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2 - Out of date codes.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]

Originally Posted by Frostie 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]

Originally Posted by ian 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.

Originally Posted by pete_m 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]

Originally Posted by iusedtobebarryfrombrooksideuntililostmyhair 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by someblokewhoisquickerwithwitthanfrosty 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 ( 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]

Originally Posted by Frostie 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.