Which Network Do You Think Has The Most Brand Bidding Groups?

[3wdl]

Originally Posted by Azam.net Whatever the rights and wrongs of brand name bidding groups, I can't see why the likes of Buy.at - a great bunch and one of my favourite networks in other respects - can't set them up via a transparent, publically-advertised RPF process. That way, everybody would be in with a fair shout.

Hi Nadeem,

Closed groups - yes, I agree with you here. If this is something that the merchant wants (as they may think it means more understanding and control) they should indeed be setup by a publicly advertised RPF, most networks will say that they already do this but I've probably only seen it a few times on the forum however it's not something that I look out for.

Brand groups - Don't agree. There should not be brand name closed groups, or brand name bidding at all. Remember the statistic that Pete gave of an experiment that a merchant had done? Apparently 75% of the original cookies were being overridden by a brand one. It's a core foundational problem with the industry and it needs to be stopped.

Look out for my views on it in the NMA letters section next week

J

[jess1]

Its got to be a case by case scenario.
Example, where by a third party PPC agency is involved and affiliate comparison is being done and where by the two will have to work together, its going to be easier to manage a closed group rather then offer it out. In a utopian world all ppc affiliates adhere to the rules, terms and conditions. How ever, we do not live in a utopia and for the sake of keeping it real. I would rather not spend a day chasing after affiliates who flout ppc restrictions. A closed group therefore is easier to manage in some instances.

I neither support nor condemn, but where possible Id rather have a non closed group

[morleymouse]

Originally Posted by ian Now that the tiger is in the house, it may well be tricky for the merchants to get him out. Can you see in-house affiliate managers shuting down their bbg and seeing sales drop by 50%? They will be crucified for a - letting sales drop by such a significant volume (if their boss doesn't understand) or b - for paying out on brand name sales for so long (if their boss does understand) I'm sure 90% of sales directors out there would chew a piece off the affiliate manager for dropping volume without looking into the reasons why. As mentione before, sales is all about the "now" as you won't be around long enough to deal with the outcome later.

you are of course, assuming that sales would drop...

[Tyson Pearcey]

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of brand name bidding groups, I can't see why the likes of Buy.at - a great bunch and one of my favourite networks in other respects - can't set them up via a transparent, publically-advertised RPF process."

Hi Nadeem,

Hope you’re keeping out of trouble mate. love you're soft words. Ok, I think you'll find that we do publicly announce when a group is being created. More publicly than most IMO. As for the RFP, Steve B and I created buy.at's over a year ago. We send out an email to all aff's signed up to the program, post on the forum. etc.

This was our announcement in early 2007:

buy.at rolls out intial steps of an inclusive RFP process

This one as recent as last month:

The Co-Operative Bank PPC Group

It’s interesting to see that we were voted the network with the most managed Affiliate Search Groups (Brand Groups). I think this should help us strategically support our Merchants and Affiliates significantly come May 5 with the Google TM restrictions being lifted. But that’s another story and another thread…….

Cheers
Tyson

[Shane]

Tyson.. mate.. you're wasted at buy.aol.. you should go get a job in government on the PR side ..

Originally Posted by Tyson Pearcey "I think this should help us strategically support our Merchants and Affiliates significantly come May 5 with the Google TM restrictions being lifted"

That's a quality piece of spin doctoring, you must have been on the tequila since the cheque cleared dude !?, surely you didn't post that with a straight face !?

My thoughts aren't as soft and warm as Nadeems, you seem to be now saying buy.at having the most BBG's is now a positive thing !?.. you guys didn't seem so proud of the "strategic support" you were offering before as you'd never even disclose which and how many BBG's you even had when asked.

AOL got a bargain it would seem now, we thought they'd all been played yet the UK's biggest brand bidding agency is now amazingly well placed (due to it's extensive history of covert BBG's) to take advantage of ...sorry.. "strategically support" ... merchants in their time of need,

Jeez Tyson.. they'll have to even think up a new category for the next a4u awards .. "superhero network of the year" for providing such a valuable "value added" service brand.at are a shoe in for winner if the main criteria is "strategic support in times of change" never mind the fact that many BBG's seem to be half assed groups where many of the affs in them seem too be to lazy to even cover misspellings and add any tangible value !? seeming to solely concentrate on [Brand] and maybe [main keyword + brand] or [brand + main keyword] terms !?

Having been in BBG's I know the score from both sides of the fence I'm aware of just how easy it is to do what many do, and how much extra work it takes to add value and how little you see many of the BBGers go the extra mile to actually add value ... although I'm sure you'll only be to happy to say that's not the case so please feel free to provide rebuttal evidence if that's just not how it is !

You guys have been running the Brand v generic tracking for a while you should have enough data for the situation to be clear and I'd love to be proved totally wrong and that those affs adding just brand or at best main kw + brand terms are actually out performed by the rest of the brand group across a range of programs (and if that's the case what are those lazy ones still doing active on them anyway !)

Being in a brand bidding group is a bit like being stood outside the shop stamping people's hands on the way in and then getting paid for everyone you "persuaded" to buy something from the shop, when some content or generic ppc divvy is down in the town square saying "check out this shop.. it's great.. here's the directions"

It's great if you are on the shop door all cosy and warm and having to do virtually nothing, sucks a bit if you are the guy in the town square funnelling traffic towards being captured by a BBG at the shop door though huh..

but then again as a network.. who cares.. the network get the 30% regardless of who does what and who get's overwritten.. it makes no difference when the network till is ringing as to just who is ringing in the sales

There's no excuse for not separating brand cookies from all other cookies so I suggest networks sort this before it bites them on the ass, I can't see ppc and content affs wearing even more BBG action overwriting sales, that's if networks value the non BBG affiliates at all. if so it's time they showed it with seperated brand v every other channel cookies.

[KevinEdwards]

Shane,

I think networks have a responsibility to ensure they're giving the best advice after the changes next month - brand bidding carte blanche is clearly not it.

I'm concerned we'll see a return to the bad old days where brand bidding was sold in as a default; an excuse to reap very easy rewards for very little effort

Clearly the discussions have moved on (the issue you raised about last referring cookies a prime example) but we'll not know the true impact until May 5th.

We're having conversations internally to decide upon the best course (indeed whether there should be any course) of action and will endeavour to keep everyone informed of any changes.

[8601cam]

Originally Posted by morleymouse you are of course, assuming that sales would drop...

A key point, well made Dan.

Shane, I'm not sure if you caught this thread:

AWin peace of mind on closed group PPC programmes.

Just wanted to show we mirror your concerns and some networks do listen and act accordingly.

Kind Regards

Mark

[drivetowin]

Tyson mate

You know I think you're one of the best guys in the business and late last night when I read your post I had assumed that you had written it firmly tongue in cheek - though reading it now in the cold light of day I'm a bit concerned the buy.at/AOL corporate machine has got to you and you actually believe it.

While I would acknowledge that you do issue RFPs I have seen three, at most four, in the last 12 months - but I somehow reckon there are more bbg's on buy.at than that - but we don't / can't know as buy.at are one of only two networks (though you both have a suitor in common) who have at best been reticent and at worst been plain obstructive in revealing whether your bbgs even exist, let alone which merchants and how many.

I have had this argument with buy.at people both one to one and at e-consultancy round tables/iAB meetings - there is nothing commercially confidential about acknowledging which merchants have brand bidding groups - I'm not asking which affiliates are members of them, how much business they do compared to other channels (though that would be an interesting statistic to know), just which merchants do they exist for.

If you really believe that information is commercially confidential then perhaps you can explain why?

To see buy.at now spin this into some sort of first mover advantage is incredibly cynical in my view - but given you clearly now see it as a marketing plus - surely that totally removes the reasons for keeping it hidden - so here's the challenge - by close of play tomorrow let's have a full public list of all current buy.at BBG programmes.....

I know I've used this cliche a few times lately, but at the moment Affiliate Window have the transparency of glass while buy.at have all the transparency of a black plastic bag.