New Best Practice Guidelines from IAB for Voucher Code Sites

[befuddle]

Tweet

I am uncomfortable with networks enforcing a policy by ' collectively excluding any affiliates that don't adhere to the guidelines'. I have had an issue with one network and that shouldn't interfere with how I work with other networks.

I am uncomfortable with 'an ongoing commitment to tighten these as the industry grows.'. Next this ongoing commitment will interfere with aspects such as Search Engine Optimisation. I'll bet on that today.

I am uncomfortable that other affiliates are already telling this council what they should be 'tackling' next. Why are voucher code sites that only make up for 17% of the market getting 'tackled'.?

I am uncomfortable with the reference to 'valid code'. My site is manually edited and is not updated by importing feeds. On any given day I always will have invalid codes on the site. As an example, I currently have about 200 codes sat in my email inbox that are not live on the site, which in turn may mean a proportion of them belong to merchants that have codes that have expired. It's obviously in my interests to have valid codes live but the turnaround of merchant codes seriously restricts that when you run a site part-time. But even if a merchant's code is valid for six months, there will still be a time when it needs removing.

I am uncomfortable that you must clearly state the offer that will be revealed by the click. You may ask why. Well on my secondary ShopCodes.com site I bought a CMS as-is and it says 'Show this promotion and visit site'. In the page title it may say 'Free Delivery Code' but that is not 'clearly'. So that's development work on a site I can't develop in it's current state. So I am having to use that domain to promote US merchants and avoid the UK market.

I am uncomfortable that 'voucher code directories must contain clear categorization and separation between deals/offers/sales and discount codes.' Behave. I'm not separating the content by style or category. If it's a code, it shall say 'use code'. Otherwise it just says what it is. It's my manually edited site and I can decide on how it should look based on my knowledge of improving CTR and ease of maintaining my site.

I am uncomfortable!

[Cheapdvds]

if they are Guidelines , then that is all they are

[dougs]

Ray

Walk down a street and rob from one shop will effect you getting into another one.

You are happy to take the cash though.....but not to conform to their rules.

Lets be blunt here, what has happened in the past can simply be viewed as illegal. I am no lawyer but saying click here to get something and not getting it is fraudulent. It annoys me.

Affiliates have relationships with networks/merchants and if I was either of these I would be saying you play by my rules or go away. I pay you money to help me build my business. If you cant be bothered to fix some issues then I cant be bothered to pay you.

Giving people who have made lots of cash from this 2 months to fix a problem I believed was fair.


Doug

[Cheapdvds]

yeh but are they rules or guidelines , totally different things in my book

[befuddle]

Doug,

ShopCodes.com functionality won't be fixed before next year with its current CMS, regardless of any policies or my desire to update it, so I'll just remove the merchants codes from there. So it'll be a code site listing UK merchants but without UK codes and I'll use it as a tool to add International merchants, to see if there's wider opportunities.

ShopCodes.co.uk will be as is with all its good and bad bits, with only one new addition, the introduction of icons in some places.

[befuddle]

Cheapdvds, they are guidelines but they are also being enforced with punishment if they're not adhered to. So they sound like rules to me, but I don't know how the definitions differ.

[Cheapdvds]

if they are enforcable then surely they can not be classed as guidelines, and I would guess they would need to be classed as rules or terms of use (included in the program)

"following a guideline is never mandatory"

[hpops]

I am uncomfortable with networks enforcing a policy by ' collectively excluding any affiliates that don't adhere to the guidelines'. I have had an issue with one network and that shouldn't interfere with how I work with other networks.

One of the problems with making significant policy changes in this industry has always been that unless the majority of networks enforce and adhere to policy the advantage tends to lie with those that don't. As long as you adhere to the guidelines there is no reason for networks to share that information and I'll personally obtain an assurance of that very fact at the next council meeting.

I am uncomfortable with 'an ongoing commitment to tighten these as the industry grows.'. Next this ongoing commitment will interfere with aspects such as Search Engine Optimisation. I'll bet on that today.

Is the alternative to regulation in your mind no regulation and the status quo continuing. It isn't - the status quo was unsustainable (particularly for voucher sites) as the main contributors of revenue (merchants) were increasingly uncomfortable with it. This move is to sustain your business and others like it, not to damage it. I feel that anything that affects the long-term growth of affiliate marketing SHOULD be tackled by the IAB AMC. In order to ensure our continued prosperity.

I am uncomfortable that other affiliates are already telling this council what they should be 'tackling' next. Why are voucher code sites that only make up for 17% of the market getting 'tackled'.?

Because that 17% has received the most vocal industry criticism. What areas of affiliate marketing would you like to see tackled? As I said, if theres anything that you feel is damaging long term growth or could be added to stimulate growth, we'll raise it.

I am uncomfortable with the reference to 'valid code'. My site is manually edited and is not updated by importing feeds. On any given day I always will have invalid codes on the site. As an example, I currently have about 200 codes sat in my email inbox that are not live on the site, which in turn may mean a proportion of them belong to merchants that have codes that have expired. It's obviously in my interests to have valid codes live but the turnaround of merchant codes seriously restricts that when you run a site part-time. But even if a merchant's code is valid for six months, there will still be a time when it needs removing.

As Hero rightly states, that just means that currently you aren't fulfilling your obligations in terms of correct advertising practice, which affects you, your advertisers, your users and your networks. If it becomes unsustainable to offer that many codes and keep them updated then some site owners may have to look at the number of codes they list.

I am uncomfortable that you must clearly state the offer that will be revealed by the click. You may ask why. Well on my secondary ShopCodes.com site I bought a CMS as-is and it says 'Show this promotion and visit site'. In the page title it may say 'Free Delivery Code' but that is not 'clearly'. So that's development work on a site I can't develop in it's current state. So I am having to use that domain to promote US merchants and avoid the UK market.

I can see that thats an issue, but development work has to be done in all industries in order to keep in line with current legislation, policies etc. I can't see a good reason for an exemption in the case of code sites.

I am uncomfortable that 'voucher code directories must contain clear categorization and separation between deals/offers/sales and discount codes.' Behave. I'm not separating the content by style or category. If it's a code, it shall say 'use code'. Otherwise it just says what it is. It's my manually edited site and I can decide on how it should look based on my knowledge of improving CTR and ease of maintaining my site.

Its your site and you can do whatever you wish, but those choices may affect your ability to monetise your site. Because its easier for a site owner to update doesn't make it legal, better or right.

I think that the guidelines provide a clear path for SUSTAINABLE growth in the voucher code sub-set of the affiliate market. The alternative to this "self-regulation" now would be heavily enforced, legally backed harsher regulation soon as the abuses of user experience (as well as the industry specific issues) are too big to ignore.

[mattb811]

I am uncomfortable with networks enforcing a policy by ' collectively excluding any affiliates that don't adhere to the guidelines'. I have had an issue with one network and that shouldn't interfere with how I work with other networks.

As long as you are following the guidelines then there isn't an issue. If you have a disagreement with one network this will not allow all others to remove you.

I am uncomfortable with 'an ongoing commitment to tighten these as the industry grows.'. Next this ongoing commitment will interfere with aspects such as Search Engine Optimisation. I'll bet on that today.

Ray, you have been as vocal as anyone about tackling some of the darker aspects of the industry. This is an attempt to do that and protect those affiliates that do market codes correctly.

I am uncomfortable that other affiliates are already telling this council what they should be 'tackling' next. Why are voucher code sites that only make up for 17% of the market getting 'tackled'.?

The IAB's AMC has repeatedly stated that it is open to suggestions on what to tackle. The fact that very few people have ever come forward is disappointing but you can't say you haven't been asked. The reason voucher codes are being targeted first is because there is a realisation amongst many networks and agencies that this is an area of affliate marketing that merchants are becoming concerned about and needs addressing.

I am uncomfortable with the reference to 'valid code'. My site is manually edited and is not updated by importing feeds. On any given day I always will have invalid codes on the site. As an example, I currently have about 200 codes sat in my email inbox that are not live on the site, which in turn may mean a proportion of them belong to merchants that have codes that have expired. It's obviously in my interests to have valid codes live but the turnaround of merchant codes seriously restricts that when you run a site part-time. But even if a merchant's code is valid for six months, there will still be a time when it needs removing.

There will be room for judgement calls on this. Again, it is not the aim of anyone to punish someone for forgetting to remove a code the second it becomes unvalid. The aim is to prevent consumers being duped by thinking there is a code available and when they click there is nothing of the sort there.

I am uncomfortable that you must clearly state the offer that will be revealed by the click. You may ask why. Well on my secondary ShopCodes.com site I bought a CMS as-is and it says 'Show this promotion and visit site'. In the page title it may say 'Free Delivery Code' but that is not 'clearly'. So that's development work on a site I can't develop in it's current state. So I am having to use that domain to promote US merchants and avoid the UK market.

This is surely just common sense? Asking someone to click without telling them what they are clicking for is something that doesn't lead to a good consumer experience and that is why the AMC decided to address it.

I am uncomfortable that 'voucher code directories must contain clear categorization and separation between deals/offers/sales and discount codes.' Behave. I'm not separating the content by style or category. If it's a code, it shall say 'use code'. Otherwise it just says what it is. It's my manually edited site and I can decide on how it should look based on my knowledge of improving CTR and ease of maintaining my site.

This doesn't mean that you have to have separate sections of your site for codes and deals/offers/sales. All it says is that you have to do as you say and label them accordingly. This is an attempt to change the situation you sometimes get currently where consumers are being asked to click for a code and when they click a deal available to everyone is displayed.

I am uncomfortable!

Ray, having had a quick look at your shopcodes.co.uk site I would say that there is very little you have to do to be compliant so no need to be so uncomfortable.

[Barry]

Will this decision also stand for sites that display codes with a click to reveal without expiry dates or have unknown expiry dates for codes and still have a click to reveal?

I have a few codes onboard that don't have expiry dates as the merchant has never given one - or have a 'until stocks last' and have never communicated a 'stocks are out' message? Is it best for me to change these to visible 'offers' and no click to reveal? IE only know valid codes have a click to reveal?

Does this ruling also cover sites having the code in full view but when you mouse over the offer it opens the merchant site? Or sites having the code itself as a hyperlink so when people try to copy and paste the code it opens a window?

Will this ruling also cover PPC adds? ie so many voucher sites are bidding on 'brand + voucher code' even if a merchant doesn't have a voucher and even if its against T&C of merchant?

Personally I welcome the ruling, even though its going to be a shed load of work going through all my previously entered vouchers and deciding if its a 'deal', 'offer' or a 'voucher' - funnily enough as far as I can see its only me and MVC that are starting to prepare for this ruling, so fair do's to Mark.

Ta

Baz

[befuddle]

Ray ... no need to be so uncomfortable.

Maybe I'm just uncomfortable as I know what this forum is going to be like on the 1st January.

[loquax]

Maybe I'm just uncomfortable as I know what this forum is going to be like on the 1st January.

probably very quiet with most people hungover... although if you've developed clairvoyance please send lottery numbers over ;-)

Think you're over worrying Ray! And I'm pretty sure that come 1st Jan, networks won't be hammering on your door telling you to whip off your party hat and start recoding.

Jason

[befuddle]

But Jason will you be hammering on their door telling them to whip off their party hat and start policing?

[nim-b]

I have a few codes onboard that don't have expiry dates as the merchant has never given one - or have a 'until stocks last' and have never communicated a 'stocks are out' message? Is it best for me to change these to visible 'offers' and no click to reveal? IE only know valid codes have a click to reveal?

The main point is to stop sites having codes or offers that the customer cannot use (because they are expired), and yet still using click to reveal in order to set the cookie. So a customer believes they will be getting a valid code by clicking, then discover later that it doesn't work.

If you think an offer will expire, or are unsure, I think you should ask the network/merchant for clarification. If you can't get an expiry date, or its a 'while stocks last' offer, I think its best to remove the click to reveal on it, and make sure that the offer is clearly marked as 'while stocks last'.

As a side point, an advantage of these guidelines should be that it will reduce the number of codes released with vague or unstated expiry dates. Affiliates will be able to say that they must have expiry dates to help them comply with network rules. Merchants who don't state expiry dates may see a reduction in the number of affiliates promoting these codes, giving an extra incentive to give out clear and accurate information.

[hpops]

But Jason will you be hammering on their door telling them to whip off their party hat and start policing?

LOL

New year in the loquax house
Happy new year Jude
Happy new year Jason
Switch on the laptop and we'll do some checking
(Jude sighs heavily) OK