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

[GW-Sean]

Tweet

Jason- I'd agree with you to a certain extent - the point I wanted to make is that with brand-bidding, you can safely say that the customer has been educated (sold) in some way previously - and that is likely to be the case every time in this scenario ..... but with cashbacks and voucher sites ...the same statement doesn't stand up so well.

I agree, in some cases, a content site will have done the leg-work with a customer before the cashback gets hold of them ....but I believe that cashbacks and discount sites are perfectly capable of converting a customer all on their own - which means there is no cut and dry rule we can apply to make this fair.

There is also the argument that a customer will browse for the product they want first off, then check it out on a price comparison site or cashback.... the customer may change their mind about which merchant to go with at this point depending on the discount they can get. A customer may use a cashback site all the time to finalise their decisions ... so it would be a difficult task to justify to the merchant/client that we should not be using the cashbacks at all ...based on some sort of moral standing (I know that in the long term, this is a self-serving issue - but that is the reality at the moment)

Regarding the brand bidding.... thats another kettle of fish all together. From a merchants standpoint - they have paid long and hard for that brand name in most cases, for example TV, Radio, Magazine etc etc - the costs are endless. I agree that affiliates should not be shut out in the cold to brand bidding .... but the best solution available at this point seems to be a compromise....which means educating the merchant again that affiliates play a vital role in the marketing mix.

I'd agree with drivetowin as well.... we have to try working to a even playing field which means not giving anyone a clear advantage (another mine field all on its own in the wonderful world of bribery and corruption! )

I think we can agree on one thing at least ....there isn't a quick fix, and its going to be a long road, but we're all doing our part to help educate each other and the merchants/clients about this....that is a positive at least (Matt is right about this - a constructive debate is the way to go to raise awareness)

P.S ...Elaine, I loved your closing statement "I would shoot, after inflicting terrible pain, on those 'sneaky' affiliates who do actually steal commisions by using dodgy, nefarious tactics though."

[Gavinio]

Don't have the time for an essay, but some very interesting points above.

I think we WILL see networks doing full sales path analysis and rewarding all parts of that path accordingly. How this works with cashback sites, I don't know - I would suggest that the simplest suggestion would be that they are only allowed to promote the lowest tier to their consumers? I know one network has this in the pipeline pretty soon.

Secondly, doing away with all affiliate brand bidding would achieve much of this. I appreciate that this would be detrimental to many affiliate businesses, and integrated search campaigns, but it's a thought. (One that one network have been quite pro-active in trying to acheive).

Thirdly merchants and networks will have to liaise more closely with bloggers, reviewers and social content sites to offer them effective revenue models for all parties. Be that CPM, CPA, CPC, CPA with PI sales, tenancy deals, pay-per-review (eek!) or a combination of all. Again this is blurring the line between publishers/affiliates/affiliate networks and media agencies.

[skywalker]

Like Gav i won't bore you with an essay.

3 Scenarios for ya:

i. Networks track 2 cookies - first in and last - they pay split com - NW's/Aff's decide the % split

ii. If you're a content/cashback site - get a discount voucher and use it on the site...

iii. ban brand name bidding unless the Merchant wants the affiliate to shoulder the risk/costs (will mainly be for non-brand companies with shallow pockets or those that are too hood winked by NW's ....)

[mattb811]

As I see it here, the issue is not with brand name bidding affiliates specifically, but more to do with the value attributed to each channel in the sales process.

What value is assigned to each participant in the sale and how are they rewarded? I think it is naive to pick out brand name bidding affiliates as hijacking clicks at the last minute, when there are equal concerns with cashback and voucher code sites and even clients operating their own PPC activity.

Lots of people on here have been speculating about what impact each of these parties have on the sales process, but the fact is that for the majority of merchants, no-one has any clue what part different channels pay.

Until this can be quantified, a specific method of determining pay out must be agreed. At present that is last click, which has it's drawbacks as has been noted. Whilst I agree that more transparency is required, if the affiliate decides to promote a merchant that pays out on a last click referrer basis, then they cannot complain if they lose out.

Matt

[Barry]

I think the need for different cookies is a good idea.

Lets face it I have only seen a few different network id's for all programs that have a 'open' keyword policy, so there are some very rich 'brand' bidders out there.

Set up one program on a network for brand bidding on a lower commission and another on a higher commission for those that aren't?

Then people could use the relevant program for their tactics and both cookies could be read separately.

If a 'content' affiliates cookie is found and a 'brand bidder' affiliate then maybe a commission could be awarded to both at a different rate or if just one then just the one account?

[Greavsie]

probably repeating others here, but some thoughts

Problems

1. Content Site / First Referrer
Despite all the content sites hard work; I cannot see how it is possible to prove that site was the "first" referrer and therefore deserves commission.
- yes the user may have read something and clicked; but maybe they didn't and simply clicked through
- maybe a shopping site, magazine site was the first true referrer, then the user went to content site for more detail and so on.
- Maybe it was TV, Radio, magazine articles. true the content site got the first cookie but does it definitely deserve the commission
and so on. a little stupid, but true.

I also don't see how you can solve it by the merchant being on different networks; or knowing if their program is a brand bidding group. Lots of merchants actually use network tracking themselves on various networks; so you cannot tell them to stop bidding on their own brand name. Obviously we could stop the search affiliate; but then where would all the super affiliates be

2. The Merchant
Is a merchant going to change their site to suit affiliates? in reference to removing the discount code section.
- maybe a small merchant; but John Lewis, M&S? no chance. They spend millions on direct mail campaigns with codes in
- Time constraint considerations also mean they would probably not be willing to sort through hundreds of affiliates; divide the commissions etc.

Idea/Solution

Merchants want to be on content sites, more than they want to be on cashback/voucher sites. Fact!

So maybe, we pay the content site more commission per sale, than the voucher site. i.e. 10% for content, 5% for voucher. This would hopefully make more affiliates create good content affiliate sites; and less cashback/voucher sites. While the merchant needs some cashback/voucher sites; we don't need 40,000. But 40,000 content sites would be great for the merchant and the network and the other content sites.

Only an idea; but to get this solved we need to sit down and have a proper brainstorm. Maybe Matt can set something up at the A4U Awards?

Have good weekends all

[Elaine]

So maybe, we pay the content site more commission per sale, than the voucher site. i.e. 10% for content, 5% for voucher.

yeah Greavsie for President

[loquax]

Merchants want to be on content sites, more than they want to be on cashback/voucher sites

Not one for saying things that might chuck a spanner in the works... but what if you're a content site AND promote vouchers (different sections) - what if you write content and tell your user "save 10% with this code"... do you get 7.5% commission?

Jason

[befuddle]

So maybe, we pay the content site more commission per sale, than the voucher site. i.e. 10% for content, 5% for voucher.

We shall have to have words
I'd be more than happy to have a reduced commission but only if I got a code to promote in return. Exclusively branded.
My code site makes many sales for merchants I don't even have codes for. So that means I have presold and add value. I may also lose commission to the other code site affiliates that do ppc.
Those that know my site can see that there is no 'click for code', iframes or references to codes in page titles or meta copy if I don't have one. So if I have managed to persuade a visitor to click one of the four sized creatives or text links then I shouldn't receive less money than a person who is running a blog.
My code site would become more of a content site and promote more general stuff however there's only 24 hours in a day and maintaining codes is very time consuming.

[Greavsie]

Damn, forgot about you Ray. Guess you wont be buying me a beer in San Fran then!

That's why i think we should have a proper sit down; there's no solution which will make everyone happy and some sites will fit both. but rather than a network blindly following one path; let's get a good sample of major affiliates and put it to the vote. The networks then go away and instigate it.

Greavsie

[Rich]

Just spotted this thread via the newsletter. I agree with Jason's and Elaine's points. Though commission loss through brand bidding PPC would be the easiest to do something with I think the same issues effect cashback and vouchercodes codes sites, maybe also price comparison sites and other areas, and it doesn't seem right to focus on that one area until the others can be dealt with - which I don't think they can.

Personally I feel affiliates with brand bidding rights are just being given a license to print money and I don't really like the way it works but overall I get the impression I lose more sales to cashback sites.

Blocking some affiliates from overwriting cookies isn't a new idea. Tradedoubler do it (did it?) with adware publishers: -

TradeDoubler will not allow the first cookie to be overwritten for 24 hours where the second click has been activated by a user clicking on an advertising unit served by an adware publisher.

Not that I really liked it then!

[jaxline]

As a new affiliate,I was going to address this very situation.Recently,I had a payment pending on my account for £35 for a life insurance lead from a merchant who pays on LEADS and proudly announces this when looking for affiliates.
The click to the site from mine was at 1.a.m.and the customer lead was timed at 10.30 a.m. so they obviously returned with details.
My commission was withdrawn a day later and I was told that I was "Not the last referrer".
Since my commission was due on the lead, how come the first person to get the lead loses out? How can a LEAD be cancelled out by an identical lead which may or may not involve a purchase?
I emailed the merchant and was told " Yes that is very unfair - but that is affiliate marketing!"
I'm finding it hard enough as it is but how can I trust a merchant who does this? how do I know they don't just appropriate my lead as their own -as the last referrer?

[Shane]

I'm finding it hard enough as it is but how can I trust a merchant who does this? how do I know they don't just appropriate my lead as their own -as the last referrer?

answer is that really you don't know that but if it happens more than what YOU consider acceptable you should try another merchant and see if the same happens...

in some markets like loans etc. being able to trust who you use is mandatory and many affiliates (experienced/burned or at least well singed in the past) won't be tempted away from their trusted merchant(s) even if the headline commission may be quite a bit higher from another merchant .. sure they may test a little but wise ones will never jump straight in with both feet.

why not split test your traffic between two or more merchants.. see which yeilds the highest EPC over a decent test period and then move most traffic over to them, drop the loser and try another one with say 10%-20%of the traffic and keep doing that till you run out of merchants to test.. by then you'll have a good picture of who's honest or at least has systems in place to ensure you get max EPC

[Qui Gon Jinn]

If we wait for networks to come with solution for all ie BBG's, voucher code sites & cashback sites, then realistically its unlikely anything will happen & we shall be having this same conversation next year.

At least paid search is easier to sort for the immediate future, however for those networks that thrive on BBG'S it will allow them to dither & delay stall still further & carry on regardless as content affiliates line the BBG pockets.

Surprised no networks are coming forward about disclosing which merchants dedupe via their own (the merchant) paid search activity on brand.

[hpops]

The large majority of (large) merchants dedupe their own paid search activity - smaller merchants tend to not be aware of local cookies etc.
I would wager that the VAST majority dedupe brand terms - although I'd also wager they don't really know they're doing it.
We're deduping only product and generic paid search traffic for most of our clients and introducing it across more of them this year.
I agree with Paul that BBG's are the topic of this thread, I agree with others that its the tip of the iceberg.
At least with BBG's there is a very easy solution - dual programs.