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

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Tweet

Which Network(s) Do You Think Has The Most Brand Bidding Groups (BBG's)?

- Also a discussion on why brand bidding groups are not good for the industry
- Which programs you think have them?
- Which networks are less than transparent in disclosing which programs have BBG's?

[befuddle]

Received this email from Aff Win, so here's one possible answer

Dear Raymond Theakston

Woolworths would like to know whether you have been engaging in ppc activity on their programme and if so what words you have been bidding on. As stated in the programme description Woolworths currently operates a closed bidding group for ppc activity which has been limited to one affiliate.

Kind Regards

James

p.s. James. Tell them the answer is no and I am offended by the accusation

[KevinEdwards]

Hi Ray,

As an aside, Affiliate Window run very few controlled PPC groups and has little network tradition of doing so for an obvious reason - we certainly don't sell it in as a default solution.

When we do (and remember there's a distinction between controlled PPC and brand name bidding groups) we try to offer as much transparency as we can. I can't guarantee this is watertight, when you run campaigns for 700 merchants there is always the possibility something has been missed.

Hope that clarifies the situation.

[drivetowin]

Paul

On the whole I would agree with you about brand bidding groups, but I think as Kevin has said it is important to differentiate between pure brand bidding groups (which 90% of the time are a bad idea) and closed group brand plus generic ppc / closed group generic for a particular merchant (which for most merchants can be a good idea as it gives them greater control of their ppc channel).

Even for pure brand bidding there are cases where it is in the merchant's best interest (for example British Gas, where their name is so generic that Google will not allow them to register their name for the normal Google trademark protection) and so a closed brand bidding group allows them to control their costs while also ensuring they can dominate (at least page 1) of the ppc results on Google.

Edit - oh and before anyone asks at the current time we are not members of any brand bidding closed group on any network.

While it is hard to argue for brand bidding groups 99% of the time, equally I have yet to hear a really convincing argument for allowing Uncle Tom Cobbley and all to bid on brand / brand plus generic terms either.

[Greavsie]

Since Paul persists in ignoring LinkShare in these polls; i don't suppose you are interested in our views. but heck, i'll say anyway.

PPC groups.
- We do not favour any affiliate over another, all I ask is that an affiliate (interested in running a proper PPC campaign) proposes a PPC program which I then present to the merchants.
- Bearing in mind my own understanding of PPC, I like to know the affiliates and their tactics before I let them loose on a merchant. Hence the reason all of our merchants are restricted.
- I currently have 6/7 go to PPC affiliates when an opportunity arises. But I am open to extending this to 10-20 once I am confident they can do a good job and not just rely on Direct TM bidding.
- PM or email me if you would like to be included when we have another opportunity.

Questions

- Also a discussion on why brand bidding groups are not good for the industry
This is a matter of opinion, with pro's and con's. Personally i think a group can work well and easily out perform a search agencies work - therefore providing added-value for the merchant.
Having an open policy would make it increasingly more expensive for everyone involved and harder to manage from the networks and merchants point of view. I think it depends on the merchant and the network; but i am more in favour of a meritocracy where by every affiliate has a chance to pitch for the BB rights on an level playing field.

- Which programs you think have them?
I would imagine a lot on certain networks based on my conversations with merchants. But i'm not going to name names.

- Which networks are less than transparent in disclosing which programs have BBG's?
I think the poll says it all.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Hi Greavsie,

Is was nothing intentional, omitting you from the poll or was it reverse psychology in order to make you post?

As for search agencies, yes they often do get in the way, as for out performing on brand, well my 11 year old daughter could do that, yep she is that good, but it'll be a few years yet before i can employ her.

Thank you for posting though.

Keith

Cheers Keith, Like you I am familiar with what reasoning is given out there, so won't have a to & fro debate until we get more opinion out in the open.

One I would like to add to the mix, which in my book is currently acceptable, is where a group of affiliates are permitted to use the merchants display url for generic & product related terms ONLY, not brand or hybrids.

[curious george]

does it matter?

not sure what there is to gain from knowing this?

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Hi Curious George,

There are plenty of blog entries pertaining to it for your familiarisation if you are unsure.

In order to satisfy your curiosity. This one will get you started.

http://www.affiliates4u.com/blog/art...bidder_cookie/

If I find time, i'll post others.

[Shane]

does it matter?

not sure what there is to gain from knowing this?

George you don't seem very curious !

Brand bidder cookies are overwriting paid generic and organic search cookies so it's a pertinent issue where the few are making good moeny at the expense of other affiliates and in many cases the merchant too.

it's a win-win scenario for the chosen few affiliates and the networks though, the network gets their 30% regardless of which of their affiliate's cookie gets the sale .. hence the distinct apathy methinks

[getvisible]

George you don't seem very curious !

ROFLMAO

George I'll put it simply.

If hard-working affiliates that create great content about merchants and their products have their hard-work wasted by a select opportunistic few are given the rights (sometimes sole rights) without a truely transparent process - then this will lead to a situation where content affiliates will refuse to promote those merchants.

As a result of this, the merchant will be left with a situation where the majority of their traffic in the affiliate channel comes from PPC affiliates. Their potential users will not be informed of their products by affiliates and they'll have to work and create the content themselves or hire a social media agency to build the relationships with bloggers themselves.

It is far more cost effective to have an open and transparent system where content affiliates are not treated as second-class citezens. We can all work together and everyone is happy.

Merchants that allow closed brand-bidding groups are alienating the wider affiliate community and are making a rod for their own back in the longer term.

But who cares about the long term? Most affiliate managers won't be there in two years and they've got targets to reach - they don't really care where their affiliate sales come from.

But us affiliates will still be running our sites 2 years down the line so we have an interest to take the long view. I just wish some merchants had the ability / desire to do the same!

- ok so that wasn't as short as I wanted.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

They are also alienating PPC Affiliates, with considerable budgets at their disposal & who will work on a CPA basis (no risk to merchant) who are content with promoting the merchant on generics & product related terms only.

Would you be content at a % of your earnings lining the pockets of someone else? So for every £100 you earn for a certain merchant with a BBG, you might have to give me £20, £50 or £70 in some instances.

If so I ll give you my bank account details, you can give a % of your earnings to me, then i'll put it in a pot for a massive jackpot draw for affiliates.

Affiliate Jackpot Draw

Actually that could be an angle for a way around it (partially), allowing certain a affiliate to bid which is publically known & anyone can suggest positive or negative keywords, where the network has access to keywords so they know how much is spent & what approved copy is used (thus controlled). This PPC spend is offset against the earnings & the profit goes into a prize pool, which can have multiple cash prizes for ALL affiliates who wish to enter at the end of any prescribed period. As we know, any monkey can do BBG's. If a landing page is required then the network can do something for their lazy "30%" and create the landing page. Assuming that is BBG's won't disipate or networks don't come up with a solution whereby a white list of brand terms & hydrids don't overwrite other affiliates cookies.

The prize pool can vary from merchant to merchant, but when I was privy to one merchants payout in commission it was about £250,000 in commission per year for the closed groups of just one program. Granted this can vary signifcantly.

It needs fleshing out a bit, and maybe is a bit radical but it would be easy enough to implement, but one of the reasons I would see networks not agreeing to these is because it would compromise their closed circles. Perhaps one network could be a trend setter rather than a follower? So who is going to take up the batten?

[hpops]

Closed groups are nothing but a reaction to Googles initially devestating policy of allowing only one ad per display url. I was network side when it happened, I received the first proposals from "super-affiliates" packed with the same justifications used today. I shared the industry panic as networks realised the extent of the threat to incomes.
I watched as collectively, the industry adopted a snap reaction as a permanent policy often central to programs volumes.
Whilst an affiliate I was a member of a couple of groups, engaging in a process labelled as transparent, which is in fact, anything but. They were, without fail, badly run, poorly thought out and dominated by the usual suspects.
Through my time in the industry it honestly appears that there was a fork in the road way back then and we are only now understanding that we have let a tiger into our house. It isn't only content affiliates who are at risk, its the core credibility of an industry which sells itself as an incremental sales driver.

[ian]

Through my time in the industry it honestly appears that there was a fork in the road way back then and we are only now understanding that we have let a tiger into our house. It isn't only content affiliates who are at risk, its the core credibility of an industry which sells itself as an incremental sales driver.

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.

[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.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that the best paid search publishers, who would generate the best results for the advertisers, should win the contracts based on a transparent RFP mechanism and it should not be based on who you know?

[kcheung]

From our perspective as a network, Altogether Ads (www.altogetherads.com), as you would expect considering Jame's posts on the subject: here

Ken