Quidco no longer working with Affiliate Window

[hirschnathan]

Tweet

I am not sure where I stand

On one hand well done that aw took their stand now. But in this climate of competition between networks for merchants & affiliates its a tricky move.
As far as quidco go, I am not sure they are asking for anything too complicated, all they want basically is quicker approval rates. There are networks that offer 5 day auto approval, so if one can do it, why cant all of them?

There is no reason why aw couldnt ask all their merchants to have an auto approval system, a merchants should not need 28 days to verify a sale.

[deadgoodundies]

a merchants should not need 28 days to verify a sale.

Certain circumstances there are, for example if a merchant has a 30 day return policy OR say a 14 day return policy (from recipet of goods) and they are shipping somewhere like Australia. And it's in the merchants programme T&C that returned orders are not paid out.

[drivetowin]

Can also be the case with loan programmes for example that a loan may take longer than 28 days to complete - or insurance where there is a statutory 'cooling off' period.

[drivetowin]

Just to add as well that I have asked for this issue to be added to the agenda for the IAB Affiliate Marketing Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow afternoon as I feel there are broader issues here which the council should discuss.

[KevinEdwards]

Just for the record, the issue is related to queried transactions, not turnaround times on general sales.

[mattb811]

There has been a lot of talk on this thread of "fraudulent" transactions which I think people need to be very careful about.

If you as a merchant are receiving genuine fraudulent transactions from any affiliate then the police should be informed.

If it is simply a consumer who is exploiting a loophole that allows them to receive cashback when this isn't in the merchants best interests, then that isn't fraud. As with any affiliate scheme the CPA and the defined action agreed up front should be set by the merchant, with the advice of their network and agency, to ensure best value for the merchant.

A practical example: If a gaming merchant offers a CPA of £50 for a customer opening an account and depositing £20, then if that offer were to go on Quidco it is inevitable that lots of people will sign up, deposit the minimum amount and claim their cashback. These transactions are not "fraudulent". They may not be adding as much value as the merchant desires, but that is not fraud. It is up to the merchant, the network and agency to set a metric whereby the desired level of value is being received. So in the example above, increase the minimum deposit to £50 or reduce Quidco's CPA to £20.

[arcticsunrise]

Matt

I agree with you on choice of wording.

That said however, we have one current lead based programme where when contacted, over 80% of the people who have applied via a cashback site have no interest in the product offered. Ultimately, this may lead to the merchant barring cashback websites from the programme, which would be a shame as some cashback websites deliver high quality traffic.

[3wdl]

That said however, we have one current lead based programme where when contacted, over 80% of the people who have applied via a cashback site have no interest in the product offered. Ultimately, this may lead to the merchant barring cashback websites from the programme, which would be a shame as some cashback websites deliver high quality traffic.

If some cashback sites deliver high quality traffic then just work with them - at the end of the day you are managing the programme so if you think that a large % of signups are uninterested then cut it at the source and reject the cashback sites that are not working from the program.

[TheBoyMitchell]

Good points raised.

My opinion is that it depends on the type of offer on the cashback site. As a gaming merchant, I am happy to overincentivise the offer, as its cheaper to gain brand recognition this way and get people who wouldnt normally sign up to do so and have a look at our product.

So, if a user gets 32.50 back on a deposit of 30.00, its only cost us 2.50 for that person to download and try the casino, increase brand awareness *and* get their details for retention marketing. When you compare the cost of that against an offline medium its very reasonable, and measurable.

Neil Mitchell
Senior Account Manager
Blackpool Club Casino
email - neil@webrouteservices.co.uk
MSN - TheBoyMitchell@hotmail.co.uk
Old Skool - 02078389399

[mdrussell]

I must say well done to Affiliate Window for their stance on this, it is something I have noticed where canceled transactions have been put through again when a user has said it has gone through, I am not sure that this is Quidco's fault although the added pressure to networks is.

I would be very interested to see Quidco come on here and comment.

Also as far as lead generation campaigns are concerned this is something that should be discussed and considered before any CPA or CPL campaign goes live, and a solution can be met based upon criteria of the merchant.

I think affiliate marketing has become more professional and I am a little upset that Quidco went behind affiliate windows back and sent out this email to all clients, as a lot of clients wont have the knowledge of the industry and will make rash decisions.

If Quidco aren't going to work with clients that are only on affiliate window, I truly think this will increase sales through other cash back sites.

[arcticsunrise]

If some cashback sites deliver high quality traffic then just work with them - at the end of the day you are managing the programme so if you think that a large % of signups are uninterested then cut it at the source and reject the cashback sites that are not working from the program.

James

I totally agree with you on that - the problem is that from a merchant perspective the merchant can see the easiest option is to say 'no cashback/reward sites' at all, rather than spend hours calling leads who turn out to have no interest. Yes it is possible to then remove those affiliates from the programme but the merchant has already spent hours phoning/contacting those leads before you can reach that decision.

From experience it is not as simple as saying - that cashback site sent good leads on programme x so they will send good leads on programme y - in our experience that is not necessarily the case. The opposite can also be true, you can have a cashback site that sends dire quality leads to one programme but excellent leads to another.

[deadgoodundies]

If you as a merchant are receiving genuine fraudulent transactions from any affiliate then the police should be informed.

Matt the police aren't in the slightest bit interested unless the fraud runs into tens of thousands of pounds and they just tell you to talk to the credit card companies, who in turn aren't interested either as they don't lose out themselves as if there is a fraudulent payment then the customer claims the money back from the card company who in turn claim it from the merchant PLUS chargeback fees (this is from experience I know this) unless of course their 3d-secure system is implemented which is a complete joke in itself.

[Mr Pointy]

There has been a lot of talk on this thread of "fraudulent" transactions which I think people need to be very careful about.

If you as a merchant are receiving genuine fraudulent transactions from any affiliate then the police should be informed.

If it is simply a consumer who is exploiting a loophole that allows them to receive cashback when this isn't in the merchants best interests, then that isn't fraud. As with any affiliate scheme the CPA and the defined action agreed up front should be set by the merchant, with the advice of their network and agency, to ensure best value for the merchant.

I take on board the comments about discussing "fraudulent transactions" on the forum and as I remarked previously, know that this is only a tiny proportion of users....I was referring only to people signing up to CPA programs many times over, giving false names/details, or using stolen/fake credit cards etc.

But both affiliates, networks & merchants should be working together to tighten up on this sort of problem, which can also make the shopping experience better for purchasers!

As for reporting anything like that to the police - I wouldn't waste my time :td

[Matthew Wood]

Managing missing transactions for both the cashback site, merchant and network has become one of the bug bears and challenges of the loyalty sector.

We operate a couple of cashback sites, now it's fair to say whilst they are nowhere near Quidco’s traffic levels they generate a good, profitable income for us and given us a significant learning curve.

Now whilst I don’t agree with the almost bully’ish stance Quidco have taken with AW and other networks through the SureShop initiative - I can see why they have taken a hard line.

For the loyalty site owner when an online shopping transaction does not for whatever reason get entered into a users account it causes all kinds of upset, bad PR (for merchant and cashback site) and trauma, in the past we had a member take a CCJ against us for a transaction where a merchant / network had failed to respond to our request for extra clarification on why the sale did not track - frustrating as it's outside our control.

Whilst the affiliate can make simple checks such as ensuring the user has actually clicked the merchant link within a set time frame, or that the missing sale has not been entered previously by requesting an order ID, the problem arises when the cash back user reports through multiple cash back sites a ‘missing transaction’ – standardisation is needed amongst site owners and networks.

Whereas with cashback sites that offer a share of the commission say 50% have the flexibility to absorb some goodwill, the rise of the 100% cashback phenomenon has put an end to this, giving the likes of Quidco no room for manoeuvre on their margins.

Also important to consider is the actual ‘cost’ of such missing transactions, through manually checking sales, often needing to go through an agency to decide on the outcome.

Have Quidco shot themselves in the foot? Yes most likely, but whilst I agree the decision by Affiliate Window is admirable, its also brave as they will see a huge affect on the balance sheets with this decision.

Cashback accounts for 30% of network revenue in some instances and that’s a whopping hit to take. Holistically it will be interesting to see what happens now elsewhere.

Going forward what will the future hold? The end of the 100% cashback site? I doubt it as some merchants will embrace it for good or bad reasons.... but a shakeup is probably a good thing IMO, as it’s ruined the sector. IMO Cashback has been like a steam train recently with no real thought by some parties on LTV and actual added value.

Don’t get me wrong here cashback is a great sector when embraced correctly by the merchant and when a close working relationship is formed.

Perhaps it’s been fuelled by the greed of some networks eager to cash in on what’s a very easy override after the demise of some aspects of AM.

One final point to consider though is by its very nature cashback is the perfect rationale for a network to exist due to the volume of merchants, payment and tracking solutions it can offer.

The 100% model would not work on a direct affiliate to merchant basis through a large number of brands using the current remuneration methods.

[jrisby]

Does this not just prove that 100% cashback is not viable? That there isn't enough profit in the membership fee (and any bonuses etc that aren't passed on against the spirit of the concept) to properly fund such a large operation and make a profit? As Matt says, how do you make goodwill payments if you have razor-thin margins?

The whole concept of 100% cashback seems to have been thought up by someone who doesn't understand that companies have margins for a reason, and that a good margin doesn't necessarily equate to a good profit.

Cashback companies have been going all out for market share without thinking through the basics. It's the old "turnover is vanity, profit is sanity" line.

Anyone here could take the cashback market by storm tomorrow by offering 200% cashback, but they'd be skint by the day after (well, maybe a few of you could last 'til the weekend )

Btw, well done to AW for taking the stand.