Brand Activity, The Need For Separate Cookies - A Horrific Scenario

[loquax]

Tweet

Sorry Matt but your argument doesn't hold weight for me...

The brand bidding affiliate is adding no value to the relationship in this instance and is pro-hibiting real value add affiliates such as yourself Jason

Exactly... but at times a cashback site can prohibit real value affiliates...i.e. those with same content, same pre-sell, same time, same no commission!

So regarding cashback IMO we all have to live with the sites and find ways to monetise in alternative ways

Ok, I live with cashback - I have to accept that I lose commissions to Quidco et al... but here's the deal.

Brand bidding is part of affiliate marketing - where it's been permitted by the merchant - therefore it's part of the mix.... and therefore by your same rational about content vs cashback sites, you and everyone else has to accept that a merchant is allowing that situation.

Your choice is simple - don't promote the merchants who allow brand bidding - but you can't pick and choose the cookie setting rules as it suits you.

For me if I pre-sell anything on my site and someone decides to buy by finding another route - I've lost.

Example... Buyagift ran a pre-Xmas sale - I told my users, one then kindly told others how they managed to get 37% discount courtesy of a cashback site and it's sister deals site. What exactly did that affiliate do in the selling process.... nowt! But you tell me to live with it and get on happy as Larry, whilst saying that it's not on for brand bidders to take commission from pre-sellers???

Jason

[angelabx]

I can think of two popular travel merchnats that have banned brand name bidding by affiliates.

Instead they brand bid themselves AND OVERWRITE ANY EXISTING AFFILIATE COOKIES when a user clicks through. It's part of the 'last referrer' scenario.

I personally think this is even worse than another affiliate doing it.

I've always argued that brand name bidding that overwrites the original affiliate cookie is not in the best interests of affiliate marketing.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

angelabx ... That is a poignant point wrt to the merchants own paid search activity on brand.

[Matthew Wood]

Brand bidding is part of affiliate marketing - where it's been permitted by the merchant - therefore it's part of the mix.... and therefore by your same rational about content vs cashback sites, you and everyone else has to accept that a merchant is allowing that situation.

you've hit the nail on the head here... the power is with the merchant or the agency that runs the programme. They can make a difference regarding voucher codes, cashback and exact match brand bidding.

I personally think this is even worse than another affiliate doing it.

I've always argued that brand name bidding that overwrites the original affiliate cookie is not in the best interests of affiliate marketing.

totally agree

On another note sadly we can't ask our users when they visit our site to not read our content or view our product video reviews if they are not going to earn us money by clicking on one of our affiliate links - and my gosh if you dare ever use a cashback or voucher code site we don't want you using up our bandwidth! we'll ban your bloody IP address!!

It's a users individual choice to do what they wish when they shop online. For some this may mean hunting down a voucher code, or using a cashback site, but many shoppers are not yet inclined to do so - in the future who knows.

When 100% cashback arrived I agree it was not a great day for affiliates.. but heck we have to live with it and evolve. As you know we operate a traditional cashback site which has seen only moderate growth due to the super-power that is Quidco... (their monopoly is a debate for next week perhaps!)

I'm not complaining about it, but I'm doing something about it to jump ahead of the game once again... this is not affiliate marketing in 1998 but 2008.

Perhaps its time that networks look at employing some futurists and be pro-active rather than re-active to affiliate needs?

[vouchers4all]

So if a cashback site introduced a customer to a brand do they then get all the commission from subsequent purchases on content site cookies now that "their" customer has tried out the brand, has a profile, trusts the brand and so forth? I mean maybe that content site wouldn't have made the sale if that customer didn't have prior experience and trust.

And if someone finds a code on a discount voucher site and then later finds something good on a content site, remembers the code which triggers the "value" in the sale should the voucher site get a cut?

Let's not stop there. What about the customer driving home from work and sees an ad hoarding, sticks in their head 'vodafone £15 tariff', gets home types it in and goes to a content site and then to vodafone. Shoudn't the hoarding company get that commission?

Does any content site really think that customers appear ex nihilo and are never sullied until they make a totally incremental purchase?

There may be points where commission is being 'scalped' but generally just accept you are part of a value chain and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you want to make a tit for tat then be prepared for a massive headache and impossible tracking and not being any further ahead in the future.

this is not affiliate marketing in 1998 but 2008.

Agreed.

[loquax]

It's a users individual choice to do what they wish when they shop online

And like wise it's a users individual choice if they so then wish to go to google then and select an advert to end up at the merchants site? Yes? Why is there a difference?

this is not affiliate marketing in 1998 but 2008

Personally I think this commet is a bit crass and unnecessary.

I'm fully aware of evolving, and yes adding a different cookie against brand bidders might well benefit me - but I'm not going to sit all quiet like and be told that situation A is "horrific" whilst situations B and C, which imo are no different to me as a content affiliate, are tidied away as "well we gotta get on with it".

Jason

[loquax]

There may be points where commission is being 'scalped' but generally just accept you are part of a value chain and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose

But that's the point.. I do get on with it.. that's why I've been around since 1998 (me with my old 1998 ways eh Matt!).

But like you say, you start setting rules for one thing along the line (in this case the brand bidders) you start setting them for every scenario!

Jason

[Matthew Wood]

Didn't mean it to be crass, apologies.

I think though you'll agree that..

Situation A is not ideal
Situation B is not ideal
Situation C is not ideal

All we are trying to do here is raise a litte awareness, have a debate on important issues. Its from threads like this one where ideas and thoughts may make its way into the future plans of networks and merchants.

If A gets resolved, its a step in the right direction, and positive for the majority of affiliates out there.

Perhaps we should keep things as they are?

I guess it could come down to who owns the customer, who has their loyalty, the all important allocation of budget to each part of the mix and how AM gets attributed rightly or often not at all to the sale validation.

[loquax]

If A gets resolved, its a step in the right direction, and positive for the majority of affiliates out there

True, but the resolution surely has to be ending brand bidding (and also taking out the scenario Angela outlines above)... the resolution does not lie in different cookies or allocating commission in one instance vs another, as (as I've argued) I believe the same reasoning must be applied in other scenarios where content sites lose out from their pre-sell.

Merchants need to be educated in the value brand bidding offers them and other affiliates (or affiliates need to be told why brand bidding is important to a merchant's programme?)

If affiliates optted not to work with merchants who offered brand bidding - would that make them think differently? I dunno... but in the cashback case I'd be much happier to push a merchant who was not involved with cashback, or who at least offered preferential rates for non-cashback sites, vs those who don't see how it's a problem.

Perhaps one day a network will offer an option so affiliates can see which groups a merchant works with (PPC, Cashback, 100% Cashback, Brand Bidding, Closed Groups etc)... but then we get back to the issue of transparency - and perhaps that's an area where our energies should best be used rather than complicating the tracking?

I appreciate what you're saying Matt, I just don't believe selective cookies are the be all and end all answer as it takes us down a different road altogether.

Perhaps someone can put forward a valid case for/against brand bidding and why in 2008 it's allowed in another thread?

And at that point I'll step off me soap box for the night

Jason

[confuscius]

Just setting up www . firsttimebuyer discount voucher coupon code 100percentcashback brandproducts review forum . com - any ideas on how I can check that I am setting the right cookies at the right time to protect my investment?

[pistol101]

The issues here are actually a bigger than affiliate marketing. A merchant correctly registering trademarks, and running their own campaigns is going to be a hell of a lot better off than paying affiliates to do it. And thats before the additional costs of paying content affiliates more so they keep links up. Now for the user to go through a brand, there has been some form of advertising or PR (unless your product is a a general term). This advertising will have a budget, affiliates on the brand are going to start eating into this budget and potentially damaging the growth of the business as the real source of growth isn't being pushed as it should be.

The same business theory can be applied to voucher codes and incentive sites. Users are now starting to look for these when shopping and the numbers are growing. Now this skews the affiliate programme to be driving a higher proportion of returning customers. Many merchants set their commissions because they know that x number of new customers are arriving and so factoring that they will shop y number of times. It wont be long till merchants start cutting commissions. Lets say that every cashback/voucher user is a returning customer and the merchant is paying 5%+costs. You now playing with a customer retention budget, will the customer come back by improving the merchants own retention marketing, emailing a 5% voucher out to the user would be cheaper than paying the affiliate 5%.

Voucher code and Incentive sites don't provide 100% returning customers and they do have enough sway to change the merchant that the customer is looking for, but is it really worth the merchant being on them? Merchants are starting to take this question seriously, we'll see lots of interesting developments this year. Jason merchants do value the original sources. Developing tracking systems that split commissions is easy, apart from when you try and work out what value each person has! Merchants need to ensure that your receiving a fair revenue for your advertising slots.

[drivetowin]

Have to say I'm 100% with Jason on this one.

Matt, I don't think you can say on that we have to put up with cashback sites solely because 'they are a proven business model' - there are plenty who would argue that brand name ppc bidding is a proven business model too.....

I know some will say I'm an old stick in the mud but I'm still a firm believer that last cookie wins is the best way of doing things, but at times we all have to accept that we will not be the one to plant the last cookie (and incidentally I don't see anything worse about whether it is a merchant own brand ppc cookie or an affiliate ppc cookie).

I certainly think that any attempt to split commission to each part of the sales process just creates far more problems than it will ever solve, God only knows that most of us are suspicious enough of tracking at the best of times - imagine what it will get like if a network says, ah yes, on this product it was 2% commission but there were 5 visits to affiliate sites before the sale so you each get 0.4% commission, but on this product there is 10% commission, but there were 3 visits so you each get 3.33% commission, but oh wait there was an illegal discount code so now none of you get commission - it would just become a total nightmare.

I would agree though that networks need to be more open about which merchants have closed group brand bidding, which de-duplicate across all sales channels etc etc so that affiliates can make informed judgements about which merchants/networks to devote effort into promoting. Equally I think networks need to have the balls to clamp down on other sites in the Quidco stable and not let them get away with blue murder solely because of the budgetary pull Quidco has - I raised this at an IAB council meeting a couple of months ago and it was such a hot potato each network was passing it on quicker than a game of pass the parcel at Osama Bin Laden's birthday party...

This year more than ever will be a case of adapt and survive - merchants are waking up to what adds real value - hang on in their Jason, the day of the content site revival is distinctly on the horizon.

[jamie]

Hi All,

Great thread Matt, and a very valid one.

I think if we take a step back and look at the whole picture we will see a mixture of routes to sales:
Cashback Affiliates
Brand Affiliates
Voucher Affiliates
CPM
Etc etc

and the real winner will be the network/tracking solution that includes them all.

I know of a couple of networks that are working on a tracking solution which will show the entire chain and hence be able to split up the bounty, Jason i know that may not be perfect but i think it would be a huge step forward as everyone involved in the sale will get a % and also the merchant will be able to manage budget and allocation better. God knows how some think cpm works..but hey if you load enough cookies!!!!!!!

We complain about brand,voucher and cashback pinching sales but dont foget that a large amount of CPM advertising uses pi cookies still, and i think if we looked really closely we would be suprised how many sales get dedupped against them, last refer or not. I know of one Merchant who misread the contract with ebay, in the small print it said that the ebay cookie superseeded every other cookie!!

[KevinEdwards]

Perhaps its time that networks look at employing some futurists and be pro-active rather than re-active to affiliate needs?

Not a particularly helpful comment, doing little (again) to encourage networks to participate in debate on the forum.

[Elaine]

this is a tricky one - and, actually too tricky for any type of amicable solution.

I hear the percieved problems with Brand bidding, but I'm with Jason on this one - it's the cashback and voucher code sites that pose a bigger threat to my sites, but it is something I have to live with so I'm taking steps to ensure I keep as many customers as I can

As far as Brand Bidding goes - if a merchant wants to introduce this it's immaterial to me whether they do it inhouse or allow a select group of professional affiliates to bid on their behalf - it is their prerogative and something I can live with.

Many, if not the majority, of searchers actually never click on the sponsored listings anyway and I'm equally sure, that having thousands of key search terms at No1 in Google I am 'lucky' enough to get that 'last cookie' sale sometimes!

So should I share my commission with the PPC guy who might have introduced that customer to that product and has actually paid out hard cash for it - I don't think so!!!
or forego it if they originally found it on the merchants site and returned via mine - no way jose.

Would I be happy sharing my commission across 3 or 5 other sites - not on your nelly!! Any merchant introducing that scenario is going the same way as Next and Argos.

So the solution - there isn't one that's going to please everybody.

There are millions and millions of internet customers who haven't heard of cashback and voucher codes, and millions who really aren't bothered for saving a couple of quid and millions who haven't heard of Quidco (who they? seriously!!) and millions who never click on the blue shady listings.

I don't hear anyone crying for those poor bricks and mortar merchants who lose out big style to internet marketeers - we're all guilty of checking something out down the high street and shopping mall , then returing home to buy it cheaper online. We're seriously destroying their chosen business model.

So the answer is ..... ??

PS I would shoot, after inflicting terrible pain, on those 'sneaky' affiliates who do actually steal commisions by using dodgy, nefarious tactics though.