Help me with a serious Google problem!

[drivetowin]

Tweet

Dave

Sorry but speaking as an affiliate and as a merchant I don't see why the affiliate should not get their commissions in all of this (assuming they have done nothing underhand re redirects) - you say it is not the merchant's fault, that may be true, but it is not the affiliate's fault either - if anyone it is at fault it is Google but I cannot some how see them dipping their hand into their pocket and reimbursing the affiliate or the merchant.

[D-Mac]

Google is Google like any other search engine, whether we agree or disagree we just have to accept some things that are thrown up.

Yeah great, so if this happens to a big name brand and the press get hold of it then it will do the world of good for the affiliate marketing industry Just what we all need eh..

[gadget]

Yeah great, so if this happens to a big name brand and the press get hold of it then it will do the world of good for the affiliate marketing industry Just what we all need eh..

So are you saying you'd return the cheque if you were the affiliate?

[getvisible]

It happend to me by mistake a few years ago when I used rank ahead of a merchant for their brandname. I then built a site around the tactic and it worked well for a while. I still get the odd sale around it but I can't work out where the sales are coming from as I removed the site ages ago.

How ethical it is, I'm not sure. If a merchant bans redirects to their site then they're opening up a can of worms. The only solution now is to make sure you've got them in another folder and robots.txt them out.

[D-Mac]

So are you saying you'd return the cheque if you were the affiliate?

Truthfully? I would hope they didn't notice for a while, and would hopefully come to some kind of agreement. It's business isn't it. It doesn't make it the right thing to do though..

[Fraser]

If Kier knows the affiliate and is happy that there is no foul play then I would never agree to the idea of commission being reduced to 0%.

Is that not a bit like me asking for double commission just because google dropped my site down the rankings?

None of us have control over google so I don't think the terms of an affiliate agreement should change just because google does something a bit strange.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Why should affiliate marketing get a bad rep apart from simply being an easy target, and especially if an affiliate has done nothing untoward.

Companies like BMW & other blue chips which try to deceive search engines & Ebay & Ask can do as they please unanswered.

Fraser's opinion sums it up quite nicely.

I do think we should know who the merchant is & see an example listing. As it seems a right mess when I do a search on the merchants URL, with all kinds of things going on.

[D-Mac]

Is that not a bit like me asking for double commission just because google dropped my site down the rankings?

Not really, because this is way outside the realms of an algo change.

With regard to the finances, as a quick example, assume a merchant gets 40% of their sales from organic Google, and pays 10% on those sales. That's effectivley 4% of their turnover being paid out because of a technical glitch. Of course this is based on the assumption that all of their free listings have somehow become aff links, which possibly isn't the case, but it could happen.

[D-Mac]

Why should affiliate marketing get a bad rep apart from simply being an easy target

If a network's potential customer (a merchant) thought that by setting up an affiliate programme there was a small but real risk that their own free google listings could end up costing them a % of each sale they would surely think twice before going ahead. There's already crap things being said about the industry, the slaters don't need any more fodder.

[kier]

Dave

Sorry but speaking as an affiliate and as a merchant I don't see why the affiliate should not get their commissions in all of this (assuming they have done nothing underhand re redirects) - you say it is not the merchant's fault, that may be true, but it is not the affiliate's fault either - if anyone it is at fault it is Google but I cannot some how see them dipping their hand into their pocket and reimbursing the affiliate or the merchant.

Fortunately we should be easily able to tell the affiliate's legitimate sales and those that have come from this bug. Yes this is indeed Google's fault not the merchant's or the affiliates. Why that means though the merchant should pay for sales that the affiliate has done nothing to actively bring them is beyond my understanding. You say Google wouldn't reimburse the affiliate - very true. But what would they be reimbursing them for precisely? Its not like they've got a big PPC bill to pay or that they've spent hours on SEO and linkbuilding.

[drivetowin]

Why that means though the merchant should pay for sales that the affiliate has done nothing to actively bring them is beyond my understanding. You say Google wouldn't reimburse the affiliate - very true. But what would they be reimbursing them for precisely?

They would be reimbursing them for the commissions you seem willing to withhold.

It is a good job the affiliate in question is not me - I would be well miffed if you set the commissions to zero without liaising with me first. I would also vehemently object to the statement that these sales are not legitimate - unless there's something dodgy the affiliate has done then they are 100% legitimate - fortuitous maybe but still legitimate.

If the affiliate has done nothing wrong and the visitor has arrived at the merchant site via the affiliate link then the affiliate should receive their commission - period. If Google is causing the problem then the merchant should seek compensation from Google - not the affiliate (which is in my opinion what is happening here). Put the boot on the other foot, if Google was somehow cocking up links from an affiliate site and sending traffic to the merchant from the affiliate site not via Webgains links would you be pressing the merchant to reimburse the affiliate - I doubt it - you would be saying it was Google's fault.

I am genuinely sorry for the merchant caught in this situation but his argument should be with Google, not with the affiliate, or with Webgains come to that.

Lets make no bones about it, what the merchant (and you) seem to be saying is that this traffic is rightfully theirs for free - no it isn't - it is going via a webgains link under the terms of the webgains affiliate agreement. Now that the Webgains link is appearing is Google's error, but there is nothing technically wrong (in affiliate terms) in the link appearing - ok yes this affiliate got lucky this time but it happens - the merchant and Webgains should do the right thing and honour the commissions. It's tough, but then whoever said business is fair.

[gadget]

Yes this is indeed Google's fault not the merchant's or the affiliates. Why that means though the merchant should pay for sales that the affiliate has done nothing to actively bring them is beyond my understanding.

It's the Merchant's contractual obligation to pay the commission as the leads are legit.

[Wardy]

I have to say putting those affiliate commisison to zero is bang out of order especially if the affiliate has not done anything underhand.

A quetsion for you, if the merchant in question somehow by complete luck was listed first for a competing brand, simply because googles algo put it there, would they then code something into their site to make sure all the traffic that is actually looking for their competitor was re-directed to the right site or would they just see it as a piece of fluke luck and profit from it in the short term untill google noticed it's mistake and sorted it?

Yes that is unlikely to happen but I'd be pretty sure that they would be happy to take this extra traffic. Yes it's perhaps not the best way to compare what has actually happened but the sales are being made by this affiliates affiliate link and like it or not I eprsonally think you shoudl be paying out on all sales that are generated!

Cheers
Wardy

[D-Mac]

It's the Merchant's contractual obligation to pay the commission as the leads are legit.

Yes, that is possibly true. I can see this matter leading to contracts being changed though, and then potentially being used by network salespeople as a means of gaining an advantage over competing networks that don't make these freakishly rare events exempt from commission payments. "If you sign up with such and such a network there's always the danger that you could start paying % on your natural listings..."

I honestly think the best thing for the industry is to nail this (in reality, miniscule) problem right away, which it seems that Webgains are doing. They are 'losing' commission payments too. The affiliate (probably) hasn't really lost anything (unless they've rushed out and bought a new Merc with the money )

[kier]

I have to say putting those affiliate commisison to zero is bang out of order especially if the affiliate has not done anything underhand.

A quetsion for you, if the merchant in question somehow by complete luck was listed first for a competing brand, simply because googles algo put it there, would they then code something into their site to make sure all the traffic that is actually looking for their competitor was re-directed to the right site or would they just see it as a piece of fluke luck and profit from it in the short term untill google noticed it's mistake and sorted it?

I will not set the commissions to 0 as already stated, this was someone else's suggestion not mine. We're currently looking into this further and I'll update you on the situation.