We need some protection

[nkernick]

Tweet

Mal

The continuing trend of advertisers pulling out of affiliate schemes and coming back in is beginning to cause me some concern.

We need an agreement so that companies cannot just pull the rug on campaigns. 24 hours notice is not acceptable.

Come on Buy.at please try to defend your affiliates !!!!!

At least get us some protection.

Nick

ps. an idea would be to redirect the existing link page to a money generating Espotting/Overture Page. Which would help us out !!!.

so directlineloans.at/sitename get directed to a nice sorry we cant direct you to this site, please try some of the following deals !!!!

[Malcolm Cowley]

Hi Nick

Sometimes 24hours notice is all you get - meaning us as well as you . If every time this happened we went off on one we wouldnt get the programs back when they had more budget.

You only see one side of it but I think your idea of the splash pages is a good one which deserves some consideration.

We see all sides of it and so tough decisions have to be made - if we only ever held out for programs that gave 2 weeks notice for everything then we would not have many programs to offer you.

Sometimes companies we deal with have to make these calls at the last minute and as a supplier for them we have to react in a like for like manner - maybe a warning as to the most likely programs this could happen on would be a good idea.

In DL's case we were supposed to have an uncapped budget which changed to being capped a 3rd into the month - at this point we were mere applications away from the cap - either we give a weeks notice and incure 1000's or we give 24hour notice and pull it.

Now you will know or at least have heard that we have paid out £0000's to affiliates in money we have never received so we do PROTECT our affiliates as much as we can even to the harm of our cashflow and profit on many occasions.

I think my thoughts on this is that if you want to play with certain companies then at this current time in affiliate marketing its part of the game and although irritating must be beared - the idea for the splash pages could take the sting out of it so ill run that by the boys on Monday.

Thanks

Mal

[aclarke656]

Why don't you agreed a notice period upfront with each merchant. The notice period can be listed in the program details.

That way the companies that need to pull campaigns at 24 hr notice can, and the affiliates will be aware of it.

Merchants that agree on longer periods (in order to attract more affiliates) would have a penalty charge if a campaign was pulled without the agreed notice period. This would be distributed to active affiliates as compensation.

It might result in every merchant having a 24hr notice period, but at least everyone would know the rules of the game before kick off.

[Malcolm Cowley]

Hi

I know its a sore point and that 24hours is not good and that Id be miffed if it was a merchant I worked with personally so its definitley an issue I take seriously as do buy.at just to make this point clear.

I think the notice period agreed upfront is also a good idea and similar to what I was saying earlier but more structured which will be better.

You are always going to get merchants who for reasons sometimes beyond the control of the layer we deal with have to make snap decisions and in Dl's case they have been fairly faultless since they joined the network.

There will be cases where merchants have to close in hours and we have to live with that knowledge - especially when their are bodies regulating them - in Dl's case it was budget driven but in other cases in the future who knows what will drive these quick decisions so it can be hard to second guess.

This being said there are more likely merchants for it to happen with and these will know that before the off so your idea could be a good one with them.

Ideally we would love to have at least a weeks notice on any changes but in the same way you will never have every merchant able to pre fund accounts you will never have a weeks notice on every merchant.

I guess it highlights a couple of things to address and so in that respect has been good for all - always thinking cup half full :-)

We can now look at the processes we have in place at the moment and tweak them to make a situation like 24 hour suspension more easy to live with.

Thanks for the input guys

Mal

[nkernick]

Mal

SPLASH PAGE or Ability to redirect back to a SPLASH page on my site. Therefore I could create my own splash page. With alternative products. Therefore I dont spend 25hrs changing all my code :0)

Nick

[Pete Taylor]

So what I here you say?

Well you need to think longer term on this problem. If I was a merchant who had a steady business without the use of affiliates, I would be very worried about joining the affiliate networks if I had reason to believe that on my exit from the affiliate arena, my business was in worse shape than before I joined because affiliates and networks are directing traffic intended for me to my competitors.

Start treating companies with contempt, and you will kill off the affiliate concept because no one will want to dip their toe in the affiliate pool in the future.

As hard as it is to swallow, we need to accept that companies or agencies pull schemes with little notice!

You need to get in and make the sales while the schemes are running, not moan about their demise!

Remember Ariel on DGM, pulled around 5PM on New Years Eve 2003, I'm still glad they appeared in the first place, as that was the fastest money I have EVER made. I'm not bothered that they pulled the scheme, but if everyone was to start pointing links to other detergent brands because of this, do you think Proctor & Gamble or their agency will ever try again! No, thought not.

[Shane]

aye .. there is more need for a balanced view..

it's easy to *****slap the first point of contact..ie the network for not "educating" merchants properly but often the "merchant" may be an agency itself who only just got instructions off the actual merchant, or some other factor outside the merchants control causes the program to halt

if it's not viable or profitable to use affiliate marketing then they wont do it.. adding reams of terms like "must give 7 days notice" etc could put some merchants off, I'd rather have 300 odd days of earning with a few days/weeks of down time, than no earning in the first place

It would be nice to have the merchant's by the b@lls in terms of what they have to and have not to do, when they validate, pay etc but if it's going to put them off using us then there has to be a trade off in terms of flexibility

[Malcolm Cowley]

Hi

A valid point to consider Pete , as with most things we can see the bigger picture makes it more complicated.

I'm just glad we have this forum and affiliates like you guys who will talk to us in an open way on sensitive issues like this.

We all want the same thing ultimately but we all see different sides of the same problem and by being able to discuss in this way our overall understanding is improved.

It will be looked at next week to see what middle ground can be found.

Thanks

Mal

[Rich]

Originally posted by Pete Taylor
If I was a merchant who had a steady business without the use of affiliates, I would be very worried about joining the affiliate networks if I had reason to believe that on my exit from the affiliate arena, my business was in worse shape than before I joined because affiliates and networks are directing traffic intended for me to my competitors.

My feeling is an affiliate is, typically, only sending traffic 'intended for a merchant' because that merchant is paying for it. If there merchant decides to stop paying then I think its fair for the affiliate to redirect the link elsewhere while they go thru the process of updating their links. Personally I think it is better that merchants have some disadvantage to closing a program so as to help stem the stop/start process that seems to be happening a bit more often.

I think letting affiliates enter a url into the networks for programs that have closed is a good solution. May be having it active for say just a month after the closing date so as affiliates are still motivated to update/remove the links - that will help limit the effect on the merchant and the network.

That way each affiliate can decide if they want the users to continue to the merchants for free or go to a page on their site saying something like 'Sorry, Merchant X have decided they no longer with us, please try one of these alternatives'.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

I am fairly unwaning on my viewpoints with regard to this,

However, i must emphasis that this applies to networks across the board & not just Buy.at. It just happens that this thread started in the Buy.at section, a little unfair... & perhaps would be better moved to the affiliate lounge for general discussion.

The following opinion applies to all networks across the board.

I am in favour of a landing pages (Splash pages) generated by the network offering alternative merchants when this occurs or whenever a program closes as it does take time for all these invalid links to be removed from all sites.

As for a notice it should be written within an agreement whether dealing through an agency or directly with the merchant allowing 7 to 30 days, ensuring that tracking is not removed during the interim. And even after then a landing page of alternative offerings with that affiliate id in the links.

I don't see this as a trade off but as common sense. Especially if sites are created around a merchant. It's otherwise insensitive & should be common practise. If a merchant can think they can switch affiliates off at a whim, then perhaps they shouldn't be in the marketplace initially. It's the quality of the relationship we want and if they choose to be disrespectful then they should consider othe rchannels with lesser benefits.

Affiliates are meant to be an online extension of a merchants overall sales force, a salesman or marketing person. Effectively closing a program is making an affiliate redundant from that program. Would a merchant get away from giving their employees immediate notice.....No!

I am certainly don't accept excuses from ANY network who say "what can we do about it". These are excuses & not reasons that are all too often given. This strikes me as "yes sirs" & "no sirs" in the relationship of a network towards a merchant/agent.

Protocols should be in place beforehand to eleviate this...then if it does measures are taken to ensure liberties & inconsiderations are not taken and an affiliates traffic is not wasted.

[nkernick]

Well you need to think longer term on this problem. If I was a merchant who had a steady business without the use of affiliates, I would be very worried about joining the affiliate networks if I had reason to believe that on my exit from the affiliate arena, my business was in worse shape than before I joined because affiliates and networks are directing traffic intended for me to my competitors.

Pete , Im sorry Ive read your post more than once and still my opinion is that your are very wrong......

Merchants must treat affiliates like salesmen. Im sure you agree that affiliates generate sales leads and more business for the merchants. If on sacking your salesman, you would still benefit from the previous sales that , that salesman made for you, however surely you would not expect to ask that salesman to continue to pass you leads when you are not employing them anymore ....

Why would you have reason to believe that your business would be in worse shape than when you started.... Surely you would not want to keep the business your affiliates were passing you for FREE !!!!!....(after you kicked them into touch) !!!

[Pete Taylor]

Originally posted by nkernick
Why would you have reason to believe that your business would be in worse shape than when you started

This is the easy bit. Imagine you are a merchant who is top of the listings on search engines. You then start an affiliate scheme on a network. At this point your business appears on the radar of the SEO champions who promptly get working in their craft!

When you eventually leave the affiliate arena, your listing has sunk and been replaced by affiliates pushing your competitors!

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Who says these seo champions didn't seo the merchant before they had a program? A number of seo champions might have the foresight to seo on the pretence that one day that merchant might have an affiliate program in the future thus steal a lead on other seo champions....or offer alternatives anyway.

It's only the volume that try to seo on a brand which may increase making it a more competitive area but i don't think it impacts the volume of traffic so much.

Put it this way if I know merchant X WITHOUT an affiliate program is a selling a popular product & I see that merchant Y WITH an affiliate program sells that same popular product, who do i market or seo for?

Also what divine right has a merchant got to appear number one in organic search...well none...but haven't you ever noticed that when you look at phrases containing a merchants name, they don't appear number one & often not on the first page, whether they have an affiliate program or not & whether it's been deliberatly seo'd or not.

So many merchants and agencies are under this false illusion (which applies to brand named bidding too) that they get 100% transition of traffic from anything related to their brand named if typed into a search engine by a user...even if they appear at number one. A rule rule of thumb is they probably get 50% at max. Allowing brand named bidding would probably increase this to about 85% by the way on all phrases / exact match / mispellings & related terms.

If that brand name is more than one word then all the broad matched ads start appearing on Google for the non branded word in that phrase. Before you know it that 50% whithers down to maybe 25%. Then once you you enter phrases containing the brand this diminshes still further what with the loss of position in organic results & broadmatched ads on non branded terms which could be as low as anything from 1 to 10% at best.

So that could equate to an overall 90% loss in traffic on searches for their brand name & derivatives whether they have an affiliate program or not.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Pete Taylor
When you eventually leave the affiliate arena, your listing has sunk and been replaced by affiliates pushing your competitors!

But even if they never had an affiliate program, their listings might be down due to people seoing for a competitors program, so this doesn't really have an affect.

The only listing they really have a right to be top for is for their company name, but even thats down to the serach engines and they could get replaced by anything, not just affiliates.

Take for example the current Google shake up where lots of sites don't rank for their names. Is that fair on those sites, not really, but Google doesn't owe them any favours as they don't pay to be listed, in the same way affiliates don't owe a merchant anything once the program is closed.
Posted at the same time as QGJ

[nkernick]

Pete

You have not got your glasses on 2nite

Turn this on its head, imagine I am an affiliate who tops Google for the keyword "Personal Loans" and for 12 months my biggest referrer gets 1200 loans a month thru my website . In fact they [the merchant website] are not even in the top 100 for "personal loan".

Why should I leave my advert for a loan company who no longer wants to pay me for my advert !!!!!

And the big point is, more people search for "personal loan" than they do for the merchant name.........

And furthermore affiliates will use their SEO skills for non affiliate merchants aswell as affiliate paying merchants

your argument is weak