Is the IAB Affiliate Council a total waste of space?

[PhiltheBear]

Tweet

I'm seriously wondering this. Why? Well, in this section of this forum alone there are a series of postings about certain websites (that would be voucher code sites...) continually ignoring IAB 'requests'.

It seems to me, as a humble affiliate/independent merchant, that either the practices complained of are wrong - and the networks should cut off the offenders - or they are OK and anyone can use them without any threat at all.

Could someone please let me know which is correct? After all, I'd love to plant cookies by surreptitious means for the merchants I have on my sites. I'm sure it would bring me in much more commission. If voucher code sites can do this then why can't I?

If a network cut me off for doing it and didn't do the same for a voucher code site, could I sue them? (Restraint of trade, etc.)

I really am trying to get my head round this. (I'm sure that the IAB council have lots of other priorities but I feel I'm being robbed by these sites because they are being allowed to do something I'm not).

Anyone on the council want to/prepared to comment?

[confuscius]

Do what you want until someone stops you seems to be the current 'rules' of the game from a practical standpoint. When they try to stop you just make sure that you can show at least one of the high earners is where you copied the practice from and when they stop the big boy then tell them that the little guy will also comply.

I intend using this approach on a new brand bidding based venture.

[KevinEdwards]

Just because conspiracy theory and supposition is posted on a public forum doesn't make it fact.

What I've found in my tenure is the people who claim to know the most about what does or doesn't go on with are actually those who contribute the least (or nothing) or have at best scant grasp of the facts.

To give you some context, very often there are significant grey areas in everything we do and whilst I'm really keen to ensure people uphold the 'spirit' of what the Council embodies we need to keep a fine line between self regulation and being overly prescriptive. The Council was never supposed to be a regulatory body but it seems there has been much industry clamour for a central organisation regulate.

The first steps were tentative as the Council tried to establish what its role should be (as well as networks needing to overcome natural suspicion in working with each other). I think we're now in a much stronger and self confident position where networks feel they can stamp out bad practice and can achieve far more collectively than separately.

On disciplinary guidelines, we've been working on appropriate procedures for dealing with repeat offenders as these weren't actually part of the original guidelines (voucher code or otherwise) and will have these ready this month for publication.

I'm sympathetic that sometimes the Council can look as though it isn't acting on complaints and comments but much of the work goes on behind the scenes. In the last minutes I agreed I would make specific reference to two affiliates we have spoken to about their promotional techniques.

Lets recognise what has been acheived to date. Over 50 people came to the last meeting from all sides of the industry; three years ago this would have been unthinkable (not to mention eight networks sitting down every month to discuss how best to arbitrate a myriad of competing interests).

The fact that guidelines have been put in place to protect affiliates against PI cookies and retargeting as we attempt to curb the worst excesses of other affiliate practices as well as new CPA entrants seems to be ignored. I can only conclude it's easier to gripe from the sidelines rather than contribute positively.

On a positive note I'd encourage anyone to come to a meeting to actually see how open and discursive they are. I appreciate they are based in London and therefore not accessibe for everyone but to date I've not found a way of easily broadcasting the meetings externally so far (but would urge the future Chair to prioritise!).

That said I post regular updates on the blog including agendas and meetings.

Do contact me or leave comments on the blog. That's what it's there for and we aim to be as open and approachable as possible.

[benfriedman]

Kevin,

Have you heard of this? Phonecast live to the web from any phone, anywhere | ipadio | Talk to your World

It could be an easy way to broadcast the meetings online so people can listen in. All you would need it a phone and it would stream the audio from the meeting online.

Something like this would make it easy for affiliates to be able to at least listen in on the meetings if they cannot attend.

Just an idea...

[KevinEdwards]

Hi Ben,

Thanks - will take a look. The biggest issue we have is the fact that a couple of dozen people may contribute in a fairly large room with poor acoustics so whilst one person may be picked up everything we've looked at indicates it would be a poor listener experience.

I know the A4U guys will be looking to record next week's meeting so am looking forward to seeing how that turns out. That said I'll take a look at the service you posted and see whether it could be used.

Thanks,
Kevin

[PhiltheBear]

Just because conspiracy theory and supposition is posted on a public forum doesn't make it fact.

What I've found in my tenure is the people who claim to know the most about what does or doesn't go on with are actually those who contribute the least (or nothing) or have at best scant grasp of the facts.

I'm not seeing any conspiracy. WTF did that come from?

To give you some context, very often there are significant grey areas in everything we do and whilst I'm really keen to ensure people uphold the 'spirit' of what the Council embodies we need to keep a fine line between self regulation and being overly prescriptive. The Council was never supposed to be a regulatory body but it seems there has been much industry clamour for a central organisation regulate.

The first steps were tentative as the Council tried to establish what its role should be (as well as networks needing to overcome natural suspicion in working with each other). I think we're now in a much stronger and self confident position where networks feel they can stamp out bad practice and can achieve far more collectively than separately.

If networks do feel like that why don't we see the evidence? I can visit well known sites now and see the same old, same old 'bad practices' in existence.

On disciplinary guidelines, we've been working on appropriate procedures for dealing with repeat offenders as these weren't actually part of the original guidelines (voucher code or otherwise) and will have these ready this month for publication.

I'm sympathetic that sometimes the Council can look as though it isn't acting on complaints and comments but much of the work goes on behind the scenes. In the last minutes I agreed I would make specific reference to two affiliates we have spoken to about their promotional techniques.

Lets recognise what has been acheived to date. Over 50 people came to the last meeting from all sides of the industry; three years ago this would have been unthinkable (not to mention eight networks sitting down every month to discuss how best to arbitrate a myriad of competing interests).

The fact that guidelines have been put in place to protect affiliates against PI cookies and retargeting as we attempt to curb the worst excesses of other affiliate practices as well as new CPA entrants seems to be ignored. I can only conclude it's easier to gripe from the sidelines rather than contribute positively.

Huh? There's a real problem here. Voucher code sites continue to pretend they are offering money off vouchers. By doing so they often overwrite cookies from other affiliates. If it's a genuine voucher I don't have a problem with it. It's my fault for not offering the same thing. But when the voucher doesn't exist - at all - or is 'expired' then I do.

Now, if the IAB has guidelines in place I'd expect one of two things. One, those members that are networks would enforce those guidelines. If they don't they should resign their membership or that network should be removed. Yes, it is that black and white. You either abide by the rules or you don't. Secondly, if those 'guidelines' can be disregarded by any affiliate then the IAB has a duty to protect any affiliate who does so against any network that chooses to penalise them.

I don't understand your comment "I can only conclude it's easier to gripe from the sidelines rather than contribute positively." As an affiliate I have absolutely no control over what any other affiliate does. However, there is a body - the IAB - that is, amongst other things, supposedly trying to put some sort of regulation over the whole area. Indeed, you've said that 'guidelines' have been issued. Now, all that may be voluntary and, by extension, worthless. But do, please, explain how I can positively contribute to stopping this practice.

On a positive note I'd encourage anyone to come to a meeting to actually see how open and discursive they are. I appreciate they are based in London and therefore not accessibe for everyone but to date I've not found a way of easily broadcasting the meetings externally so far (but would urge the future Chair to prioritise!).

That said I post regular updates on the blog including agendas and meetings.

Do contact me or leave comments on the blog. That's what it's there for and we aim to be as open and approachable as possible.

I'm sure attending meetings would be very informative - but I'd find it impossible to do without incurring an expense that I don't think I could justify.

I'm wary of using the approach suggested by confuscius. I know that some retailers will outright ban any merchant using such tactics - at least this is true in the US if not here. I don't want to be banned - but I don't understand how some people can apparently get away with it.

[KevinEdwards]

Hi Phil,

Some of my comments weren't directed at you but general griping and comments made by people who aren't in full possession of the facts. As I've learned in the six years I've posted on this forum many people will perpetrate what they claim to be facts and they are then regurgitated widely as such, becoming received wisdom in the process. Some of the accusations posted against affiliates on the forum haven't actually turned out to be true.

It's depressing that it happens but it would seem some people have an agenda they're happy to uphold without seemingly contributing anything more positive.

Lets focus on the Council. The IAB has Councils for all the main online channels. The affiliate channel is the only one I'm aware of that spends the vast majority of its time on self regulation. The actual purpose of the Council is to promote affiliate marketing and secure greater budget and buy in from advertisers and agencies.

I feel our path has somewhat been diverted too heavily down the self-regulatory route but if there is clamour to do this then I'm happy to pursue this. It's important and helps address concerns that may prevent people investing more heavily in the channel even if it does result in rather public discussion of the issues.

As I mentioned I fully understand people being unable to attend the meetings in person but many people from all sides of the industry currently attend (far more than any other IAB Council) including affiliates who have been vocal over the past year in helping to shape policy and direction.

I tried to give some context to the growth of the Council in my previous post and feel we've made significant steps in the past two years in establishing procedures that do address some of the concerns people have. These are still being agreed.

The work of the Council will be organic and evolve to fit the changing marketplace. This is underlined by the code of conduct that we briefly launched aimed at establishing a cookie hierarchy for behavioural retargeting, new entrants to the channel. Whilst it may be currently under revision the actual code will be unchanged when relaunched in the next few weeks. This is a positive and preemptive move to ensure existing affiliate cookies won't be overwritten when this traffic is run through the channel.

The voucher code of conduct is undergoing a third revision at the moment following a meeting of all main voucher sites and networks in the Summer. Will this be enough? Probably not but the fact that we accept the code is part of the fabric of the industry hopefully shows how far we've come given no work had been attempted less than two years ago. In the summer I raised the issue of how sustainable ‘click to reveal’ is longer term and this has been discussed in depth. Indeed it maybe addressed in any further revisions.

You mention taking action against affiliates. We have taken action against three affiliates in the past eighteen months that required them to make changes to their site. Two of these were noted in the last published minutes.

On some of your other points, every two months I issue the agenda for the IAB meetings and ask for feedback and agenda points. I think I've probably received about half a dozen in the past year. Any that are raised are discussed with minutes posted on the AMC blog.

I agree not all processes or procedures have been consistent in the past but this is an ongoing development and every month I feel we're getting closer to tightening this up. Again I endeavour to post these developments on the blog.

As an affiliate you may not be able to attend meetings but you can contribute - hopefully the above gives you an idea of how you can.

I don't want to divert this thread into another voucher code discussion but I always have to counter the idea that voucher sites overwrite significant amounts of cookies. Every piece of research I've carried out or seen indicates they don't, regardless of the validity of the code.

Anyone who has spoken to me about voucher code sites knows I'm a fierce critic of misleading content and bad practice. For me it's a question of adhering to the spirit of the code rather than looking for loopholes or grey areas. It may have taken time to establish our procedures for doing so but there is finally confidence within the Council and the determination to ensure we further clean up the space.

[KevinEdwards]

Incidentally, one of the accusations levelled against the Council is that it's a closed shop (brought about as a result of geography rather than anything else). The next meeting will be available via Ustream and we're investigating other solutions to make the meetings more accessible.

[PhiltheBear]

Kevin, that does make things 100% clearer. If I may pursue the point though. You say "The actual purpose of the Council is to promote affiliate marketing and secure greater budget and buy in from advertisers and agencies." That's fine. But there is a not inconsiderable demand in these straightened times for customers to save money. Naturally consumers are going to be drawn to voucher code sites and cashback sites - even when they don't deliver. The 'guru' of money saving, Martin Lewis, continually promotes these methods of saving money (but let's not get into the commissions he's making for promoting them).

The problem for me and many others is that the networks in particular, and merchants to a lesser extent, allow such practices to continue. I know people have visited my sites and then gone to 'voucher' sites where no vouchers are available and I've lost commissions. If there was concerted effort amongst networks and merchants these sites could be stopped. There is, of course, a suspicion that it's in the merchants' interest to pay out a lower commission to a voucher site and that's why they don't act. But, at some point someone will start to organise affiliates that do play by the rules and there's a danger that should that happen it may result in the opposite action to the aim stated above.

Perhaps, at a future meeting, you could ask all the networks to give an individual policy statement about their attitude to voucher sites with particular reference to 'dead' vouchers and publish what they say.

[Ben C]

Hi Phil,

To take some of the weight off Kevin's shoulders, all the networks on the IAB have signed up to the Voucher Code guidelines. As Kevin said, the IAB Affiliate Marketing Councils' primary focus is on the promotion and growth of affiliate marketing, not on being a policeman to the activities of individual affiliates.

The AMC put in place guidelines to signal what was acceptable practice within the affiliate space for voucher codes, software affiliates and the ilk, but they aren't there to regulate it. Its then up to the affiliate networks, agencies and clients to judge whether the affiliates operating on their campaigns are adhering to the guidelines and to police that activity.

The IAB has tried to take on additional supportive measures, such as establishing a clearance house for reported abuse (although somewhat embarassingly I can't remember or find it atm - Kevin?) and act as a forum where affiliates can meet with relevant people from across the industry and thrash out the minutiae of what isn't and isn't acceptable. Items to have been drawn from this include the Voucher Code guidelines, software affiliate guidelines and more recently guidelines around behavioural targeting.

Once that's done, the IAB AMC can do no more than chivvy along the other stakeholders to enforce the guidelines. As Kevin has already said there are a great number of grey areas which leads to much debate and argument about what is being done, and when someone starts a thread with a title as inflammatory as this one, I can understand if Kevin is a bit defensive. To take a random, 100 post one from July : Did Affiliate Marketing become Voucher Code Marketing?

As for the specifics of voucher code websites 'stealing' commissions from other affiliates, while I know that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to attest to it, every study undertaken by network and agency in recent times has shown that the actual financial impact on other affiliates is actually surprisingly small. It's the old 'lump of work' phallacy - the Voucher Codes may have an single percentage impact on other affiliates' earnings, but the vast majority of business they are capturing would not have otherwise been involved with an affiliate site.

And please let me state where this is coming from; I worked at dgm for 3.5 years and spent a good chunk of my last two years analysing data for a multi-attribution system that was designed to spread commissions more fairly amongst affiliates involved in the affiliate chain; in fact the biggest problem was actually setting up such a system was the lack of actual financial impact it would have had, even on our biggest, exclusive campaigns.

Sales with two or more affiliate cookies set within the cookie period generally accounted for about 20-22% of overall sales, and I remember working it out at about 16% of Voucher Code sales. So non-VC affiliates were responsible for 'overwriting' more cookies than VC affiliates - not something I personally expected.

So of those one in six VC sales that had affected another affiliate who were by far the biggest losers from the Voucher Code sites? Surprisingly other Voucher Code sites. It appears that people trawling for a voucher code had little loyalty to the VC site itself, but went looking for the best voucher code, triggering multiple cookies on the same customer.

I say this because the hysteria on the forum around VCs and bad VC practice is pretty shrill, but the impact really quite small. And rather than protect their own sites by adding voucher code functionality of their own - such as incorporating the excellent iCodes run by Leeky on the forum - people just complain about things they ought to be responding to themselves.

The real people who worry about VCs are the merchants, who see their margins being steadily eroded, their brands tainted with money off promotions and having to effectively double up their costs (pay commission and drop their price) in order to capture a customer - who may have bought from them anyway. Certainly VC sites are increasingly asked to justify the increased cost with evidence of incremental sales, and some clients clearly aren't convinced -if I remember correctly John Lewis took a stand against them, not because they disliked the affiliate tactics, but because it interfered with their brand message - never knowingly undersold.

So to summarise: Yes you are losing commission. But it's a tiny amount and you're losing more commission to other affiliates than you are to VCs. Such is the nature of competition. We will do our best to minimise the bad behaviour by the VC sites. If it still worries you, put up your own vouchers - after all VCs are proven sales drivers. Please don't criticise the IAB AMC as it is worked on diligently on putting together a cleaner, fairer industry. And if you're still not convinced, pressurise clients to put VC sites into their own commission pot or implement multi-attribution. And the end of the Last Click Wins model...

Cheers

Ben

[KevinEdwards]

Hi Phil,

There's a couple of points I'd add to Ben's post.

Firstly one of the forthcoming changes to the code is a reference to affiliates who use codes, rather than voucher code affiliates. I think this is an important distinction as affiliate categorisation is notoriously misleading (in fact unhelpful) and the code of conduct is aimed at the use of voucher codes, not an affiliate 'type'.

Secondly the use of expired content has been discussed at length and there was a consensus that it's unrealistic to ask affiliates to remove out of date content. The Internet is obviously full of out of date content and many 'content' affiliates carry out of date content. You can legitimately argue that it would be hypocritical to target out of date vouchers and not other out of date content.

That said, we knew the content needed to be marked as such. This is the grey area that requires us to state as much without being too prescriptive. I'd hate to get in the situation where we had so much regulation in place that affiliates feel stifled by the AMC but the consequence is that the code is open to interpretation.

Again, for me, it centres around whether an affiliate is acting within the spirit of the code and we have required a major affiliate using codes to make changes to how they list expired content because we felt it wasn't clear enough to consumers.

[confuscius]

@Kevin
Just a small but significant issue - the difference between expires and expired - Lots of expired codes are marked up as 'expires on' followed from a date in the past! Just reading the word expires suggests that it is in the future which is misleading!

[PhiltheBear]

Secondly the use of expired content has been discussed at length and there was a consensus that it's unrealistic to ask affiliates to remove out of date content. The Internet is obviously full of out of date content and many 'content' affiliates carry out of date content. You can legitimately argue that it would be hypocritical to target out of date vouchers and not other out of date content

I'm sorry but I find that 'consensus' laughable. I'm being continually given updates by merchants for new sales text (usually on a Friday afternoon for some inexplicable reason) that they want updated immediately. I get no warning of that. With a voucher code expiry I have been warned well in advance.

And I see nothing hypocritical about asking for the removal of text which is left on sites to deliberately mislead. Most vouchercode sites are data driven. To pretend that that data can't have an expiry date included after which the offer no longer shows beggars belief. I'm sure that there are lots of website constructors who could write such a routine in a few hours. Given the right language I know I could.

In respect of Ben's claim that studies show that voucher code sites don't make much difference to other sites I beg to differ. I know that people have used my comparison sites to find the best deals and then gone to voucher code or cashback sites afterwards - because they've told me they have. I equally know that not one of the merchants on my comparison sites offers vouchers yet those buyers - and they were buyers - never showed up in my stats.

Here's the thing - suppose I create a site which sells, say, TVs and promote it as a 'voucher' site. And suppose for every TV on that site I put in a button which says "Get a discount voucher by clicking here and open the vendor's website". And suppose that every button simply opens a merchant's site and reveals a message (every time) which says "No discount currently available". My guess would be that in no time at all I'd have networks leaping up and down telling me to stop or they'll chuck me off (or similar). Yet that's exactly the effect of continual display of expired vouchers and, of course, such messages are common on voucher code sites where the vendor doesn't and never has, offered a discount voucher.

If I thought that such a course of action was ethical and unpunishable then I could go and do it. But, for me, it's the ethical part of that which would stop me. I'm pretty much reading into what you guys have said that the 'punishment' part simply isn't there.

Perhaps, as the title of this thread was intended to provoke a reaction (and I thank you for it) it might have better been named something like "Do we need an affiliate trade union?"

[dc000000]

I'
In respect of Ben's claim that studies show that voucher code sites don't make much difference to other sites I beg to differ.

You are absolutely right to differ. I have read Ben's post 3 times and refrained from responding thus far because I know my reply would be deleted within ten minutes.

I don't know whether Ben was speaking as an individual or on behalf of the IAB - if it's the former then he's entitled to think that way, if it's the latter then - well, let's not go there?

[KevinEdwards]

Phil,

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say - I'm talking about the availability of information on the Internet. If a content site listed a camera (lets say) at a price that was then changed without the affiliate making the change on site, what happens about this out of date information? Should they be remonstrated regardless of how proactive the agency/merchant/network was to keep them informed?

My comments were directed at general updating of voucher info, and for this read the hundreds of affiliates, voucher code sites or otherwise, that may feature a voucher code. Information goes out of date all the time on the Internet, Who wants or is able to police this? I feel that if someone is looking to monetise this content they have a duty to ensure it is up to date to the best of their abilities.

As I previously mentioned out of date/expired codes is a source of contention and will probably continue to be so in the absence of more automated solutions.

If as you say content is deliberately intended to mislead it is in everyone's interest to deal with it.

Finally you make reference to an affiliates' union. I wish whoever wants to take this on luck - in my experience there is very little desire amongst competing affiliates to help their competition and the AMC still remains the best (only?) option for collating opinions.