Quidco no longer working with Affiliate Window

[Omicrontau]

Tweet

I think everyone is missing the point of the Sureshop agreement. As I understand it, Sureshop is an agreement between a network and Quidco such that missing / untracked transaction are dealt with in a timely fashion so Quidco members aren't stuck waiting 6 months for cashback.

I never got the impression that Sureshop was meant to hold a merchant to some guarantee. It's the network's responsbility to resolve Sureshop enquiries not the merchant's. In that respect, I'd be so bold as to say AW are not fairly representing the situation regardless of the real reasons Quidco chose not to work with them.

I agree that Quidco did not best handle the situation by contacting merchants directly. It would have made much more sense to tell AW directly "you're not helping the bottom line so we're doing business elsewhere." But by the same token I agree with DevilsAdvocate that AW probably does not having wiggle room to operate a rev-share on network override and this prompted an impasse. In that respect, AW are less of a champion for merchant rights than they'd have you believe.

[8601cam]

2. Interestingly enough, Quidco moved their tracking from Awin to another network a few months ago on all of the dual network schemes I work on. Even though my implementation and order validation process is far better and more efficient on Awin. I assumed at the time that there must be some over-ride sharing (kick-back) going on at the other networks - and as a merchant I didn't really care - it wasn't affecting my CPA. If Awin had struck a better deal with Quidco I'm sure they would have moved back again - I do feel that Quidco are out to make money first - and serve their members best interests second. Awin's latest post certainly seems to suggest that the main reason for the breakdown in the Quidco/ Awin relationship was actually Awin's refusal to give Quidco a kick-back.

I think I was pretty clear in my follow up comments that any share of network revenue can be considered business and forms part of the decisions any party makes when building relationships, I'm not arguing that point business is business. I do believe that your last point is indeed correct.

3. Sureshop. As a merchant I don't think this is a bad thing if it brings in more sales by improving end-user confidence. Clearly I need to keep on top of my order and query validations anyway - or I wont get as much affiliate business - particularly on Awin as validation speed contributes to my Awin Index score. I have automated reports for checking order status, am happy to pay for genuine orders, and will always decline any incomplete or cancelled orders. A Quidco member can re-submit their query multiple times and I'll keep declining it if my systems show the order was not completed and paid for. It doesn't waste much of my time. One of the networks I work with already de-dups previously submitted queries for me - before sending the batch through to me for validation. I doubt it takes them long. I don't really see any major issue with this system for most retail transactions (drawn-out order processing exceptions aside).

As you pointed out there are other mechanisms to get merchants to operate swiftly and fairly with affiliates. It's great to hear you are able to personally vet transaction queries but for others it can be a huge task. Especially merchant programmes with Click and Collect, specific criteria or varying commissions by product or sector. This requires in depth analysis and communication back to the cash back member or risks them forming a negative opinion of the brand. And whilst incorrect, can have bigger, long term implications. De-duping pre-validated enquiries can be done prior to uploading but what factors are being de-duped? If it is merely order reference then this is flawed as many cash back members submit queries because the cash back amount was incorrect. Also, and more importantly if they are immediately marked as declined what message does this send to the cash back member. As you can see we have thought about this in depth and there are plenty of issues to consider.

3. Awin have made a big deal out of their opting out of sureshop

Unfortunately no we didn't. We opted out of SureShop long before this whole issue arose, we merely privately informed Quidco. We did however agree to an SLA on their request to ensure this didn’t adversely affect transaction query processing.

but I'm wondering if the sureshop thing actually had anything to do with the relationship breakdown, or if it was actually a wee bit of Awin spin, when it was really all about kick-backs.

It was Quidco's actions that ultimately led to this issue being made public on this forum and we chose to respond directly to the reasons they gave (SureShop). In order to bolster their decision they chose to make up claims regarding our service and technology. So I chose to broaden the picture so affiliates could make up their own minds whether this was SureShop or commercially led. Again I have no problems with the latter but hopefully you can see if there is a commercial element then 'reasons' given become a moot point.

4. Awin have surely damaged their relationship with Quidco beyond repair with their public laundry airing.

This is assuming that severing a relationship by contacting and informing merchants directly would be considered repairable.
'Public laundry airing', as I said in a previous post others would consider it adding missing pieces of the jigsaw and with that in mind, hasn’t it led you to draw alternative conclusions. As I said previously, by their actions Quidco helped make this issue public, you live by the sword, you die by it in my book. That's neither meant as a threat or indication that I wish any party to actually die of course

I'm actually a big fan of Awin - great service and innovation, low over-ride commissions, but don't think they're necessarily acting out of anything other than their own financial interests in this case,

For reasons of clarity, yes we did choose not to undertake an override deal with Quidco based on our own financial interests. Partly because overrides are more competitive for exclusive brands but also because they are indeed exclusive to AW. Put it this way, how would you feel if an affiliate asked you for a commission albeit reduced for sales generated by you mailing your own merchant customer base? I would be surprised if any party were not to acknowledge the considerable investment we make back into the network and industry as a whole and unfortunately this costs.

and this will almost certainly hurt most of the merchants they have on exclusivity - to what extent remains to be seen. I also love earning cashback through quidco - but am sure that they put their own business and earnings first, then look for a way to spin their actions to appear "in the interest of their members".

One area you have not touched on is the fact that many merchants feel having one large player in any market sector does not directly benefit them. Competition is good and can only benefit the sector. Quidco have been big in this sector as they were one of the first, an easy, simple to use interface and if all merchants are featured why go anywhere else? This is however, about to change and far from it adversely affecting certain merchants, I feel many will gain from the next generation of cash-back partners vying for their trade.

Am I being cynical or objective?

Mostly objective but obviously (as for all people) personal opinion and a little bit of confusion makes some points cynical. All in all, you have to make personal choices based on personal experiences and I applaud the fact you had the will to post here for others to see.

I never got the impression that Sureshop was meant to hold a merchant to some guarantee. It's the network's responsbility to resolve Sureshop enquiries not the merchant's. In that respect, I'd be so bold as to say AW are not fairly representing the situation regardless of the real reasons Quidco chose not to work with them

As per one of the previous responses, it was NOT AWin that highlighted that SureShop was the reason, that was Quidco. We merely chose to respond in defence of their initial 'reason'. As far as network responsibilities go we take ours very seriously and whilst we opted out of the SureShop agreement we still maintained the high levels of turn-around as before. The concern however is that unless the Cash Back portal takes responsibility it leaves the door open for merchants to either inadvertently or just through pressure incorrectly validate transaction queries and this opens up longer term implications.

Kind Regards

Mark

[aotagain]

Re: the effect on reputations and brands...

It seems to me that affiliate sites are developing in 3 separate channels really, which in any other form of marketing would have been split up, as they offer very different risks and rewards - I think that's part of the problem - trying to manage all 3 within the same organisational structure ie.

Content
Cashback
Voucher codes

On the subject of cashbacks, having seen the effect at the merchant end of misinterpreted and mistaken postings about offers on forums and cashback sites, I wonder whether much attention is paid by merchants to the pros and cons of each channel. Perhaps it has, but merchants can't easily segregate them off.

Its just crossed my mind as well that in the event of problems, there appears to be no obligation for a merchant to share emails to cashback-delivered visitors with a cashback site, or for a cashback site to share emails to its members about a merchant, with that merchant. So in the background either or both could slag each other off and nobody would know. It feels risky to brands and reputations to me.

Similarly with voucher code sites, who does the customer blame for no codes appearing - the code site, or the merchant and who suffers ? The code site can choose not to promote codes for a merchant, even if the merchant has codes. So a code site that is in the public eye an 'authority' site for codes can make it look as if a merchant doesn't have codes, effectively blocking off part of their route to market.

OK that may be just business leverage, but at the moment I wonder how many merchants really weigh up the risks.

[dougs]

Maybe quidco are being lined up to be sold to a network?

Doug

[D-Mac]

Maybe quidco are being lined up to be sold to a network?

Doug

Nice thinking Dougster. Who's the buy er?

[dougs]

Not saying...just guessing.....but only 3 real players who can support the system and the large merchants:

buy.at
cj
td

My blog has the reasoning

Doug

[morleymouse]

Maybe quidco are being lined up to be sold to a network?

Doug

not a network

[D-Mac]

not a network

ok, let's play 20 questions Inside the immediate industry or outside?

[dougs]

Come on Dan?

If inside a network or comparator would make sense.

Outside then a pure investment I would guess.

Doug

[D-Mac]

Unless it's something like an ISP or AOL, or GG!? no..

[morleymouse]

purely my opinion of course...

but quidco is low profit as it stands based on the member fee, it has staff and overheads hence its low profit.

if quidco have been approached by a company interested in a buy out then they are going to want to prove their profitability. quick win - increase the kick backs from their networks (they've had these for years its just a case of milking them for hat they can get).

Instantly makes it a much more profitable company to aquire in terms of instant return.

I always used to think the main value in quidco, due to their 100% model was the data they held about online savvy affluent shoppers and thought the main target as a buyer could be ome sort of lead gen / email marketing company - such as IPT which is the big sheffield one.

With these changes they move from data rich, to rich rich, and itll be interesting to see who takes them. But id put money on the fact they've made this move in preparation for a sell - and personally i still think data aquisition companies are the main ones.

Why not networks? No point, one cashback site cant swin a merchants activities exclusively (well no merchant that values the channel).

As an asside, id love to ear a few wild ideas on what ppl thing quidcos worth!

if i had a million in the bank id pay that, but id pay not a penny more. sadly ive got about £200 in the bank, a fair few monthly bills and a nasty drinking habbit...

[loquax]

such as IPT which is the big sheffield one

IPT are London based (Smart Quotes people) - Sheffield people are DLG (Win4Now etc)

I wonder how users would take to going from a "co-operative" to being owned by a data sharing company - my guess is might not be a match made in heaven.

Jason

[D-Mac]

I dunno, nothing other than the network aquisition idea makes sense re dropping awin, and even that is curious.

Just for fun, my money's on an ISP for £15M. A mainstream ISP with a loyal following who always stay with the default homepage. Or maybe Scripps, the people who bought uswitch. They might pay £50M

[morleymouse]

IPT are London based (Smart Quotes people) - Sheffield people are DLG (Win4Now etc)

I wonder how users would take to going from a "co-operative" to being owned by a data sharing company - my guess is might not be a match made in heaven.

Jason

sorry Jason, yeah thats the one - either or. Id agree - not a match made in heaven at all but lets face it, once ITP / DLG own the data theirs not much the oh so loyal members can do, bar resubscribe?

Owning a massive cashback site would certainly work wonders for a data marketing company selling campaigns / mailshots...

[3wdl]

Interesting comments Dan - I personally have no idea at all if Quidco are trying to sell themselves (not sure they are, tbh) but I do agree that I can't see a network purchasing them.

quick win - increase the kick backs from their networks (they've had these for years its just a case of milking them for hat they can get).

I don't know if networks give kickbacks or if this is just another conspiracy theory, but it is worth noting that certainly not all networks do (or have even been asked to do so).