Hi Julia,
Thank you for the report, but it doesn't address why Dixons, flouted good merchant / affiliate silent code of conduct by permitting (sneaking) 0% products into the feed, thus part of the initial question remains unanswered.
3.13% is 3.13%, on the figures so they "claim", doesn't matter if only 2% of that was attributed to 0% products, that is still money which otherwise could have been in the affiliates pocket & from a personal perspective 18000 clicks was lot more that 3.13% of the total clicks.
Also pointing out it's mentioned at 3.13% of sales value, what is the % of sales volume?
Maybe a different figure altogther. As white goods at £300 plus versus smaller ticket items at less than £30 for example offsets this by a 10:1 ratio and looks like possibly massaging the figures from the full facts. ie if three products sold at higher commission of £300 and one at 0%/0.5% (£30)this is a 25% of the sales order volume yet only approx 3% of sales value. Can you see how the figures given can be very misleading from the % of sales value you quote to the % of sales volume I quote and how there is a complete contrast.
All this has done is illustrate their own reasoning of commission tiers for product groups which in instances do not compare favourably with other merchants with a little sales pitch. In principle I like the concept of commission groups, but only if fairly applied & properly calculated for the higher grossing products, without liberties not being taken.
Thus the 0% products in the feed still remains. An answer hasn't been given!?
To complete the loop on discussions pertaining to Dixons. Here are the two main threads.
http://www.affiliates4u.com/forums/a...s-rubbish.html
http://www.affiliates4u.com/forums/a...stmas-not.html
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks