Affiliate Keyword Agreement

[Julia Stent]

Tweet

Since the announcements regarding the Google trademark policy change that will come into place on May 5th, there has been a lot of industry discussion surrounding the effect that this will have on merchants. This has been a key focus for Affiliate Window over the course of the last week and we have been in talks with a number of parties regarding the best course of action to advise. Our primary opinion is that every advertisers’ paid search strategy should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and a standardised cross-network solution would not be the best way forward. However, we will be releasing an analysis of how this change will affect the affiliate channel and presenting different options available to advertisers early next week.

It is our opinion that while all discussions to date have focused on merchants, the effect that this will have on an affiliate’s own brand space may have been overlooked. Affiliates who have a trademarked brand have just as much potential cause for concern as merchants. Whether an affiliate’s brand search terms are trademarked or not, all affiliates can benefit from a decrease in competition for consumers looking specifically for their site. This ultimately will free up paid search funds from increased CPCs on brand terms to be invested into merchant campaigns, benefiting both the affiliate’s profitability and the industry as a whole.

Affiliate Window would like to initiate a reciprocal keyword agreement between affiliates. This will be in the form of a self-policing ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that when taking part in this scheme, affiliates will not bid on the specified brand terms of other members of the group.

We would like to suggest that as a first step, affiliates refrain from bidding on the URLs of the other parties. For example, were Affiliate Window to take part, our list of terms would include:

www.affiliatewindow.com
www.affiliatewindow.co.uk
affiliatewindow.com
affiliatewindow.co.uk

This could extend to as many sites as the party owns, so for example we could additionally include ShopWindow.com.

Due to the generic nature of many affiliate brands, I feel it would be difficult to roll this out to include exact match brand terms. For example, there are a number of affiliates whose brands include ‘code’, ‘voucher’, etc so this would potentially be problematic. However, I would like to open this up to debate and welcome your suggestions on how this could move forwards.

Initially, it would be great to hear your feedback and also for any affiliates wishing to take part to list their URLs in the format mentioned above. You will then see openly on this thread which other affiliates are taking part. Affiliate Window will also compile a list of these URL terms once membership develops sufficiently so this can sent out to new members of the group.

If you would like to discuss this with me directly, I’d be happy to talk it through with you. You can reach me on 020 7553 0355, julia.stent@hotmail.com or MSN Messenger: jrstent@hotmail.com.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts

Thanks

Julia

[MarkCo]

Hi Julia,

I think this is a great idea. I currently DO bid on some my affiliate competitor brand names, and am happy to cancel this if these sites / affiliates become in involved in this group agreement.

Will be interesting to see if of the bidders on my terms join ;-)

[getvisible]

I think this is a great idea. I currently DO bid on some my affiliate competitor brand names, and am happy to cancel this if these sites / affiliates become in involved in this group agreement.

and SEO for them in a totally arrogant manner!

I've never bid on other affiliate's brand names - or seo'd for any other affiliate's trademarked terms so it would'nt have much impact on me.

I do think there needs to be a greater level of respect between affiliates, there may be rogue ones, but I wonder how likely some affiliates would be to added their domains into the list seeing as it could just become a "pinch list" :cry

I'd be interested how much bidding there is own other affiliate's brands.

[Bud]

I've never bid on other affiliate's brand names - or seo'd for any other affiliate's trademarked terms so it would have much impact on me.

I completely agree with you Lee - same applies for me.

I've always took this to be an 'unwritten' rule anyway and seems like common courtesy.

Being slightly cycnical though, it has to be said that:

While I applaud this thread/line of thought, and fully support the idea, there has been much discussion on here previously about dubious methods of promotion and it seems that very little action has ever been taken when merchants/networks were reaping the rewards.
Now it's more likely to affect them directly, concern is raised.


You can rest assured I won't be bidding on others TM's or 'property', but I won't be losing any sleep about those who suffer as a result of anyone who does. Failure to punish while the 'sun was shining' for merchants will no doubt lead to more dubious behaviour with this change.

[Julia Stent]

Hi Bud / Lee

I completely understand both of your points and applaud the approach of respecting other affiliates' brands. However I feel that as this practise does currently exist, it is worth trying to address.

I actually started trying to get this in place at the end of last year and was working with a few affiliates on a trial basis, so I wouldn't want affiliates to think this has been a reactionary move. I'm happy to say there was a great response back then and I would hope the affiliates who worked with me at that stage would put themselves forward for this now. I was looking to launch it publicly at the time but very quickly Christmas was upon us and this got put to one side.

I've seen the introduction of the Google policy change as an opportunity to revisit this idea while the issue is front of mind for affiliates. I understand your point that not every affiliate does bid on other brands or would do so after May 5th - from my point of view, this could be an opportunity for those affiliates to publicly state that fact and go some way to encouraging others to do the same.

As I stated originally, this was an attempt to initiate a discussion from affiliates rather than to introduce any kind of network policy. Participation is entirely optional, and I leave it at each affiliate's discretion to decide whether this is suitable for them.

Thanks

Julia

[Rich]

Surely if some affiliate wanted to bid on my brand term then they just wouldn't join the scheme? You seem to be saying that if they don't join the scheme that the affiliates that are part of it could bid on their terms, but the affiliates that are part of the agreement probably don't what to bid on other affiliates brand terms and, quite likely, the affiliate that doesn't what to take part wouldn't have have traffic to his terms worth bidding on anyway.

There doesn't seem to be a disadvantage to not taking part but to take part you have to advertise your most important brands. I'm not one that worries about hiding sites, but I don't shout about some of them and I know others are more wary.

[renegade]

Hi Julia,
I know from our earlier conversations your/AW's intentions and honourable but I think the agreement is doomed to failure simply because it's a gentlemans agreement.

I've never bid or SEOed any of our sites to rank on any rivals sitenames (trademarked or not) and I'm happy to publically declare that I would only ever consider doing so if I found a site abusing the mutual respect most long-standing affiliates have always had for each other.

One the few occasions I have found sites bidding on our sitenames I've found the best way to resolve the problem has been to approach the site owner directly.

Sites which have fallen foul of this previously unwritten agreement between established affiliates will naturally see this agreement in a more positive light in an effort to get a monkey or two off their backs but for people like myself there's no benefit to participating and to that extent I share Lee and Buds reservations.

A mandatory agreement enforced across affiliates and networks would be cool but in reality it isn't ever going to happen so having declared my non-agression pact with the rest of the affiliate world for now I'm content to fight my own battles.

Perhaps public declarations like mine would be an alternative way forward?

[ian-d]

Maybe i'm not fully understanding the change (or skimmed the thread ) but google's policy change doesn't alter a lot. Fair enough it now gives 'anyone' the opportunity to use previously blocked trademark words in a ppc campaign, but if the merchant company has always had a list of 'do not bid' words, then surely nothing changes, it continues to be policed by the network and the merchant.

I don't see much changing, i fully the support the restrictions put on url and trademark/company names, but for some, these have always been in place.

Can appreciate AWin's prompt consideration of this policy change, its admirable to be looking at this possible? issue before the time comes, thumbs up

[hpops]

Can appreciate AWin's prompt consideration of this policy change, its admirable to be looking at this possible? issue before the time comes, thumbs up

I totally agree - its an interesting move in the current climatae and certainly smells considerably nicer than the "we're experts in closed groups" scent coming from elsewhere - Julia, can you pop me your series of recommendations when done please. :tup

[Shane]

yup for sure Awin seem to be the only network that's actually trying to think in front of the impending changes and look at the range of scenarios it presents in the context of how it will affect merchants, affiliates and networks AND not just solely with the aim of milking the hell out of panic stricken merchants by shovelling them towards brand bidding groups as the only solution.

The usual suspects on the other hand seem to be very quiet on this .. no doubt they are too busy striking the fear of god into merchants and ringing round the BBG's they have on speed dial to have everything in place for maximum exploitation come May the 5th

thumbs up to Awin.. back handed biatch slap to the rest

[loquax]

I'm happy to publically declare that I would only ever consider doing so if I found a site abusing the mutual respect most long-standing affiliates have always had for each other

I'll follow suit with Joe and agree to a similar position.

We're fully expecting to see competitor ads (affiliates or merchants) on our trademark searches come 5th May - and really can only assess the impact after that date. It may well be those ads don't do anything in terms of traffic/revenue.

Our intention currently is not to go into PPC bidding on competitors sitenames or trademarks...

Jason

[befuddle]

I am happy to be a part of this agreement

www.shopcodes.co.uk
www.shopcodes.com
shopcodes.co.uk
shopcodes.com

[Julia Stent]

Hi guys

Thanks to everyone for their input on this. I think getting additional opinions on this has been good for spotting a number of points that didn't come up when I trialled this on a smaller scale, for example:

There doesn't seem to be a disadvantage to not taking part but to take part you have to advertise your most important brands. I'm not one that worries about hiding sites, but I don't shout about some of them and I know others are more wary.

Let's put me not spotting that down to my optimisim in the good nature of affiliates...

Perhaps there are two ways forward with this. For well-known sites that aren't open to the problem of revealing their brands they can show their involvement here, like Mark and Ray. Other affiliates who don't want to do that could instead use this as an opportunity to publicly state that they won't bid on competitor brands.

Hopefully this will act as an encouragement both to those who already do this and new affiliates entering the market to refrain from competitor bidding. Although there is a long-standing unspoken agreement between those who have been in the industry for a long time, I suspect there are new affiliates who don't know about this idea or haven't considered the effect they're having on other businesses who would be happy to follow suit.

As always, happy to have a chat about this - 020 7533 0355 / MSN: jrstent@hotmail.com

Cheers

Julia