Voucher Codes. Merchants Read This.

[loquax]

Thanks for taking time to read/reply Hero... I guess it's easy to forget that there's "stuff" going on elsewhere when an issue is raised like this and that networks are busy - so apologies for any grumpyness etc from me.

I guess it's as equally frustrating network side as it is affiliate side.

Reading your reply though... you say "The vast majority of networks have taken a stance - click to reveal offer when no offer is available/has expired is not acceptable (provided an expiry date has been provided)"

Is "click to reveal - drop cookie" an ok mechanic to use in all aspects of AM? Are networks basically saying we should write a bit of content, and then to ensure the cookie is set, tell a user "hey to see what else we're saying about these guys, and to visit them" click here?

When/where do networks draw a line and say "this is pushing incentive to click a bit too far"?

Jason

[Barry]

Originally Posted by fizzbird Surely not? Whatever next - people browsing in shops and walking out without buying anything?

I think he was refering to people copying the code and not pressing the link.

I think it equates to maybe walking into a PCWORLD and getting advise from a salesperson. The salesperson gives you great advise and a discount and their ID number to go to the till with so they get their commission. But the customer doesnt bother giving the salespersons ID to the till staff and they loose the commission.

Surley for going through the exercise of keeping upto date vouchers and giving advise in many cases the salesperson deserves some cash for their part in the operation?



If we are going to ban incentives then surly cashback sites would be the first to go?

Ta

Baz

[Hero]

Originally Posted by loquax Is "click to reveal - drop cookie" an ok mechanic to use in all aspects of AM? Are networks basically saying we should write a bit of content, and then to ensure the cookie is set, tell a user "hey to see what else we're saying about these guys, and to visit them" click here? When/where do networks draw a line and say "this is pushing incentive to click a bit too far"?

This is the big question and I don't think anyone has a diffinitive answer to it. From my perspective, affiliates influence the purchasing process through their campaigns and that's what they should aim to do, not plant cookies in hope that they will get a commission at some point. Tracking & reporting that influence is the big challenge - let's say you have written a fantastic review of a product on your site, which hundeds of people have found really useful and that has swerved their minds in buying the product. Can we track that? Not unless you have had a strong CTA inviting the customer to visit the recommended retailer. Why would you not have a CTA eitherway? Is it acceptable that you drop cookies without the customer actively and consciously clicking through? No, it's not. Is it acceptable to say "yes, this retailer has valid offers, which however I won't disclose unless you click here"? No, it's not, but that's my view. I believe the affiliate should say "the merchant offers 5% off your orders over £50, if you are interested in this valid code, then click here to see the code and use it". I think that is acceptable, yes.

[fizzbird]

Originally Posted by hero That statement "sales you would have got eitherway" makes my stomach turn

So a merchant that doesn't offer codes gets extra sales from a code site because they don't have a code?

Very logical - not!

Here's a thought for everyone out there disputing the importance of customer incentive sites - why are all retailers so looking forward to the sale season?

Because they can get rid of the stock they've been trying to flog at inflated prices.

Cause people aint stupid any more

If people knew how much money they were giving away to voucher code sites they'd soon start acting smarter than they have been thus far?

[fizzbird]

Originally Posted by Barry The salesperson gives you great advise and a discount and their ID number to go to the till with so they get their commission. But the customer doesnt bother giving the salespersons ID to the till staff and they loose the commission.

I understand that - but for most voucher code sites (not you, you're one of the good guys) the PC World salesperson has dragged you from the till at Staples and pinned his id number to your forehead (in such a way that you never even noticed).

[loquax]

Is it acceptable to say "yes, this retailer has valid offers, which however I won't disclose unless you click here"? No, it's not, but that's my view

It will be interesting to know whether that viewpoint is shared by other networks and whether it becomes a network policy.

Thanks for that

[Markup]

It still - and always will - come down to whether the site visitor feels they have had a valuable visit. Let's face it who wants a visitor once, we need them to become a friend for life.

Hero, FAIR PLAY TO YOU FOR PITCHING IN, but then again, you do (webgains) seem to have a passion for being first - well done!

[Rich]

At the risk of clouding the issue, but hopefully providing another angle for people to think about along the click to revel content lines, is showing the merchants with a click to reveal the offer the same as showing an offer with click to reveal the merchant?

A few years ago I quickly chucked up set up a price comparison site with click to reveal the merchant with the best deal but never got round to pushing much traffic it's way to see if it made a difference. e.g. No Country For Old Men [2007] - DVD Spot (I did warn you it was just chucked together!). Jason's blog post about this thread made me think about that site and whether it should be taken further. e.g. "We checked 30 stores and found 21 with the DVD you wanted. Click here to visit the store with the best deal and view all the results". Would that be OK or is the fact that link would have a 99% CTR equivalent to forcing a cookie to be set?

[channel5]

Originally Posted by Barry If we are going to ban incentives then surly cashback sites would be the first to go?

Lots of people wouldn't lose that much sleep if that was to happen

[philhancox]

Originally Posted by channel5 Lots of people wouldn't lose that much sleep if that was to happen

Apart from the hundreds of thousands of users, hundreds of staff behind said sites and the networks