Voucher Codes. Merchants Read This.

[morph_]

Tweet

"If this is deemed as acceptable then why can't content affiliates use the same tactic or drop a cookie by using a 1x1px iframe of the merchants website?"

All seems fair game doesn't it? Content affiliates could adopt the click to reveal all merchants ploy, use spyware to overwrite cookies. All fair play it seems.

The real issue is networks supporting deceptive practices. Valid codes - fine. The voucher sites display lots of "latest offers" - they're still getting the visitor to click and merchants continue to pay unnecessarily for traffic they would have got anyway.

The issue merchants should take note off - lots of unnecessary affiliate commissions.

[morph_]

Before becoming an afifliate I was an affiliate manager and saw first hand the effort put into the projects that these guys undertook - that's where I am coming from, where are you coming from?

Stop trying to divert people away from the real issues. Putting "effort" in does not change the facts. I can spend months writing spyware overwriting cookies, it's still spyware. The networks support these sites' practices - the effort put in is irrelevant.

1. Networks supporting Web sites who employ dodgy practices.
2. Merchants paying out commissions unnecessarily.
3. Other affiliates are essentially seeing a percentage of their revenues - the "voucher code search tax" handed on a silver-platter to Web sites that employ dodgy practices.

In most cases, the visitor is already at the checkout page, they click a link on a voucher site and 90%+ of the time there is no valid code. They're profiting from deceptive practices and the networks support it.

They make most of their profits from the goodwill of the merchants putting a voucher code box on their checkout page (something they must always do if they offer codes) and getting visitors from the search engines. The issue for merchants is they are needlessly giving away commissions for sales they are going to get anyway.

In the past few months I've bought from 10 stores. Some on more than one occasion. Not once did I find a valid voucher code. Even when the sites list them as valid, in most cases they are not.

My guess is some merchants are paying out repeatedly, even for long-term valued customers who are going to buy anyway.

People keep typing in "brand + voucher code" at checkout, hoping that this time, yes, they can save a few pounds. The vast majority of people don't bookmark a voucher site thinking, wow, what a great site, let me see what what codes are available and then go and buy something because there's a voucher code.

The majority of visitors are already at the checkout, see that they might be able to save a few quid by doing a Google search, see there are no codes, click a link anyway to "see latest offers", thinking there might be codes, and the merchant AGAIN has paid out an unnecessary commission.

There's also the affiliate-relations issue:

1. We accept dodgy affiliate behaviour.
2. We're quite happy to see 10%+ of "content affiliate cookies" get overwritten by sites which in most cases are just grabbing credit for a sale which they've sneakily got credit for.

When deciding which business models to pursue, people are less likely to work with (and send their business) to companies to do not work with their interests in mind.

Fortunately, I don't have UK sites, just US sites with CPM, CPC and direct merchant relationships. I (and others I've spoken too) are unlikely to work with companies who don't have their interests in mind.

END

[monkeynuts84]

The issue for merchants is they are needlessly giving away commissions for sales they are going to get anyway.

I agree that sales will come but by offering a code as an incentive customers are more likely to visit the site offering a discount so your statement is not strictly true.

In the past few months I've bought from 10 stores. Some on more than one occasion. Not once did I find a valid voucher code. Even when the sites list them as valid, in most cases they are not.

My guess is some merchants are paying out repeatedly, even for long-term valued customers who are going to buy anyway.

If a merchant is prepared to pay a commission to bring additional traffic, is that your issue? These guys have a business model, they know what they're doing. Maybe there should be a greater level of monitoring over affiliates who employ underhand tactics. That is something for the merchants and networks to address.

The majority of visitors are already at the checkout, see that they might be able to save a few quid by doing a Google search, see there are no codes, click a link anyway to "see latest offers", thinking there might be codes, and the merchant AGAIN has paid out an unnecessary commission.

Have you worked in marketing for a large company? If you have, you'll understand why they do this.

[drivetowin]

Morph

First of all, come clean, are you a merchant or an affiliate - at first reading your posts I thought you were an affiliate who was miffed at losing some commissions to voucher code sites, from your latest posts though I wonder if you're simply a merchant who begrudges paying out commissions on 'sales you would have got anyway' (personally I think 'sales you would have got anyway' is the most arrogant and presumptious statement any merchant big or small can come out with - who's to say if someone is at your checkout, goes looking for a voucher and doesn't find one, is going to complete the sale anyway, surely it's still 50/50 at that point that while searching for a voucher for you, if they don't find one but find a voucher for one of your competitors, they will abandon your basket and go and buy from your competitor instead (which incidentally is then an 'incremental' sale for your competitor)).

Then right at the end of your last post you say you don't work on UK sites anyway - wtf - so why have you got such a bee in your bonnet then, if you've worked in the US as you claim then you'll know that voucher sites in the US are far bigger business than they are in the UK, and voucher sites in the US have won a number of affiliate awards.

You make a number of statements of 'FACT' without producing any evidence to back them up - if you have evidence, produce it, if you don't then say 'my assumption is' don't say 'FACT'.

What exactly is wrong with 'click here for latest offers' - how is that any different to a content site having a link which says 'click here for more information' - and then going to the merchant site (and planting a cookie in the process). Yes I agree with you 'click here for a voucher code' when none exists is wrong - but 'click here for latest offers' - that's a Ronseal statement, 'it does what it says on the tin'.

You make a lot of networks supporting deceptive practices which frankly is taking your mouth, moving it three feet down and placing it at the back - if a merchant is exclusive to a network then whether affiliate a (the content site) of affiliate b (the voucher site) gets the sale makes diddly squat difference, the network is getting it's override anyway. Yeah yeah yeah I hear the argument what if the voucher site does more volume and gets 5% commission and the content site gets 3% commission the network gets more override but believe me most networks are not that macro about things - they'd rather get all affiliates up to the band where they're earning 5% commission.

I also don't buy your point about merchants paying out 'unnecessary commissions' - in your other thread (I still can't quite work out why you started this thread as well but hey ho, I guess you were losing the argument in that one, but then starting off with insults was possibly not the best way to get people on side) - anyway, in your other thread you were complaining about voucher code affiliates stealing other affiliates commissions, now you're sayig merchants are paying unnecessary commissions - so which is it? And why is it an unnecessary commission - as I said above no one should ever be arrogant enough to say 'they were going to buy anyway' (or are we all suddenly turning into the affiliate clairvoyant circle) - how many times have you gone into a shopping basket and abandoned it for some reason or another?

And before anyone asks, yes I have a voucher code site, but I have over 50 content sites too - so I can see the arguments from both sides of the fence. Do I lose some sales to other voucher code sites? - probably Do I lose some sales to brand bidders? probably - Does either over worry me? No, it's competition and in the world we live in it's survival of the fittest (and I spend lots of time keeping fit :tup)

[Markup]

Now this is a read and a half!!

morph_ can you honestly dispute the fact that your arguments have just been torpedoed, one by one, and destroyed - by a good chunk of British reason!

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I usually hate Monday mornings ha ha ha ha

Morph

First of all, come clean, are you a merchant or an affiliate - at first reading your posts I thought you were an affiliate who was miffed at losing some commissions to voucher code sites, from your latest posts though I wonder if you're simply a merchant who begrudges paying out commissions on 'sales you would have got anyway' (personally I think 'sales you would have got anyway' is the most arrogant and presumptious statement any merchant big or small can come out with - who's to say if someone is at your checkout, goes looking for a voucher and doesn't find one, is going to complete the sale anyway, surely it's still 50/50 at that point that while searching for a voucher for you, if they don't find one but find a voucher for one of your competitors, they will abandon your basket and go and buy from your competitor instead (which incidentally is then an 'incremental' sale for your competitor)).

Then right at the end of your last post you say you don't work on UK sites anyway - wtf - so why have you got such a bee in your bonnet then, if you've worked in the US as you claim then you'll know that voucher sites in the US are far bigger business than they are in the UK, and voucher sites in the US have won a number of affiliate awards.

You make a number of statements of 'FACT' without producing any evidence to back them up - if you have evidence, produce it, if you don't then say 'my assumption is' don't say 'FACT'.

What exactly is wrong with 'click here for latest offers' - how is that any different to a content site having a link which says 'click here for more information' - and then going to the merchant site (and planting a cookie in the process). Yes I agree with you 'click here for a voucher code' when none exists is wrong - but 'click here for latest offers' - that's a Ronseal statement, 'it does what it says on the tin'.

You make a lot of networks supporting deceptive practices which frankly is taking your mouth, moving it three feet down and placing it at the back - if a merchant is exclusive to a network then whether affiliate a (the content site) of affiliate b (the voucher site) gets the sale makes diddly squat difference, the network is getting it's override anyway. Yeah yeah yeah I hear the argument what if the voucher site does more volume and gets 5% commission and the content site gets 3% commission the network gets more override but believe me most networks are not that macro about things - they'd rather get all affiliates up to the band where they're earning 5% commission.

I also don't buy your point about merchants paying out 'unnecessary commissions' - in your other thread (I still can't quite work out why you started this thread as well but hey ho, I guess you were losing the argument in that one, but then starting off with insults was possibly not the best way to get people on side) - anyway, in your other thread you were complaining about voucher code affiliates stealing other affiliates commissions, now you're sayig merchants are paying unnecessary commissions - so which is it? And why is it an unnecessary commission - as I said above no one should ever be arrogant enough to say 'they were going to buy anyway' (or are we all suddenly turning into the affiliate clairvoyant circle) - how many times have you gone into a shopping basket and abandoned it for some reason or another?

And before anyone asks, yes I have a voucher code site, but I have over 50 content sites too - so I can see the arguments from both sides of the fence. Do I lose some sales to other voucher code sites? - probably Do I lose some sales to brand bidders? probably - Does either over worry me? No, it's competition and in the world we live in it's survival of the fittest (and I spend lots of time keeping fit :tup)

[loquax]

No, it's competition and in the world we live in it's survival of the fittest

Take a different angle - Spyware and apply your "it's competition... etc" and the argument has a different feel, yes?

The one thing I would like to see within this discussion is a clarification of what is acceptable use of click to reveal...

Surely there comes a point when a network steps up and says "this is ok, this is not, affiliates sort it" - as otherwise these discussions will continue...

The click to reveal mechanism is a something that needs addressing and if a network pops up and says "yes that's fine, affiliates can demand a click to show ANY kind of content, whether it be valid codes, no codes, free delivery, a competition, a price comparison, a review etc etc." then at least we'll all know where we stand.

Perhaps instead of arguing amongst ourselves, perhaps we should be uniting to find out what the networks and merchants position is?

Jason

[loquax]

What exactly is wrong with 'click here for latest offers' - how is that any different to a content site having a link which says 'click here for more information' - and then going to the merchant site (and planting a cookie in the process).

My take on this is.....

1. A content site will presell to the visitor and encourages them to click.

2. A click to reveal forces the visitor to click to get the content.

As above under what scenarios will "click to reveal" be deemed acceptable/unacceptable?

If you allow (2) above, in essence you could argue that (1) should therefore be able to drop the cookie via a pop-under as it's the same mechanism (get content drop cookie).

But pop-unders are forced clicks.

Jason

[Cheapdvds]

click to reveal code is used for planting a cookie as i see it , if it was a case of hiding the codes to stop them from being copied then surely you click the button and the code displays , you would then have another button/link to click to open the retailer site if you choose to , so you have a choice.

[drivetowin]

Sorry Jason but I don't agree with you on that one - If it says 'click here for latest offers', no one is forcing anyone to click, the punter can either click or not.

If a site just had

Merchant name - click here for latest offers

Then I guess you'd have a bit of a point (though I've seen plenty of content sites that do that too) - but in my experience most voucher sites will say

Merchant name
Merchant description
Click here for latest offers

Which is surely no different to the hundreds of online 'shopping malls' which have been around as long as you and I have been in affiliate marketing.

I would agree with you though that networks should be more transparent in what is allowed and what isn't.

[loquax]

Sorry Jason but I don't agree with you on that one - If it says 'click here for latest offers', no one is forcing anyone to click, the punter can either click or not.

I guess so... I just think that "reveal code" seems to be ok, now "reveal with no code" is ok, next "reveal to see my content" will be ok... what next - "click here to drop cookies all the merchants I'm affiliated with to see my website".

Maybe I'm getting a bit too old for the affilate stuff

[Markup]

Here's the rub/nub of the whole issue you have raised. If the coder is familiar with what the user will judge to be a good experience when visiting ANY site then he is going to foster a good relationship with said user and encourage a repeat visit and hopefully a bookmark or similar drop. If not and he plants visual content on the page that encourages the user to perform an action that give little real value (false promises etc) then he may well be losing the future relationship that all affiliates need to hunt for with their site visitors.

Anyone thinking long term knows this...

[Brett]

I guess so... I just think that "reveal code" seems to be ok, now "reveal with no code" is ok, next "reveal to see my content" will be ok... what next - "click here to drop cookies all the merchants I'm affiliated with to see my website".

Maybe I'm getting a bit too old for the affilate stuff

You're right - I think the reveal code is fine if the code exists and is valid.

If an affiliate is using the 'reveal code' button when there is no code available or only a standard promotion is available then the merchants should have some way of reporting this to the networks.

Merchants could get an 'Awin Index' report on voucher sites i.e. this voucher site is number one in the group because he delivers high volumes of traffic/business but has never received any complaints from other merchants

[morph_]

No, it's competition and in the world we live in it's survival of the fittest

I hope you'll sit back with a broad smile when someone writes spyware and gets 20% of your commission. Or when someone steals all your content, hacks into your site, adds hidden text and gets you banned from Google. "It's competition", "it's the way it is".

Best part is, networks and merchants can simply say "bye bye". Not you. "survival of the fittest". You'd just sit back and take it?

Many voucher sites are the same. They get a large wad of their traffic from "brand + voucher" and sitting merchant brand terms - including misspellings.

begrudges paying out commissions on 'sales you would have got anyway'

There's no begrudge about it. I simply wouldn't pay the affiliates where 90% of their traffic stream comes from visitors typing in "brand + voucher".

FACT' without producing any evidence to back them up'

Me: FACT - Many of the voucher sites sitting in the SERPs for "brand voucher" have employed and still do employ dodgy tactics.

Is that not a fact? Iframes, "click here for code" when there aren't codes, competitor domain names, merchant misspellings. The list goes on. The evidence is on the first page of results.

Me: FACT. "90% + of the time there is no valid code either". Again, the evidence is sitting right in front of you. If you insist we can sit here and pick apart voucher sites, but let's not pick on one site. Most of them are at it.

Many merchants do not have valid codes. Even the ones that are stated as "valid" do not in fact work. The merchant hasn't put an expiry date on and the affiliate doesn't display the code.

I think 'sales you would have got anyway' is the most arrogant and presumptious statement any merchant big or small can come out with

Not at all. Far from it. The person is at the checkout. They've got items in their basket, credit card in hand. They see the voucher box. Ooo. Maybe I can save a little money, off to Google.

The cycle repeats. Again and again and again. I'm a "loyal" customer of quite a few stores. I go to checkout and I see "voucher code". I try the voucher sites on every purchase - dozens of them. Click the link on the code site, and on 95% + of occasions, nothing?

If I hadn't deleted the cookies, these merchants would have paid out many hundreds of pounds for sales they were getting anyway. They have committed to the process. Merchants - take a look at the click to buy times from voucher site referrers. Very short mostly. Why? Because they're already at the checkout.

The voucher code business model

1. Create a site with hundreds of pages - Google loves sites with tons of pages.
2. Plaster lots of voucher code and brand misspellings on the page.
3. Sit and wait for people to search for a voucher code.
4. Get the visitor to click at any cost. Wow. Thanks. You've really convinced me to buy now. "Click here for latest promos", invalid codes, iframes - the merchant has now paid out a sale.

Where do suggest voucher sites get the bulk of their traffic? Mailing lists? PPCing on non-voucher code terms (I don't see it). The bulk comes from people doing a search at checkout.

Voucher sites - most people don't bookmark the site or sign up to a voucher mailing list thinking, what great codes will they send me today. The "discount brigade" are most likely signed up to cashback sites.

Cashback sites - fine. No problem at all with them. Whether merchants want to be with them, case-by-case basis.

Brand bidders? I don't know. I read on here somewhere by a network, something along the lines of "brand bidding over-writing cookies is vastly overrated." It is of course more of a concern for affiliates in sectors where brand-bidding is rampant.

From AW:

AW Trademark policy changes:

"therefore ignoring the value of true referring affiliates at the start of the customer journey. We know, as do affiliates, that this is not a fair way of apportioning reward. Naturally, the content site that puts considerable effort into researching and reviewing products then presenting them in an attractive and usable format is extremely aggrieved at the prospect of losing sales to an affiliate appearing on the merchant’s brand name."

By their own admission (AW), it is not fair and they should do something about it. And they are correct - pissing off lots of content affiliates is not a great idea, particularly when PPC and other marketing methods are decreasing in effectiveness.

Last referrer - not a fair way of apportioning reward. Likewise, having 10%+ (that's my estimate, can be more, can be less, and it'll vary from program to program) of content affiliate commission taken by voucher code sites (who do all they can to get the click - and they're super-hot conversions because most of them are already at the check-out with credit card in hand.

So AW are willing to act on the unfairness of brand-bidding and not giving content affiliates proper reward, yet they have yet to suggest a solution for voucher code sites who overwrite other content affiliate cookies and "ignoring the value of true referring affiliates"

Looks like a profit incentive to act on the brand-bidder issue and not the voucher code issue. Further on in the document suggests setting a separate cookie: one for content affiliates and one for brand bidders.

As the brand traffic is not de‐duplicated against your main programme using our solution, this could result in you paying twice for some sales where there is a genuine prior referring affiliate

Nice boost to network profits. Remove voucher code sites - profits decrease. Seems strange they are so concerned about brand-bidding and being "fair", yet the unsavoury tactics and cookie-overwriting done by voucher sites gets no action. Not yet anyway. Perhaps you folks are working on it?

I can see some people saying something ludicrous along the lines of "very few people see the voucher box and then go to Google to look for a code". Tosh. That's where most of their traffic comes from. Common sense. The pages are laced with voucher code words and brand misspellings. They rarely rank for product terms, and I see little if any PPC on non-voucher terms.

It's an easy leeching business model - little value, just sit there and wait for them to search for the voucher code. "The Voucher Code Search Tax" should not be accepted by affiliates. To say "accept it", when simple and effective action can be taken (much like AW have suggested with brand bidding) is nonsensical.

There are plenty of things which people can't change and affiliates should accept and "just get on with it". Google's algo (tons of "content" pages guys and girls, blog spam, paid links, multiple sites - Google loves it), PPC fraud, failed tracking at networks, cashback sites taking a percentage, a little spyware,

But when you see something that can be easily solved, is "fairer" (according to AW), then it makes sense to act on it. It would be good for affiliate-relations and the industry as a whole. It would also encourage people to be a more creative with their thinking and add more value, instead of doing what they think is the easy thing - getting easy high converting traffic sitting on the front page of the SERPs.

What exactly is wrong with 'click here for latest offers'

There's nothing wrong with that in itself. Many of the sites which rank for "brand + voucher code" use it simply to get a click. Where's the value? Particularly when the majority of their traffic is coming to their site to get a code and they're already at the checkout.

Most people decide what to buy, then look for the store to buy it at, THEN when they're at checkout, decide to go looking for a code. In most cases, the code is a nice discount for the consumer, not a significant contributor to the buying decision - that has already been done by the other sites.

how many times have you gone into a shopping basket and abandoned it for some reason or another?

the network is getting it's override anyway.

The network benefits by getting a cut of higher tier commission programs. 200 sales at £80 vs 200 sales at £20. Clear profit motive.

FOLKS: This thread will play out like others. People protecting their interests. Content site owners want "fairness" - AW agree on this with their brand bidding suggestions. So we should see AW take action soon right?

People with interests not to have dodgy voucher code site practices stamped out will simply say anything to keep their gravy trains going.

Drivetowin - you have 50 content sites leaking commission to voucher sites and 1 voucher site? Those content sites can't have much CPA links on. Why would you not want to see your content sites make more money and get more fairly attributed for sales? Just like AW say.

Seems like you're looking out for your own interests rather than doing what's right for content affiliates and the industry. AW agree. The "50 content site" claim does nothing to enhance the validity of your points. In fact, it gives big question marks over your business acumen and undermines all your previous points.

[befuddle]

Take a different angle - Spyware

Why are people repeatedly bringing up spyware? Why not PPC brand bidding cookies instead?

[Brett]

Me: FACT. "90% + of the time there is no valid code either". Again, the evidence is sitting right in front of you. If you insist we can sit here and pick apart voucher sites, but let's not pick on one site. Most of them are at it.

By writing FACT in front of a statement doesn't make it one.

If 90% of Click Here To Reveal code buttons resulted in no valid code then people would stop using them wouldn't they? I think your FACT is wrong.