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

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Tweet

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_and_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]

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.

[GW-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]

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.

[drivetowin]

Personally I would always recommend a merchant to go with two networks but no more than two because you do then rapidly get into the law of diminishing returns.

Why two networks

a) Affiliate reach - while it is true that many affiliates are signed up to all of the major affiliate networks there are still a substantial number who aren't and so there is generally some incremental affiliate reach to be had.

b) Get networks working harder - if a network has 100% of your business they have less incentive to work for you than if they are sharing the 100% of your business with another network - in this scenario it matters precious little to the affiliate whether the sale goes through network a or network b, it matters little to the merchant whether the sale goes through network a or network b, but it matters a hell of a lot to the network whether it goes through network a or network b.

c) Redundancy - if an affiliate programme is working well it can easily be contributing 30% of a merchant's online sales. If you're a merchant do you really want to risk 30% of your online sales potentially being switched off at a moment's notice - I agree with Hero the risk of a network financially collapsing is small (although the pressure on overrides could make that happen one day if common sense does not return to the table), there is always the risk of a technical failure (or in these uncertain times 'force majeure')

d) availability of technologies - most of the major networks have different technical solutions - being on more than one network may enable you to maximise your use of technology/solutions.

I would agree with Scifind that the merchant should have 100% the same terms and conditions on each network though and as far as possible should seek to keep creative consistent across the networks.

[jess1]

with all due respect, but I think this not a risk a merchant faces if they elect to work with established networks.

One would like to think so, am I really going to take that risk? No… Im not.
If you are speaking with your network hat on, then of course you would be advocating one network, less your merchants read this and set up with a second network. A lot of merchant use multiple platforms because they think they could be missing out “getting other affiliates” this is the most common reason I get as to why merchant use multiple platforms, the grass could be greener. It would be good to shoot this myth dead in it’s tracks, once and for all, as its still one of the selling points that sales people from networks still seem to be banding about, unless of course you are an industry specific network, like the finance sector. It’s always been about what you do with the affiliates that you have. It’s also about growing an affiliate program which takes months and months and even years of commitment, aint no such thing as a short cut. Perhaps the term loyalty program needs to be re-examined as to what this means. Its clear that networks are over promising and under delivering in terms of raising merchants expectations, which could be a reason why the network hop.
How can choice, comparison, worse case scenarios be anything other then prudent, responsible and looking ahead and factoring in the unknown. Does webgains class themselves as an established network? Id like to hear what the criteria is to be considered as an established network, does it mean finacial backing? Longevity? Nothing is a sure thing in the ecommerce world, is my thinking.

[Hero]

Keith, I agree with all your points, with an objection towards the network competition - being the sole network actually puts much more pressure on your shoulders - no network sits in their laurels, there is a constant need to be proving themselves to their clients even if there is no competition.
However, I find all these reasons, noble and valid as they may be, quite theoretical and not exactly factual. The vast majority of merchants do not even think of these things when making decisions - all they care about is the cost. When you ask, they cite these reasons, but what it all actually comes down to is cost.

Jess, I have one and only hat: mine. The affiliate marketing professional hat. I am not an advocate of one network - I am an advocate of merchants being reasonable with their affiliate strategies. Two or more networks are absolutely fine with me, provided they complement each other (ie one offering what the other isn't), rather than cannibalise each other. If you feel that your existing partner is not giving you all you want, the decent thing is to speak with them first and address the issues, no?

Established networks, in my opinion, are those that enjoy the affiliates' respect. And webgains has been privileged enough to enjoy that, yes.

I want to pose the question from another perspective: is there a reason for a merchant to work simultaneously with more than one consultancy/outsourced affiliate management company?

[jess1]

a) Affiliate reach - while it is true that many affiliates are signed up to all of the major affiliate networks there are still a substantial number who aren't and so there is generally some incremental affiliate reach to be had.

With CJ.com and TD, I have not seen any clues to support this. The census most affiliates have signed up to three networks. Awin maybe the exception to the rule, I do believe they have a number of old school affiliates (from day 1) that did not migrate across to other networks. What % that is, I don’t know, I have asked awin in the past to do a quick rec and I dont know what their findings were or if they have done this. How I know is I used to cut cheques for some of them. When I started back working with a client who had a program through awin, I saw a lot of the old school affiliates in their network who were not visible on any other network. But I strongly believe it’s not about the number of affiliates you have but what you do with the ones you have. POR have a lower number of affiliates then some networks, but they have a better quality of affiliate then pretty much all the networks who seem to be able to deliver higher basket values, if I compare against the three or four bigger networks. So the argument, for me, about affiliate reach per network is not taken into the equation. In fact its so far down on my list. Its about the platform, reporting, communicating with affiliates that I have. If you have a good converting affiliate program, affiliates will find you. In my experience.

[jess1]

I want to pose the question from another perspective: is there a reason for a merchant to work simultaneously with more than one consultancy/outsourced affiliate management company?

Apologies for being brief, I have to shoot off to a meeting (yes even on a Sunday, investors don’t sleep either) Simple answer is, merchants should be doing their due diligence in all areas of their business. Consultants/Agents have their own style and ways in which they work, the choice as always is down to the merchant and their expectations. If an Agent/Consultant does not bring home the bacon if all the tools are provided, site conversions are good, then the stats speak volumes compared as a% of the overall sales coming in. It’s a simple yard stick. Again its about feeling confident and being confident in your own abilities to deliver the right advice and results. How ever you can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink. In a nutshell, do I care if a merchant chooses to work with another Agency or consultant? Nope not really as its results that count.