Cross Merchant Advertising - Good or Bad?

[Frostie]

When we affiliates send a visitor to a website, we don't like to see a telephone number splattered across the website encouraging people to ring to place orders. I wondered what the general consesus was on cross merchant advertising?

For example;
You send a visitor to a WIDGETS Merchant... all shapes, sizes and colours.
They don't have a phone number splattered across the homepage, however down the left and right hand side they do have adverts for merchants selling GIZMOS and BAZOOKAS (couldn't think of any other generic stuff).

The companies selling GIZMOS and BAZOOKAS are both merchants on the same network as the WIDGET seller.

If my visitor decides to buy a BAZOOKA then my sale wont be tracked via the network as it came from the WIDGET merchant.

How much of this goes on?
I know when you order goods, sometimes you get a cross merchant brochure, but I am seeing more and more cross merchant advertising kicking in too.
Does this concern affiliates as possible sources of leakage (I love that word )

[nim-b]

Difficult one this. I think you have to allow for merchants displaying some advertising- admitedly a site plastered in adverts would be problematic, but for a lot of merchants its a valuable revenue stream that they won't give up.

However I agree that too many adverts, or adverts for retailers that have a known affiliate programme can be an issue for affiliates.

Which is why as well as the tiny phone number, we also remove the box we have showing cd-wow products for all affiliate traffic .

[jess1]

Darn good question, merchants can have their cake and eat it and keep affiliates happy too.

1. Merchants only need to have a telephone number in one place, thats under the customer care page.

2. Re cross promoting, ez.... add the sub advertisers at the thank you page, after their own customer has checked out.

Why any merchant would want to send traffic off their site is beyond me.
Telephone numbers and merchant cross promoting = affiliate commission leakage.
Or get rid or your affiliate program cos most serious affiliates wont promote you!

my pennies worth

[Aceicol]

Have to say I agree with Jess, not sure why any merchant would want to send traffic away from their site, I really can't see why any merchant would have ads on their site, do they really generate that much money.

As for phone numbers, most of the Merchants I work with (on an agency basis) have them already, we then use code to make the main order number disapear when the site is visited from an affiliate link, best of both worlds then.

[gadget]

Originally Posted by Aceicol Have to say I agree with Jess, not sure why any merchant would want to send traffic away from their site, I really can't see why any merchant would have ads on their site, do they really generate that much money.

The links may be from a merchant with several companies in the same group, for example, Currys + Dixons + PC World.

[Aceicol]

Yes to be fair I wasn't thinking of them advertising the same group companies, that is a decent example of why they would though.

[yesasia]

Another example is a merchant who as an extensive range of products with product reviews and descriptions, and is used as a reference site by a lot of visitors, who do not have an intention buying online. The ads would be a way to monetise that traffic.

Such a merchant could also avoid showing the ads when the visitor comes through an affiliate link.

[Gavinio]

The above are all the most sensible solutions, however it's similar to phone numbers, and do bear in mind that some merchants don't have the capability or the will to remove either the links or the numbers.

Simply put, if no other tracking is available, and 25% of bookings are made over the phone, then merchants should pay out (online CPA) + 25% to affiliates. You might find that removing numbers will see them drop commissions (a bit) but it's still fairer than having leakage. Something similar should be factored into affiliate commissions when merchants cross-promote.

[gadget]

From a Merchant's point of view, the larger Merchants only get a small percentage of their overall business from affiliates (perhaps 5-10%). Most of them will therefore not be interested in re-working their sites or internal processing to ensure they track every affiate sale in these examples.

I'm not saying that its right or that I agree with this but lets be honest here, if you can get away without paying for something some people will.

Thankfully, the better Merchants will address this but that's not 100% of them.

[sgpratley]

I can see the business logic behind advertising merchants in the same group, but the affiliate should get cross-tracked commissions on those sales, if they've driven traffic and the group benefits from the affiliate's traffic. A different brand in the same group is no different than AA Insurance and AA Breakdown for example.

I've seen a few merchants who put links on the order confirmation page, which I don't really have an issue with, the commission's been paid by then, and the customer is 'theirs'.

Best solution would be to hide them in the same manner as phone numbers I suppose.

Like anything it's a question of balance, if the merchant in question is paying above the odds on their commission and the leakage is minimal then it all works out in the end.

I just think that a merchant putting banners on their site doesn't show a lot of confidence in their own ability to convert traffic.

[Frostie]

Originally Posted by Funky Monkey The links may be from a merchant with several companies in the same group, for example, Currys + Dixons + PC World.

The example that made me raise this question in the first place, doesn't advertise companies in its same group, in some instance not even in the same sector, however all are available as merchants on the same network as the 'offending' merchant.