Voucher Codes. Merchants Read This.

[morph_]

Voucher Codes

The key problem: merchants giving commission to voucher code sites when no valid codes exist.

Merchants, take action.

If there's no valid code (90% + of the time), do not award the voucher site a commission fee. Give commission to the prior referrer (if any). The vast bulk of voucher code sales come when the customer is already at checkout, visits a voucher site and clicks a link (where 90%+ of the time, no valid codes exist). Merchants - you are losing money giving unnecessary commissions away - most customers are ready and willing to buy (voucher code or not). Very few incremental sales.


Promo. box positioning on checkout is irrelevant when you ensure you reward for valid codes only. If you don't like the practice of voucher code sites posting codes you've advertised elsewhere (in papers, disgruntled customers, current customer codes), check the referrer - if it's a voucher site, don't give them a commission.

Ideally, we wouldn't have last referrer. Fairest would probably be dividing the commission up between all the cookies. 5 referrers, split the commission five ways.

Voucher sites with valid codes are fine, but giving the voucher sites sitting at the top of the SERPs easy money (and they offer few sales you wouldn't have got anyway) - well, it's a matter of principle.

Sites using deceptive, unethical practices should not be rewarded. Take action. Most of your affiliates will respect you for looking out for their interests - something which networks increasingly do not.

[mainlime]

Why have you created a new thread for this?

[aotagain]

I imagine complicated splits of commission are practically unworkable and by the time a solution is found, there'll be another more pressing problem to deal with anyway.

[Affi Liate]

morph_ ine

Call me old fashioned but your last post bored the a*se of of me, and I''m normally not easily bored on here... (that's not strictly true).

After glancing thru your last post I thought "fair do's" the guys obviouslly goty a gripe... but now you strike me as being a lame a*s whinger.

The time it took you to write the first post (and me to write this one, make a cup of tea, check my emails, write a suicide note, feed the cats, have a t*g, play a game of subbuteo, go to sleep for half an hour, wake up, make a hot dog and watch a DVD) I could've farted and made sh*t loads of cash.

Stop being a wu*s and make some money.

Aff.
F*****g numpty...

[drivetowin]

Originally Posted by morph_ Voucher sites with valid codes are fine

That's quite a change in stance from your previous thread....

[Markup]

Originally Posted by morph_ Voucher Codes (Merchants) ...Take action. Most of your affiliates will respect you for looking out for their interests - something which networks increasingly do not.

You make a much better case for your whinge here Morph_.

It is not realistic though to expect a merchant to police every single instance of a true or false voucher code display.

Best leave it to the user, who will return to a site where he/she gets a good experience... and won't if they don't.

[morph_]

Originally Posted by drivetowin That's quite a change in stance from your previous thread....

"voucher sites with valid codes are fine". Read that as "valid codes are fine".

The smaller voucher code sites I've seen still employ dodgy/less than honest tactics to get people to click - code or not. If you only list valid codes, that's great. If merchants only reward valid codes, it shouldn't affect those that list valid codes only.

The reality is, most clicks on most voucher code sites (including the smaller ones which keep expired codes and content offers displayed) don't have valid codes. Take away commission for codes that are not valid, and most voucher site commissions will plummet.

Many merchants can save quite a bit of money by not giving easy commissions for sales they were going to get anyway. Or, do the decent thing and give commission to perhaps those who added value earlier on in the process (videos, reviews, etc).

"I imagine complicated splits of commission are practically unworkable".

There's nothing complicated about it. Count the cookies, divide the commission. Microsoft are working on something similar. Can't find the link right now.

[drivetowin]

Originally Posted by morph_ There's nothing complicated about it. Count the cookies, divide the commission.

So then when you lose a share of your commission to the ppc agency, the seo agency, the agency who produced a magazine advert, the tv advertising company and the billboard company (not to mention point of sale in the retail store) you won't complain as they all 'touched the customer on their journey'.

[channel5]

Originally Posted by drivetowin So then when you lose a share of your commission to the ppc agency, the seo agency, the agency who produced a magazine advert, the tv advertising company and the billboard company (not to mention point of sale in the retail store) you won't complain as they all 'touched the customer on their journey'.

Be fair to the guy, you can't track most of those touch points you refer to and his point wasn't about them anyway.

The networks do count all the people that drop cookies as they record the cookie drop at each point, so sharing comission amongst cookie droppers would not be a problem. I personally think this is the way forward as it makes the entire award of comission much more fair.

I think that the only sites it would screw up would be the cashback sites, voucher, content, PPC/everyone else would not be messed up by this.

If the commission is split then it means that each site will have to work harder to try and provide everything the consumer needs to make their purchase decision improving the service to the consumer, the best sites would offer content, voucher codes, price comparison (and maybe even cashback) and then they would reap more reward for their extra effort.

Lazy asses would earn less potentially, but who cares about that eh?!

[Markup]

Originally Posted by channel5 If the commission is split then it means that each site will have to work harder to try and provide everything the consumer needs to make their purchase decision improving the service to the consumer, the best sites would offer content, voucher codes, price comparison (and maybe even cashback) and then they would reap more reward for their extra effort.

Not really, is all anyone wanting to take a share of a shared commission would then have to do is create a really eye catching link/ad/one liner, to send the user to any old land and be assured of his/her share of the pie.

[channel5]

Originally Posted by Markup Not really, is all anyone wanting to take a share of a shared commission would then have to do is create a really eye catching link/ad/one liner, to send the user to any old land and be assured of his/her share of the pie.

It sounds like this is an area where people sit squarely on one side of the fence or the other.

[drivetowin]

Mark beat me to it but you will get loads of people creating sites with 1x1 iframes to load merchant sites to plant cookies - cos hey when that sale goes through they are going to get a share of the commission whatever.....

Last cookie wins is the industry standard for a good reason - there is (currently) no better solution - you just have to accept last cookie wins means sometimes you won't be the last cookie - get over it and move on. If you have a good site that provides real value (and has voucher codes as well as content where there is a voucher code to be had) you will win enough business you won't have to worry about the bit you're losing.

For once I agree with affi, stop whinging about life not being fair - accept that life is not fair and work out how to make the best of it.

[channel5]

Sites dropping spam cookies should be easily picked up by the networks, and the whole point of networks for merchants is that they should be vetting who they allow to join programmes, so that doesn't worry me.

Anyway I see arguments for both sides, but see nothing to fear in shared payouts to be honest. I'm fine at the moment with the last cookie wins, but i feel i'd be equally fine on a split commission basis.. i just don't fear either.

[morph_]

Originally Posted by Markup You make a much better case for your whinge here Morph_. It is not realistic though to expect a merchant to police every single instance of a true or false voucher code display.

They don't have to "police" which vouchers are correct. The merchant already has a database of valid codes.

Merchants could just monitor their logs. Each time an invalid code is entered, log the invalid code and affiliate site referrer in a database. Once a month, check which sites send lots of invalid codes. It won't take long - 2 minutes per month - you're just looking at a spreadsheet.

If an affiliate site regularly sends visitors who then input invalid codes, ban them from your affiliate program. Enforce the rules.

It's in the merchants' interest to do this. The small cost in seeing which sites send visitors who input invalid codes, is more than offset than by the thousands of pounds of unnecessary commission payments.

[morph_]

@Affi Liate

It's called addressing an issue that has been irking a lot of affiliates for some time now. Affiliates have been voicing their concerns over deceptive practices for quite a while now and there has been little or no action by networks or merchants. Previous posts on the issue have been quietly swept aside / not acted on. Strong words are needed to push people to take action.

My posting here is "making intelligent and effective use of your time". Try it some time.