Discount Code Sites and Forced Clicks & IFRAMES

[D-Mac]

I think the use of the term 'forced click' is incorrect, as the user has not been forced to click. As has been said above, revealing the code and opening the merchant's site on a single click isn't really any different from 'click here for great offers' or whatever other text affiliates use.

For me the main problem is sites that mislead the user into clicking. Click here to reveal the code (and launch site) when there isn't a valid code. It's perhaps on a par with Click here to get a Nintendo Wii for £5.00 when in fact they cost £180. Both could possibly be classed as 'misleading advertising'. The Office of Fair Trading: Misleading advertising

This topic will run and run until networks fully confront it and publish what the rules are. My worry is that the big gun discount sites are creating a bad name for all discount sites, reputable or otherwise. High street brands don't like being misrepresented, so it may ultimately be them who make the decisions.

It's still the wild west at the moment though isn't it?

[pete_m]

It's hard to deny that there's a huge problem with most voucher code sites at the moment.

1 - "Click here to view code". If this opens the site and drops the cookie, then to my mind it's a forced click. I think it's equivalent to a content site having a link that states "Prices too low to show - Click here to view them" on *every* product.

2 - Out of date codes. No site can be 100% accurate. But many sites deliberately mislead visitors *and force more clicks* by leaving codes on site well after their expiry date.

The problem of site scraping is a real one, but it has nothing to do with dropping cookies.

It's just an excuse - why not have a "Click here to reveal discount" that didn't open a new window, but instead merely showed the code and a link to the site? No dropped cookies, and *really* gives the site visitor the choice of whether to visit the site.

[ian]

I am still waiting for someone to offer a rational explanation as to why they think option A is classed as forced, yet B isn't;
a) more information about a discount or special offer
b) more information about a product

a) visitor wants a code and is forced to have another window opened to get it.
b) visitor wants more information, and the site has a link to it.

'forced' is such a strong word to use as no one has a gun to their head to make them click, but the whole argument stems from the perception of vocuher sites in the buying cycle. Customer A goes via aff link, starts to buy, then gets asked for a voucher code, goes off to find one, and the voucher site cookie is forced on top of the first affiliate cokie, just because they wanted to see the code. They already had the site open in the first place.

[drivetowin]

Ian

I see your point (I have dozens of content sites as well as a couple of discount sites so I can see both sides of the argument) - but what if in your scenario the Customer has the content site open, goes off to find a discount code and finds one which the voucher site has exclusively and has worked hours to get then why should the content site get the benefit of that sale when it is probably the discount code which has 'closed' the sale.

[ian]

I'll have to admit that this is a problem as the servers can't measure the customer's intent and tell if the deal has already been closed pre or post voucher code.

I guess the only way to decide is to fix the final cookie at the start of the checkout process. That way it stops the 'forced' clicks during checkout once the checkout is underway, and voucher sites that generate the incremental sales get their commission.

I'm sure merchants can use their analytics to see if voucher codes found during the checkout process increase conversion rate, and attribute commission between last affiliate and voucher affiliate accoringly.

[Frostie]

a) visitor wants a code and is forced to have another window opened to get it.
b) visitor wants more information, and the site has a link to it.

Still waiting....

a) a visitor wants more information on a disconut / deal. Clicks to get the information and the user is sent to the merchant site while obtaining the discount / deal.
b) a visitor wants more information on a product. Clicks to get the information and the user is sent to the merchant site while obtaining the product information (which an affiliate could have added to his/her site directly - without forcing the visitor to click on a link to retrieve it).

Both provide the user with the information it promises to, and both send the user to the merchant site. Therefore there is no difference imo.

As for cobranded pages - is this another example of forced clicks?

Sorry but the FORCED CLICK wording is clouding what the real problem is, is the wrong terminology and is anything but the truth. Affiliates that offer discounts that don't exist - now thats a real issue and a bigger one too.

It's just an excuse - why not have a "Click here to reveal discount" that didn't open a new window, but instead merely showed the code and a link to the site? No dropped cookies, and *really* gives the site visitor the choice of whether to visit the site.

Again, I ask about content sites. Why have "click here for more information" when an affiliate could provide all the product information and therefore REALLY give the visitor the choice of whether to visit the merchant or not, once they have all product information to hand?

[loquax]

I have not forced the click on anyone - someone has made the decision to click themselves in order to obtain a discount.

The solution to all this is easy.. merchants don't give out codes, on click of affiliate link the user is directed to a landing page or the user gets a message from the site saying "your discount has now activated".

As affiliates we can argue amongst ourselves what is right and what is wrong, but until the merchants sort out some better technical improvements to voucher code management this issue is just going to run and run.

Jason

[monkeyprojects]

I'll have to admit that this is a problem as the servers can't measure the customer's intent and tell if the deal has already been closed pre or post voucher code.

But the customer's intent is to buy with a voucher. You argument would be fine in an example where 100% people who start the purchase path finish it. This is not however the case. IMRG stated in December 2006 that 41% of baskets are dropped prior to completing the path. I'm sure that for savvy customers who search for a voucher many more are likely to decide against a purchase if no voucher exists.


In many ways the problem here is a simple one. If a merchant has never given out vouchers or does not have any vouchers currently valid no voucher box should be displayed within the purchase path. The reason for this is simple you don't want to ask the consumer anything that will put a customer off buying.

[Frostie]

As affiliates we can argue amongst ourselves what is right and what is wrong, but until the merchants sort out some better technical improvements to voucher code management this issue is just going to run and run.

We can indeed - and its good and healthy to argue in something you believe in

Makes me chuckle that code sites are being told we are forcing people to click, yet content sites (:td booohisss) still think its ok to force a visitor to go to a merchant in order to obtain more information about a product

I still believe that cashback sites are the biggest problem for content only websites.

[monkeyprojects]

Affiliates that offer discounts that don't exist - now thats a real issue and a bigger one too.

But its only an issue if the seller is stupid enough to be asking for a voucher code when no code has ever existed. In this case while the cheat click is annoying the fact that the purchase path has prompted the customer to go searching for a discount is a serious annoyance. Not just for the affiliate that has lost the income but to the merchant who is probably losing a significant number of sales for no good reason.

[Cheapdvds]

Still waiting....

a) a visitor wants more information on a disconut / deal. Clicks to get the information and the user is sent to the merchant site while obtaining the discount / deal.
b) a visitor wants more information on a product. Clicks to get the information and the user is sent to the merchant site while obtaining the product information (which an affiliate could have added to his/her site directly - without forcing the visitor to click on a link to retrieve it).

regarding item B , i think the problem here is the site owner is being slightly misleading by the more information link and the link should just be a buy now link.

regarding item A , put yourself in a customers shoes , click here for discount shows the discount and opens the merchant up , now to me this would just piss me off , i havent asked to be sent to the retailer im just asking to see the discount code.
with this option you are removing the choice from the customer (which some will see as a positive and some as a negative).
now if the link says click here to show discount and visit retailer , to me this is being more open and actually telling the customer what is going to happen they then have a true choice if to click it or not.

[Hero]

you won't be surprised to hear that Webgains has actually taken action on the issue. We don't feel that "click here to reveal code" when there is no code and no offer is a correct way of promoting a merchant. We have therefore contacted the affiliates we have come across and have requested that they either amend their listing to showcase that there is no discount or remove the merchant altogether. We also feel that instructing the customers to "click for code" when in fact the only thing they promote is the nomal sale is also misleading and have asked those affiliates to amend the listings.

In the case where affiliates continue promoting outdated discounts; it's not ideal, but we appreciate the reasons behind it. We however request affiliates to be prepared to remove them on the merchant's request. Same for codes that were not meant to be used by the affiliate channel.

Just to give you some more info on our voucher tool - we are in the process of integrating around 30 merchants at the moment to enable them to use it. We have thoroughly explained all the reasons why they should upgrade and there is big interest. We will be announcing all the merchants as they successfully upload their vouchers for you.
thanks

[loquax]

Hero, thanks for the update (and being the first network to get involved)

One question - is the 'click for code' (when there is a code) ---> open page with site frame at top and merchant site at bottom ala Frostie acceptable?

Jason

[Cheapdvds]

Hero, thanks for the update (and being the first network to get involved)

One question - is the 'click for code' (when there is a code) ---> open page with site frame at top and merchant site at bottom ala Frostie acceptable?

Jason

or even just click for code and code revealed and new window opens with retailer page , is this acceptable

[Hero]

from the above extended debate on the subject, it's fair to say that there is no definite answer. It all depends on how it's done and whether the customer has clearly shown interest in clicking through. Obviously, a 1x1 frame is not acceptable. But when you tell them "click to reveal code and visit merchant" - well, it doesn't get any clearer than that what's going to happen when you click, does it?
For Chris's site, we had an extensive conversation quite a few months ago and his marketing is fine, as far as I'm concerned. However, just to point one thing out, as a lot of affiliates are ready to jump in on the same method - it's all on a case by case basis, so affiliates need to make clear to the customer what will happen when they click. If that happens, the forced click scenario is not substantiated in my opinion.