Should programs be allowed to be on more than one network?

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Should programs be allowed to be on more than one network?

It would be interesting to see whether there is a firm difference of opinion or not between affiliates & networks & whther it depends on the level of support & tools an affiliate receives from a network.

[Paul Wright]

I can't think of one sensible reason as to why a merchant would not be allowed to use several networks, whether they 'need' them and to what detriment to the program is another?

On the flip side why not ask 'should networks be allowed to sign exclusive contacts'?

Cheers
Paul

[Fruit & Veg]

One reason could be that the fee's to get on the second/third network could potentially be used for affiliate commissions and incentives. So the affiliates that are already working hard for you aren't getting 100% of a merchant's affiliate marketing budget or attention.

I agree though, a merchant should be able to go on 2. I do find it strange though when a merchant launches on 3 or more in the same country.

[Zach_W]

Yes they should. Though you would enjoy some benefits if you choose to go exclusive..

[scifind]

Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jinn Should programs be allowed to be on more than one network? It would be interesting to see whether there is a firm difference of opinion or not between affiliates & networks & whther it depends on the level of support & tools an affiliate receives from a network.

Yes.

But the merchant should have the same terms,commission, cookies etc on each network.

[MVi-Sean]

I think having a secondary network can be a good thing.

For one, there are affiliates which will not work with a given network (for one reason or another), and secondly - having a second network can be useful to create a bit of healthy competition

Obviously everyone has their favorites, but a bit of competition can help to make sure everyone keeps their eye on the ball. You just need to make sure that the offering is the same on both networks - no point confusing the market or giving one network a clear advantage!

[sgpratley]

As someone who ran a programme on three major UK networks at one time, I can honestly say that we saw enough incremental sales from each one to make it worthwhile from a financial viewpoint.

Even if you keep your promotions and commissions the same, the networks own terms (including payment timings) can make a difference to the programme. A fair few jumped ship to AF with their guaranteed payments and quick turnaround when we started with them.

The downside is less obvious and includes:
1) More work in managing all three programmes means you are less able to come up with good ideas and act on them really quickly. Deduping sales and generally monitoring the programme adds to the workload.

2) A network getting 1/3 of your sales is going to put less effort in than one getting 100%. That's not laziness, it's just business unless you are a multi-million pound account. A fourth network was honest enough with me to say that we wouldn't get the attention we deserved unless we were exclusive with them or at least one of two. This was despite having some unique technology that would have brought us even more incremental revenue.

My best advice is that one network is the way to go, but that you could consider moving beyond your first network if another one has something genuinely unique to offer that will bring new traffic to the programme. If you ever swop networks, make sure there is as big an overlap as possible.

[moogie]

I agree with Stephen, if a merchant is on two or more networks it does become a pain to have to duplicate the work across other networks.

Just changing over banners and links takes up more time. Emails to the affiliates have to be changed to suit the network as well. That is just the start!

On the plus side it does open the program up to a wider affiliate base. From a network point of view it is better to have a merchant exclusive to them I feel and often fees reflect this.

Choice is king and as one network once said to me everything is negociable, especially if the merchant happens to be a big brand or sells high searched items.

I have been approaced in the past from various networks asking if any of our merchants would like to join them as well. It is just business of course and I agree no one network should be allowed to keep a merchant exclusive to them although from a mangement point of view it is easier if they are on just the one network.

[jess1]

No brainer two aff networks.
I have seen enough politics, companies going bust and merchants being reliant on just one company that can have a financial impact on their business, to know that working with two networks is the way to go. Working on worse case scenario and having a plan B should be encouraged and factored in. Reduces the what ifs, the risks, and if one network goes down or does something that conflicts with the best interests of our clients our bases are covered.

[hero]

Originally Posted by jess1 if one network goes down [...]our bases are covered.

with all due respect, but I think this not a risk a merchant faces if they elect to work with established networks.
I think the question/thread should be exploring more the reasons why merchants go with more than one or two networks, especially if they are happy with the network(s) they already are on & the program's performance.