0% Commissions - H0% H0% H0% Merry Christmas (Not!)

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Wii's can be part & parcel of this debate too, hence why the poll doesn't mention only Dixons in the original question. When 0% Wii's were removed from certain feeds belonging to certain merchants our sales shot up significantly, earning both the network & the affiliate.

And again if any networks or merchant is not informing the affiliates then the trust & transaprency becomes even worse & a wider deep rooted issue.

[hpops]

Keith, particularly for you really, although your point is relevant for content publishers working in the industry for many years with good technical skills, I don't believe that this is fair to the newcomers to the market using predominately network lead (content engine, shop window etc) The presence of products within those technologies allows for free product distribution through usually costed channels - I can't see how this can be at all fair. Leakage is one thing, direct distribution for no cost is another.

I can't see why a network would feasibly justify it to be honest?

[Rand0m]

I'm probable really naive.

I just want to build websites that people will find useful when shopping, and get paid a cut by a grateful merchant. I don't want to have to be worrying about commission differentials and quick SQL statements and whether someone's taking the mickey because I would really quite like to live in a world where people leave the mickey where it was last put down.

As well as that, I want to be ten years younger and several stone lighter, with Antonio Banderas's looks, Sean Connery's money, a rambling house on a clifftop in Cornwall and a dog called Spot.

It seems simple to me: Dixons are running a business and so are most of us. We realise that. Dixons seem not to - by pushing zero and ultra-low commission products they're demonstrating they see us as an adjunct of their marketing operation and subject to their instructions. They expect us to accept a relationship in which their need to avoid a loss on certain products is self-evidently more important than our need to earn a fair reward for our work.

I don't want Dixons to make a loss - we all lose if they decide the whole concept of affiliate marketing doesn't work for them and walk away. But I want them to accept that we're here to work *with* them, not *for* them.

[Darren M]

Originally Posted by drivetowin Dixons argue that due to the costs of distribution and their margins overall on the affiliate programme, any item they sell below £x.xx (I would consider it wrong under commercial confidentiality to reveal on a public form what £x.xx is in Dixon's case) actually costs them money, and therefore there is no margin on those items to take commission from.

I remember Dixons mentioning this figure in a meeting a few months ago and I was quite surprised at how high it was. Hopefully they'll be able to reduce their distribution costs next year and bring this figure down a bit.

[Bud]

Having thought some more about this I've come to the conclusion that we have to be very sceptical about Dixons approach to AM.

Are their 0% and very low commissions a 'trial'?

What's the implications for the rest of their group when they consider the results?

Dixons, Currys, PC World, The Link - Same group.

If I were in charge and found that AM linked profits were higher from Dixons then the rest would very quickly be following suit!

Maybe not as simple as that - but worrying.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Re Dixons

Further discussion here

The Dixons Commission Structure

[drivetowin]

Having thought about this while the forum was offline, I can see how it poses a problem for people who use Vanilla shopwindow, i.e. the content units or the ready designed front end, as, as far as I know, there is no indication when using those what level of commission each item attract - I was thinking purely from the point of view of actually working with and manipulating the raw datafeeds.

So, given that many affiliates will have neither the skill set or the resources to manipulate the raw datafeeds, I would concede that the best option for the majority of affiliates would be to remove the 0% items from the Shopwindow feed.

I think this raises a bigger question of whether making product feeds available to all via content units is really a good idea for the industry in the longer term, but that's a question for another day...

Two questions I would like to pose though

a) Paul, why did you choose to make the poll public when most polls on a4u are anonymous. I think I know why you did it but I'd like to hear your reasoning...

b) If, as seems to be the general concensus, promoting products for free (or even at a loss) is detrimental to the industry, would those same affiliates who have criticised me for taking that line also criticise ppc affiliates within closed groups who are prepared to commit to losing money on generic terms to reap the profits on brand) - in reality aren't they just doing the same thing as me accepting 0 items in product feeds - or is it a case of one rule for the ppc big guys and another rule for the rest?

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Answer to (a) Quite simple really, too many polls are anonymous and in the past there have been occasional problems with dubious & quite questionable voting, I like to think that those within the industry are mature enough not to be lurking or shirking behind anonymity & even political correctness, that way people can observe where we draw parallels & contrasting view points in relation to each other on topics of discussion in a more open & transparent way, hence if anyone still wanted anonymity then they needn't have voted. Is that really such a big issue?

Also I don't think skill set or resources should come into the judgement of affiliates ability in handling datafeeds vanilla or raw, any problems on whatever product / datafeed from whichever network, should be filtered accordingly at source.

And what if the affiliate was simply sending traffic directly through to a merchant through basic linking, what is the view then? Or if an affiliate is relatively new to the industry, is it then russian roulette if they make a commission for their efforts? Which is not particularly fair on them.

[km8]

Originally Posted by drivetowin Yes - if they are clearly identified within the feed as being non-commissionable items

I agree. That way, I can choose whether to display them or not. What's difficult about that?

What is a problem is merchants including/being-allowed-to-include 0% products where there is no indication within the feed of which ones are 0%.

So for networks, I'd say allow 0% or 0.5% products only if the feed includes info on the % payable. That way, we can choose whether to show the 0% products or not (though I doubt anyone will be "pushing" them).

This thread seems to be devolving into discussing what is an acceptabe commission to offer on a particular product within a feed - somewhere between 0% and 100% - or what is an acceptable minimum.

But that's not the point!

Give us the info, within the feed, and let us decide. That way Keith is happy as he can include the 0% products if he need them for his business model and those who think nothing less than 5% is acceptable can exclude them for exactly the same reason.

[ep90]

I'm 100% behind Keith on this one. Building our brand and providing the best level of service is the most important factor. If by doing this we make no money on a few sales so be it. I'd sooner a customer went away happy because they'd found the best price, that way they are more likely to tell their friends and help us build the brand. We are in this for the long haul, not the fast buck.

Now this does not mean I'd be happy to take 0% commission on all products (it's my lively hood after all) but if Dixons (or who ever) have decided to pay 0% on a few product groups for profit reasons then thats fair enough.

It's either the novices or fast buck boys that are moaning. I realise it must be frustrating if you don't make many sales and some of them are 0%, but your next sale might be on a plasma and you'll make £30. You've got to take the rough with the smooth.