one one of them. The site gives favourable reviews to Hotel Chocolat as well as your competitors. I send traffic to this site via Google AdWords PPC. I only bid on generic terms like "chocolate" or "sweets" for example, I do not bid on trademark terms like "Hotel Chocolat".

What makes you think it is acceptable to dictate to me what terms I "must" add to my negative keyword list just because I promote Hotel Chocolat on my site? As Shane rightly says what would happen if visitors came to my site for so called disallowed terms using organic search? Would you want me to take my site down? Maybe take down all references to your restricted keywords? Where will it stop?

If you or your agency are in anyway competent in ppc then you can surely control the way Hotel Chocolat is represented in the PPC search engines to ensure the "highest possible customer experience online but from a holistic point of view to ensure multi-channel brand consistency" as you say.

Like Shane, maybe I'm stubborn but I will not, and never have added any brand names to my generic ppc campaigns negative keyword list. There really is no need, and if any merchant doesn't like it then I'm more than happy to remove all their links.

[Shane]

Hi Chris

Good response, I wasn't particularly singling HC out, it was just that I read it and once again negative list was in there as though it's a standard thing when it is definitely NOT, as I said your update was well worded, it showed you had thought out the policies before posting which often some merchants don't do at all.

I too have no hidden agenda and am not out for aruguments, true I do work for myself and thus can set my own rules, but I'm more concerned helping to ensure the industry I work in isn't geared against us as PPC affiliates, and the way things work as they (if unchallenged) slowly become the accepted norm, my example of "here's your 55 exact matched keywords fight it out at no more than 43p" is probably not that far off for some merchants.

With regard to PPC you say "It is one I have decided to take control of", that's fine you can dictate what terms you want but any affiliates who gleefully run of to add negatives to a list need a spanking, before long on some merchants it'd be a bigger list than what is allowed whilst the SEO and content site guys get free reign umolested.

PPC is no different to SEO except for timescale and control, ie we can get listings up immediately, and then can edit them as required, why should I have to add negatives when search guys don't have to ?.. what's the difference here ? if anything I'll probably get less traffic in general on ppc than I would for a top 3 listing on SEO

As I said I'm not singling HC out, the site is good one, policy is ok except IMO for the negative list request, I'm just very concerned with the growing trend to being told what keywords I must add as negatives even if I agree not to bid on brand terms or competitor merchants... that's simply not on at all. .. I'm happy not to bid on brand, or comeptitors but no way will I add anything as a negative, that functionality is not there for merchant use, google's definition of a negative keyword is "A negative keyword is a kind of keyword that prevents your ads from showing on irrelevant search queries." so if it's IRRELEVANT I'll add it as a negative, if not I won't.

If you wouldn't do it to the seo guys then don't why do some merchants think it's acceptable to do it to the ppc guys ? end of the day it's identical except for timescale ?.. ppc is actually less traffic in many cases yet more stringent .. if you want control why is SEO left alone totally ?

I'm not saying enforce these same negative/brand restrictions on SEO but I am saying leave the ppc guys to do their stuff, most will never accept being told they can't bid on generics, many, whilst not shouting on here about it, will not add negatives either so lets get the negative list slapped out of here now before the lesser informed merchants start trying to add generics in there too.. or way it's going affiliate PPC will eat itself

[renegade]

I have added negative keywords but I really resent this unreasonable intrusion into my business. Merchants which insist on this practice are unlikely to get much enthusiam from me.

[drivetowin]

Have to say even though I concentrate on SEO and not PPC I 100% support what the others have said here.

[ChrisBishop]

I understand I am potentially throwing myself into a Lion's Den here, but I feel it is important as I have raised my decision to back this and explain (And thank you Shane, this decision was made after much deliberation and discussion from various parties) and to speak for the current 40% who voted "YES"

On the flipside you must appreciate merchants need to ensure that affiliates are not running campaigns which potentially may misrepresent the proposition/brand/campaign.

As I put in my updated PPC term and conditions post, “I am well aware the vast majority of you are keeping within the limits and it is a case of a few bad apples, but unfortunately they are undoing the goodwill and hard work invested by our affiliates, our agency and my team here at Hotel Chocolat”

With Hotel Chocolat it reached a point where our offer was misrepresented to which it escalated to numerous Trading Standards complaints. To which after extensive digging we discovered the problem had originated from an unethical PPC affiliate who was using broad and phrase keyword bidding loop holes, as well as bidding out of hours and other mischievous tricks to miss-lead the consumer (appearing as Hotel Chocolat).

It is felt a necessary step to ensure positive continuation of our program rather than ploughing resource into policing!

This debate will I am sure continue to go round in circles but I’d like to think you can appreciate the points from a merchants perspective as I completely do from ethical PPC affiliates.

Thanks

Chris

[D-Mac]

On balance I agree with Chris, due to the risk of a merchant being misrepresented.

E.g. Merchant sells grey widgets. That's all they sell. Affiliate bids on 'white widgets' as it only costs 2p a click and might convert despite the fact that the merchant only sells grey widgets. Customer clicks through to merchant's site, can't find white widgets, and blames the merchant for misleading advertising. Merchant ends up getting a bad reputation. Not all traffic is desirable, even if it is free.

I comepletly understand the problem of ppc vs seo with regard to this issue, and no doubt this will be addressed in time by some merchants too.

I'm not saying I like it, but I can see where merchants with these policies are likely to be coming from. Some merchants will of course misuse negative keyword policies, and I think this is possibly Shane's concern, but if we don't like it we don't have to promote them.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Let's put the boot on the other foot & reverse the request and see how unreasonable it actually is by insisting that ALL merchants put ALL affiliates brand names as a negative phrase in their paid search activity.

A merchant bids on the generic term "widgets", a potential customer types in the a hybrid phrase, " "widgets" plus "affiliate website name" ". The merchants ad appears because of the broadmatch on the word "widgets". Can't we then make due complaint?

Now, this has actually happened on several occasions to explain to a merchant how they don't comprehend broadmatch.

Enforcement of negative terms is a no go area.

but if we don't like it we don't have to promote them.

Networks, shouldn't allow it .. full stop.

[Shane]

I can empathise with you Chris it can't be easy managing that and this leads me to a further point I almost touched on in my post above.. but figured I'd save it for another day but it's relevant to the point below so lets do it

unethical PPC affiliate who was using broad and phrase keyword bidding loop holes, as well as bidding out of hours and other mischievous tricks to miss-lead the consumer (appearing as Hotel Chocolat).

if you don't want an affiliate bidding on your brand that is perfectly acceptable and understandable, other competior urls too, that's fine, but the rest of your brand management RE keywords should be punishment based, weed these dodgy affiliates out of there, first offence is a warning, second is commissions withheld, third depending on timescale is being kicked off, and if they do it say 10 merchants in a year then the network bins the affiliate (hmmm can't see networks going for that though ! they like 30% of something too much)

whilst many networks say they monitor brand bidding and out of hours activity in truth some really don't give a crap, I've been told personally by account managers at two networks to essentially do what I like and if the merchant spots it then they'll address it when it happens.

When was the last time you heard of an affiliate being binned and comissions withheld ? sure I guess it happens but not enough to control anyone on a meaningful level, it's not the 50 lashes with a whip it should be, it's more like the icecream being licked off your face by a labrador..type punishment approach

example : On one campaign, a certain credit card, there are still affiliates bidding on the brand over a YEAR after they were specifically told not to, tonight as I look there are 3 affiliates bidding on it and various others have been doing so without any network intervention for around 15 months now.

Do the networks concerned not know ? yup they do as I've spoken with two of them about it about 10 months back, then about 3 back to clarify the ppc policy, so are they looking out for the merchant there ? that merchant has said "no brand bidding"... yet 15 months later they are still doing this... it's all gain no pain !

That merchant must have paid out over £150K in unwarranted commission that they have specifically set out NOT to pay for, in this period, the network bagging around £45k for their "trouble" too.

so yes Chris I can empathise with you but it's also down to the networks, you are paying around 30% for them to manage that element, getting quality affiliates who will behave, to promote your product and brand how you want it to be presented, but negative keywords are not yours to use, negative keywords are an element of a campaign that are used to refine and elimiate unqualified traffic, not for a merchant to disqualify elements of traffic that don't suit them, it starts with brand, but will migrate to the top earning keywords for in house ppc to take over from and then end up with idiot merchants saying genrics must be added too.

basically the PPC affiliate point of view is if you wouldn't tell an SEO guy not to do something then don't try telling a PPC guy to do it, ... it's time people grew some spines and started to kick the networks harder to punish dodgy affiliates harder and faster !

Tighter affiliate control is the answer, but in the form of "if you flout the rules you'll feel some pain" .. as it is it's a case of flout the rules, get told off, wait a month and get stuck back in, it's a bit like letting the greedy kid guard the tuck shop at the moment .. the network makes 30% of all activity, bout time some of them went on a diet !

I would take a look at your program and could spend tens of thousands a month if it was profitable but personally whilst there's a negative keyword list, even if it was just one keyword (and I might not even want to bid for it at that), I still wouldn't touch it.. it's the principle of the matter, it starts with one and ends up being mandatory and a negative list is not something I will EVER agree to in T&C's I'll simply move on to the next merchant instead.

some networks aren't doing their jobs so the negative keyword list is being thrust upon us, it's like going out and electric tagging teenagers just because the police are asleep in the patrol car, and some of them *might* offend at some stage.

I comepletly understand the problem of ppc vs seo with regard to this issue, and no doubt this will be addressed in time by some merchants too.

I can see this being addressed with an approved exact matched keyword list and a negative list, but I'll tell you what.. by then most affiliates with any sense who want maximum ROI will be bidding on all those banned words and firing them to arbitrage feeds where you or your competitors will pay very nicely for the traffic.

you may own the brand but you can only control the affiliate you have, not the guys who aren't signed up to your aff scheme, if they aren't pushing you directly they can still push your traffic to competitors so is it not better to have affiliates who will behave (after the networks grow some gonads and start binning dodgy affs), pushing all the traffic your way instead of non affiliates pushing it elsewhere ?

like I say i do empathise but this negative listing is the start of something that will lead to big problems later, it needs kicking out now and tighter network control being enforced to make them manage the affiliates harder and with more punishment.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Like Shane, maybe I'm stubborn but I will not, and never have added any brand names to my generic ppc campaigns negative keyword list. There really is no need, and if any merchant doesn't like it then I'm more than happy to remove all their links.

And I have had networks say to me I am the only the one thought that. Hmm .. a few fibs being told by them then.

Unlike a couple of years ago, it is commonly said that now that brand named bidding is a low hanging fruit, well potentially by being not part of an affiliate program, arbitrage would be like having the fruit picked & peeled for you, it's a potential goldmine. The same applies to seo'ing on mis-spells. Let's not forget most merchants cannot convert well on their own brand name & the generic term is always more valuable & competitive than the brand.

PS What has bemused me today .. When you get network(s) boasting that opinion on the forum is in the minority.

[hpops]

And I have had networks say to me I am the only the one thought that. Hmm .. a few fibs being told by them then.

Ha! Was just thinking the same when I got to your post.
Just to touch on Chris's last (and very well put) post.
Although I appreciate that misrepresentation is a serious issue - why is it isolated around brand terms?
The two issues are actually unrelated - misrepresentative offers could just as easily appear on generic or product adverts (not to mention a thousand SEO'd pages)
Sensible policing of representation is a hard job - and no-one is doing it at all - ever.
Of course, Shane is absolutely right that networks should be policing this, but they're just not. At the moment the only way to control your offer and brand representation sensibly is to trawl through serps and ads manually (or employ an ethical affiliate management company with an understanding of all parties issues )
Shanes other point about removing publishers from networks who serially offend is a complete necessity. And about three years too late in being implemented across the board.

[drivetowin]

Absolutely agree with Shane.

Almost without exception networks police with a truncheon softer than one of those joke yellow foam ones you had as a kid - if Cleopatra were alive today her house would be full of affiliate networks - in fact why not launch a new network and call it Eunuchs - it would be just as effective as the rest.

Effective policing is something I have argued for for years - but last time I argued for it in respect of brand bidding one of the affiliate posters in this thread said I had overstepped the mark - you can't have it both ways - you can't say we want 100% policing of the things we don't do, but we want a softly softly approach on things we do - it has to be one rule across the board -

breach t's and c's on one merchant one occasion - get a warning.
breach t's and c's for a second time (whether for original merchant or a different one) - commissions withheld for merchant in question.
breach t's and c's for a third time (whether for original merchant or different one) - booted off network and commissions withheld.

Of course all of the above would need to have some agreed right of appeal and I would suggest rather like driving licence penalty points the slate should be wiped clean after say six months.

But it will never happen. I like I suspect many others, when I have inadvertently broken a merchant's rules (due to lack of communication the rules had changed - but that's a whole different issue) have been told by a network "stop doing that for now, but give it a few weeks for the heat to die down and you'll be ok "

Here's an idea - why doesn't a merchant say to a network - if we find an affiliate breaking our t's and c's we will ask you for documented proof of what you have done about it - if the answer is nothing then we will pay you no commissions at all for this month and you can fund all of our commissions for this month out of your pocket - there's nothing like a threat of making someone dip their hand in their pocket to make them focus their mind.

But policing has to be a two way street - I'm fed up to the back teeth with networks who simply let merchants walk away - too often I get the argument "oh, but there's no point in pursuing them" - well unless they've gone bust, yes there is - what is the point in having a 30/60/90 whatever day cookie and notice period if in reality you just let a merchant turn their back on it. Once a programme has been running for 6 months so you have a good idea of average commissions why not require the merchant to maintain a contingency fund with the network of 3 months commissions and make it clear contractually that unless they give proper notice, then that contingency fund is forfeit and non-refundable. I can hear the response now - "oh, but then we will be uncompetitive and mr scary merchant might go to mr nicey nicey affiliate network down the road" - well not if for once you guys at the networks actually swallowed your pride, forgot you were competitors and agreed on some network terms and conditions which applied across the board, whichever network was involved. While you're at it, why not include a line that you will not sign up any merchant who left their previous network without honouring the terms and conditions in place.

Will anyone have the balls to do it? - I'll let you know the next time my Christmas turkey has a ballot paper inside with a cross on it...

*Of course, the alternative scenario with merchants (which I personally suspect happens more often than networks are willing to let on) is that the merchant gives the network due notice, but the network chooses not to tell the affiliates until the last moment, in so doing ensure that sales roll in up to the final day and hence maximising their override....

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Policing cannot be effective until we set up a single point of reference & automatic notifications of any sized updates are always sent out, otherwise most ppc affiliates will be in breach at some stage, those that are not are ones with psychic abilities.

Also the the disclosure of closed groups raises it's ugly head once again to prevent the "if he is doing it i am doing it syndrome" as it appears it's unmonitored to that affiliate who jumps on the bandwagon.

By having all three in place will considerably prevent many of the problems, but networks are generally not interested otherwise these would be in place by now. There are no excuses.

Because of this inertness, some networks have made a rod for their own back, when more time has been consumed policing through lack of previous protocols, thus losing focus and not fully developing towards innovation (there is that word again)

Networks often make mistakes re broadmatch, most are courteous in their approach and realise genuine errors can occur either side, however do we want all networks to be like CJ Network Quality ... that is what they have to be careful off.

Once again and I get fed up with hearing myself say it, when are networks / merchants going to clamp down on the likes of ebay & ask.com, when I have approached merchants some have said that their brand isn't actually trademarked and/or say they ebay & ask.com are too big so what can they do about it. Also this applies to competitor merchants and this also applies to questionable t&c's which actually say you can bid on competitor terms. All this suggests is pick on the affiliates who may not have the resources to fight back.

If those that strongly disagree with negative keywords, then why don t we simply list the programs, if not on here then on our own blogs.