Moose on the Loose

Voucher Codes & Discount Coupons, seem to be all the craze at the moment & ubiquitous. I have no real criticism of them “overall” and there are a number of quality sites by respected affiliates around. I feel voucher codes are probably more beneficial for the consumer than cashback sites, whereby the saving is instantaneous and at source. With cashback sites the consumer has to reach a minimum threshold before seeing their returns or even prepay for membership. For the cashback affiliate, I can only guess it can be an “mare” for them dealing with enquires for non tracked sales, both false & genuine, maybe even those customers using the voucher code from another site & “accidently” clicking on a link from there, when the consumer was also a member of the cashback site and they then proceed to attempt & claim back from there as well to recoup a double saving. As for handling all those cheques, urgh no thanks.

Perhaps there is room for a hybrid cashback / voucher code site, even an aggregator, which could be massive savings for the consumer (who will benefit from both cashback & savings from the voucher code). Those who currently have cashback sites maybe better positioned for this.The question is then posed, what incremental sales has this brought? Would they have purchased anyway? Or was this the trigger or catalyst to switch them from window shopper to actual customer.
The current advantage cashback sites may have at the moment is a wider selection of merchants to utilise / pull from, though I guess it’s only a matter of time before the number of voucher / discount codes can be comparative. Just check you affiliate inbox, a good proportion are titled with discount code related headings.

Being a couch potato, and slow off the blocks to incorporating voucher codes this time around, I am looking forward to seeing what all encompassing (all networks) white lable / updated api feeds will be available for voucher codes soon, I certainly hope so.

The Need For Unique Voucher Codes

However, I still feel that each code distributed should to unique any individual affiliate. ie appending a prefix or suffix to the discount code with the affiliates ID or a network / affiliate ID combo. So if the voucher code was XYZ, the network (abbreviated) ABC and the affiliate ID 123, then it would something like ABC123XYZ.

With the aforementioned, hopefully this may create a slightly more level playing field, plus open up more marketing opportunities, which I ‘ll come on to later.

This way we can trace who had the last cookie (and even the preceding cookie) and who’s voucher code was used, thus gaining a slightly better overview, with an insight into the understanding of customer / consumer habits.

Should voucher codes given precedence over cookies? That’s a difficult one, at the moment I guess I might lean towards saying no this shouldn’t be permitted until something towards a more ideal solution is found. Maybe rewarding along the lines of the incremental elements of the sales journey /path. i.e. last cookie & unique affiliate code share the commission. (though I cannot see this coming anytime soon) The disadvantage though with any scheme where the omnipresent voucher code gets part or whole of the commission, suggests that all affiliates should then adopt, embrace & incorporate them (voucher codes) into their own sites to minimise leakage or loss. This is not a complaint in doing so, but maybe just moving & adjusting with the times & current climate.

Perhaps we should distinguish between unique voucher codes set for an individual affiliate & generic codes, for which at the moment we have a mix in circulation. I would prefer everybody had a unique code along the lines of the suggested more transparent format above. How practical would this be to implement?

Another advantage of “unique” voucher codes, is that customers / consumers might post them on other sites and forums, send by email to friends or if printable, pass them around. Thus it will be like having free viral advertising / marketing “allowing affiliate marketing to move offline.” What better than swarms of consumers posting your unique code to other customers and the voucher affiliate wins wholly or part of the commission?

“There would be nothing stopping you producing a catalogue which contained voucher codes and distributing it for instance or billboards, posters, stickers etc”

I guess there are a few voucher codes floating about whereby the saving is offset against the the affiliates commission, perhaps there is something here too as a better alternative to cashback sites, that’s if the merchant site’s can cater for it. The trend suggests that most merchants may need to incorporate voucher code boxes, just to remain competitive.

Please note I have no idea on the scale of this at the moment, and how much of a problem it is & if it is, but I would be keen to discuss further the advantages of having a voucher code site versus a cashback site. When will it be move over cashback sites & bring on the voucher code sites.

A Message To Affiliate Window & Shop Window

Please, introduce a few extra columns in the shopwindow feed with details on any voucher codes like the start & expiry dates, brief description, voucher code number. It might increase conversions.

Today we are pleased to announce the Books Direct Prize Pool Incentive.

A few months ago Books Direct approached my close friend Fraser Edwards & I to ask if we would consider running their brand based paid search activity through Affiliate Window. Which was previously ran by another outsourced agency & the program was on another network. The program is now solely on Affiliate Window.

Not being a fan of straight brand bidding groups & the little value it would add to the program, we pitched a concept to Sarah at Books Direct ….. See Here ….. Books Direct being a forward thinking merchant were receptive to the idea and so the incentive was formulated to generously reward affiliates for the incremental sales they drive to Books Direct.

A new affiliate account was set up solely for the purpose on the brand campaign on a no profit basis where all commissions (at the normal rate) earned are placed into the prize pool as well as the override the network Affiliate Window receives. Deducted from this are the paid search advertising costs. Books Direct, Affiliate Window & us all have access to the various paid search accounts for any costs & keywords used so that transparency is maintained throughout.

The main prize draw is at the end of the year and is confidently expected to be in excess of £10000. The activity for June collected a pool of £1,236.97, activity for July collected a pool of £2,627.38 … a total so far of £3,864.35. So we have August to December inclusive to be added to this.

Get Your Golden Ticket

In Charlie & The Chocolate Factory fashion, there are lucky winners each month who can claim their Golden Ticket for the bumper prize.

Each month, all affiliates who have made a sale, or no sales but have generated at least 100 clicks on the Books Direct programme will be entered into a prize draw. Each sale will count as one prize draw entry, so the more sales you make, the more chances you have to win. If you have made more than 100 clicks, but no sales, you will receive “one” prize draw entry.

Each month, 5 winners will be selected who will each receive a prize of £50, as well as a “Golden Ticket” to enter the main draw, to win the remaining prize pool, which will be divided between 2 winners. The exact date will be announced later in the year but will be end of 2008/early January 2009.

Each month the prize draw starts afresh! You can enter every month and increase your chances of winning the big prize.

Omitted From The Prize Draw

Fraser & I already do quite a lot of generic activity for Books Direct from our own individual & joint accounts. In July we earned about £2,624.00 commission & in June we earned about £2,048.00 commission. However though in theory we could qualify for the incentive, we have taken the decision to omit ourselves from any prize draws leaving it open for other affiliates to grab a Golden Ticket.

Fuller Details

For more detailed information please read the following threads & blogs

Books Direct Brand Bidding – Prize Pool
Books Direct Blog
Books Direct: Prize pool offers monthly £50 bonus and a grand pool of circa £12,000
An Alternative To Brand Bidding Groups
Plunge Into The PPC Prize Pool & Grab a Golden Ticket

Thanks Books Direct & Affiliate Window

Fraser & I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Books Direct for their generousity with the incentive & Affiliate Window for their efforts in the joint coordination & adding their override to the prize pool too. The setting up has been quite seamless & straight forward. Hopefully affiliates eyes will be lit up, be encouraged, start promoting further & add incremental sales to a decent program.

Why should affiliates be permitted to SEO in organic search for a brand (including variations & misspellings), when a merchant already has a restricted paid search policy in place based on the brand?

What makes PPC unique in being isolated and targeted with knee jerk reactions with: over restrictive keyword policies, damnation from some networks & ridicule from some purist SEO affiliates.

Brand bidding is indeed a low hanging fruit, it also serves as a good litmus test to find out how well or poorly a merchant converts to ascertain if that merchant is worth pushing on generics & product related terms.

Putting it simply there is no real difference between SEO & PPC, both are competing for placement on search engines, with SEO there are obviously a whole lot more affiliates doing / exercising this.

SEO is more deliberate, however. A PPC ad can easily appear for a hybrid phrase like “BRAND electrical store” without actually bidding on the brand because they are bidding on on a partial element i.e. “electrical store” “store” or “electrical”. With SEO it’s more deliberate because they physically have to add the brand somewhere into the content or meta tags or url sub domain / directory url. i.e. the brand has to be appearing somewhere on the page/site . With PPC this isn’t necessarily the case & with expanded broadmatch / synonym match / contextual matching on PPC keywords, it’s the PPC’ers that get fingered out by emails or on public forums.

So flipping this on it’s head, if an affiliate can SEO for a brand (i.e. there are no restrictions) why can’t a PPC’er do brand bidding on paid search?

At the moment only a few merchants have SEO restriction policies in place, thankfully. I look forward to the day (not in wanting, but more in dreaded anticipation) when this increases further, this in turn will temporarily deflect attention from affiliates engaging with PPC (and synonym matching issues) where some SEO affiliates quite happily jump on their back. Perhaps they will be able to appreciate how unreasonable it can be when the ball is in their court with the restrictions being imposed upon them.

If an affiliate can SEO for misspells, why can’t a PPC affiliate when there are keyword restrictions in place for paid search bid on variations & misspellings. So what difference is there really between SEO & PPC? I have always considered this blanket rule on not bidding on variations & misspellings inappropiate simply because the merchant is not aware of what they actually all are.

If SEO is rightly or wrongly perceived as NOT being the domain or jurisdiction of the merchant … a taboo area .. then by the same token nor should PPC, let’s remember search engines are a third party & not owned by networks, merchants, agencies nor affiliates. The search engines themselves rank organic listings & sponsored ads according to what they deem most relevant / quality according to their algos & manual tweaks.

To reiterate, what makes PPC unique in being isolated and targeted with knee jerk reactions, damnation from some networks & ridicule from some purist SEO affiliates?

“A merchant should (in theory) be number 1 in search, but in PPC they may be outbid by affiliates – and therefore don’t feel happy about giving commission that way?”

Paid search engines also rank ads according to various “quality” scoring factors & algos, it it’s not uncommon for SEO affiliates to rank higher than merchants for the brand. With hybrid terms & variation / misspellings this is even more common place / common practice. Therefore the merchant is still “giving” (if that is the right word) the commission away. A SEO page might also list other merchants as options to the visitor, thus leakage occurs, or worse still promote an entirely different merchant. There are most probably more cases of malpractice / rogue affiliates or leakage than that from PPC. So why do people of the incorrect mindset tend to consider PPC’ers to be the bad boys/girls?

So next time you see someone appearing for a brand or hybrid phrase on paid search, just look at all the organic listings for that same phrase as comparison, so that you can perhaps gain a little perspective & stop condemning PPC affiliates.

Remember an affiliate doesn’t have to be signed up to program to SEO. So isn’t it better the merchant & a signed up affiliate is duly rewarded with the sale rather than a competitor! Thus isn’t it better to offer an affiliate commission & put in their pocket than the tills of a competitor? Remember an affiliate can still SEO for brand, hybrids & misspells & send to sponsored listings! Where very often the EPC is better than going through the CPA channel, so it doesn’t matter if an affiliate is signed up to the merchants program or not.

Keep remembering merchants DON’T own the search engines!!!

When we see a few merchants introducing SEO restrictions, ask one question, since when has the ownership of an affiliates own website been the intellectual property of a merchant? Never!!! Another risk with SEO restrictions is that the potential customer may end up at a non-affiliate site such a consumer review site or blog where an individual might have had negative reviews about a merchant. People mis-type by re-occuring habit, I understand brand conformality & portrayal in correct spelling, thats another discussion altogether, I am relating more to actual brand spelling & hybrid phrases / longtail, though mispellings do have their dutiful role to assist in directing the flow of traffic to the intended recipient & thus should maybe be accepted by merchants.

You might say with SEO, merchants cannot police all websites whether these are affiliates on non-affiliates that has anything to do with meta tags, content copy etc etc … and that it’s all about control & thus it’s easier to control PPC affiliates.

No, is the simple answer to that one. SEO or Affiliate websites can be simply requested to use javascript links or images where the merchant’s name is referred to in the content & ban the brand name in meta tags or even insert ‘no index,follow’. Why do you think this is unreasonable? It’s similar to the same ludicrous PPC restrictions which are enforced where you can’t mention a merchants name in the PPC ad copy.

In my opinion SEO gets manipulated ethically or abused unethically with dubious practises or suffers greater leakage via SEO on brand related terms a whole lot more than PPC.

It seems daft that you can’t do PPC but you can do long term SEO which can’t be switched off or changed or corrected as easily as PPC, the latter having greater flexibility & speed in portraying a brand or current offering correctly. Compare how quickly a PPC ad can be amended to a webpage being amended and indexed. The PPC ad wins hands down.

“If PPC’ing a brand you are spending money advertising in order to send traffic to the brand owner or divert traffic from the brand owner”

A vast majority of brand PPC is simply to send traffic to the brand owner, however cost has nothing to do with it since both methods have their own costs. SEO affiliates running a website incur elements of cost from hosting to buying a domain to paying employees or out-sourcing & not forgetting those man hours which are an affiliate’s most precious commodity.

“But it’s more like writing a magazine, where as PPC is akin to putting a classified ad in the newspaper saying you promote a merchants stock”

No again, a publisher’s website is still media promoting the services & products a merchant offers, the difference being that a webpage can contain more content on the pre-sell. A PPC affiliate can still direct traffic to their own website in the same manner instead of direct linking to the merchant. However, one advantage of direct linking from paid search is the following blog … Prefill the Basket – Don’t Presell the Customer Twice … where you don’t need to presell the customer twice plus you get 100% transitional flow of traffic without leakage.

Quite simply there has been the incorrect mindset from the beginning by networks, merchants, agencies & even purist affiliates. The catalyst for this was the introduction of the single URL policy by paid search engines like Google Adwords, Yahoo Marketing & MSN Adcenter. There were knee jerk reactions from some networks, merchants & agencies who didn’t think about it properly & have not been trained correctly with regard to the bigger picture.

So what if it requires a cultural change? Well, if the mindset was incorrect from outset then maybe it needs to be reprogrammed to bring back into proper alignment & continuity. It’s quite plain to see how a few networks & some employess “don’t get it” that’s because they were not educated correctly in-house & have a false perception of what is right & wrong in the industry.

Granted, it would be like opening pandora’s box if there is a deluge of restrictions enforced on SEO, but perhaps those purist SEO affiliate who slate & slander PPC should take a step back and think of the bigger picture on how lightly they have got off so far.

Should balance be restored by imposing the same restrictions on SEO where there are PPC restrictions? That’s open to thought provoking discussion, I wouldn’t advocate it, but it will balance the restrictive policies currently around, it will still have a long way to go to be as far reaching as PPC restrictions are at the moment, why should one be more ridiculous than the other?

If a user types in the brand, hybrid, misspelling or variation into a search engine then in theory only one organic listing should appear in the organic listings … but there isn’t … by the very nature of search engine it lists options … thus there shouldn’t be that restriction on PPC or SEO either.

Therefore the only exception I see pertaining to paid search is the use of the actual brand / merchants url as the display url in the paid search adverts because of the single display url & that is all, nothing else.

Thought provoking isn’t it? Should the encroachment into brand related SEO be a taboo area to impose restrictions upon, when PPC is treated so heavily handed?

Additional note:

A wider issue might be that those merchants which dedupe might do so against seo one day.

If the industry in some quarters prefer ppc brand bidding, where permissible & where there are BBGs, not to overwrite content affiliate cookies (which I agree), then by the same token though not easily implemented I guess, why shouldn’t the same apply to sales from SEO on brand? And by an additional token shouldn’t SEO on brand not overwrite PPC affiliate bidding on generic & product related terms?

Basically imho there is not really much difference between SEO & PPC, the former has to actually include the brand to appear organically & the latter can be achieved to appear without actually bidding on the brand, so why does / should ppc get isolated for targeting & not seo? i.e. why should seo be allowed for a brand but not ppc. Is seo taboo & ppc not?

You never know, it could all turn Interflora or John Lewis or Marks “&” Spencer, where merchant names have to be gifs or jpegs or javascript or can only be mentioned a certain number of times. Then you have merchants who say their name cannot be part of your directory structure or as a sub domain of your own site. … Don’t you just love affiliate marketing? If it’s not one thing it’s another.

If that is the case then, then search engines should list only one website when a user is searching for a brand or variation, but they don’t, they are search engines by their very nature! & no affiliate, merchant, agency or network owns them.

A question is will this now see an increase in seo restrictions later in the year or was it bound to happen anyway because affiliates were too apathetic & networks too yellow bellied to call a halt to the domino effect by saying “no more”. If it does affiliates will have the 2nd chance & opportunity to stand united, but I won’t hold my breath. On the flip side merchants with an IQ above that of an amoeba or geranium might actually start opening up their keyword policies to a certain degree.

With reference to paid search and a merchant “x” program with keyword restrictions … at what point does a brand become a merchant .. and what is the rule with regard to resellers.

Let’s take a couple of recent examples. Last week I was working briefly on a keyword database for sporting supplements. One of the popular brands also has an affiliate program, but their branded products are also sold by other resellers / merchant “y”who also have affiliate programs.

Can I or Can’t I use those keywords, or would I have to remove myself from the program of merchant “x” in order to use those keywords & promote the resellers. I haven’t mentioned this merchant yet because they see the logical problem, seem quite reasonable & are maybe looking at opening up their keyword policy because their resellers are already in the space.

Suntan lotions & creams was another I have been working on, Ambre Solaire is a popular brand who currently don’t have an affiliate program so I have a choice of merchants of who to send customers to, but what if they started a program with keyword restrictions?

Now lets take other programs like Dell & Apple which have keyword restrictions (maybe even BBGs 😉 ) There are other merchants (with affiliate programs) who are resellers of their products .. Can I or Can’t I use keywords related to those products?

Probably the biggest area is mobile phones like Orange, Vodafone, T Mobile, (the former two having BBGs btw), but there are plenty of other retailers who offer tarifs or handsets relating to them.

We also see a few brand clothing merchants too, basically the list goes on & on.

Say I was bidding on “Sony DVD Player” but the Sony affiliate program had keyword restrictions, it’s like them turning around to an electrical retailer in the high street & telling them they can’t promote Sony products in their shop window.

It’s a tricky one, but in my opinion if there is a reseller of those products then any associated keywords should perhaps be fair game, unless the reseller / merchant “y specfically prohibits it. However the problem develops still further if the original merchant “x” appears somewhere on your site & not necessarily the landing page even if your focus is on the resellers. It’s a slight dilemma when merchant “x” starts throwing toys out of their cot, then the only option is perhaps to drop out of the merchant “x” program in favour of the reseller / merchant “y.

Is this going to be a further potential problem & additional clauses merchants will start incorporating? I think we already see similar on magazine & hotel affiliate programs, but will it escalate? Will boundaries be further encroached with get out of jail free cards enforcing further restrictions.

It’s 2am and I am having a solitary brainstorming session, occasionally on the forum a discussion on who should be attributed the commission arises, such that the question is whether last click referrer is yesteryear (which can be opened to abuse or affiliates “accused” of misleading potential customers in order to plant the cookie) … and whether there should be movement towards awarding a number of affiliates along the customer journey by dividing the commissions in whatever decided relevant proportions amongst all those involved … which I think could be quite complex to resolve … I fear this would prove to be further argumentative than it currently is judging by the discussions which are taking place.

By throwing something into the pot, perhaps a “Queuing System” or “Chain Gang” might be a workable solution.

Now I don’t know if any other network already has anything similar, but the concept is quite simple whereby one affiliates cookie cannot be overwritten for 24 hours & other cookie drops for same visitor goes into a queuing system? i.e. each cookie is given the normal cookie period, but any preceding cookie in the chain has at least a 24 hour lifespan.

Such that the the second affiliate cannot overwrite the first affiliates cookie for 24 hours after the intial one was set, but goes into a queue (note not neglected), once the 24 hours are up, the second affiliate cookie kicks into effect for a further 24 hours or the remaining cookie period until a further affiliate cookie comes into play … and so forth with the queuing system. This could be 48 hours if it is the desired choice.

… and if an affiliate is removed from a program for whatever reason, is it possible to reward the previous affiliates cookie in the chain rather than the commission being lost or deleted altogther.

Now networks have the figures on the lifespan of a cookie before it’s overwritten, but this may appease those who were earlier in the customer journey.

But there is still no case for whether the earlier or the later cookie had a better presell, that can never really be determined on who planted the seed or who tended to it or who harvested it, it depends on what mode the customer was in at that point in time (and which PC)

However will it be that rewarding various affiliates on the customers journey create more problems, complications & disagreements when maybe paying a click element per step & then a slightly reduced commission at the final purchase maybe an easier option, and then how do we get around merchants on different networks with different cookie rules from which has more or less been in operation since concept.

Spurred by the consensus that there’s maybe a lack of recognition for “content affiliates”, I want to bring up a very old idea we had about a matchmaking service for affiliates & merchants.

Quite simply there is a directory of various categories from Sport (which can include sub categories like Football or Golf) to Credit Cards to Electrical Products etc .. and even genre categories for sites which are primarily finance portals, cashback, voucher codes, competition websites, shopping directories / price comparison & so forth.

This directory is populated by affiliates with their websites into the relevant categories.

This would allow merchants to easily indentify which affiliates are most suited to them & open up the lines of communication & liase directly, hopefully forging closer relationships with the calibre of affiliate which marries their own product offering.

At the moment I don’t know if networks categorise affiliate websites properly to ensure their clients, the merchants, can identify which affiliates are most suited to their product offering. I can imagine a network when pitching to a client at some point saying we have X thousand affiliates & blinding with numbers. But if the merchant turns around and asks “exactly which, not an estsimated how many, of those affiliates promotes football boots?”. Would the network really know?

Obviously this can be expanded further with contact details being provided for the merchant or an internal instant messaging system. Another addition could be complete categorisation of merchant programs too from all the main networks where affiliates can easily find the right merchant. Then perhaps merchant & affiliate can meet in the middle.

Maybe this will just assist merchants that little bit more.

The downside is that some affiliates may wish to keep their websites to themselves, if that is the case they wouldn’t have to include themselves, so this is geared towards those who are maybe looking for a better deal by negotiating directly with the merchant (who initiates the contact).

Tradedoubler I have absolutely had it up to the back teeth with you guys. Don’t you dare threaten us & make false accusations.

If you want to threaten our business which the livelihood & financial security of my family & children, just be careful & ask yourself this simple question .. If you have kids how hard would you fight for them & their welfare! Do you think any responsible parent is going to “deliberately” do anything to jeopardise their future?

Watch your step!

The rest will follow soon but it really is about time this network got it’s ship in order, yet how many times have we said that, will it ever?

We will possibly / probably need to contact each merchant on their network to look at alternative solutions.

Unfortunately it’s a familiar situation, & in my personal opinion they try to make you look like idiots … annoyingly condescending in their demeanour … snobbish & aloof disregard for affiliates … unapproachable & unreasonable to deal with … unsatisfcatory resolution to issues & can’t accept when they are wrong or deal with matters amicably. One or two people in particular at Tradedoubler we have had the misfortune of dealing with have a mindset is so not attuned with industry. Where with most other networks with any similar concerns they are a lot more approachable & amicable to deal with.

There is also the same old lack of continuity in their keyword policies, there are in fact several different places you have to look as they can seem quite hidden & one day they might appear, when they were not there previously. And it’s a game of russian roulette if you receive notification of keyword policy changes. As for broadmatch / synonym match, do these rock apes still need further education in this. Changing the terms of a keyword policy is in effect changing the contract with each merchant.

Would they dare change the t&c’s of a contract at any period down the line with one of their clients without notifying them, of course they wouldn’t (or do they). But they expect you to be psychic.

This is not related but check out the number of merchants keyword policies for clause

And ascertain the number & proportion of merchants which actually say “yes”.

Lets take the first merchant I took at random … this is Lensway. To clause 4.6 they say “yes”, but further up on the page it says ” Lensway do not allow affiliates to buy keywords on competitor’s brands, in any combination.” Though whilst I agree affiliates or competitors shouldn’t, and I don’t think this should be encouraged either. There is a conflicting message. Historically there is a continuing problem with their lack of a single point of reference for keyword policies.

A second randomly chosen one who says “yes” to 4.6 is Natural Figures. The list goes on & on & on.

So Tradedoubler, don’t make out I am talking bull by requesting I name specific examples on the telephone. Just keep your eyes peeled on this blog you’ll see plenty more examples of merchants who say yes to 4.6 in due course. So guess what I will be doing this evening. Wasting my time again going through merchants, because in my personal (not company) opinion I think it’s incompetence on Tradedoubler’s behalf. There will be about 400 merchants to go thru & from the first 40 we have been through so far about a third of them had “yes” to clause 4.6 … Screwfix one of their recent programs says “yes” to, but really we wouldn’t look beyond Affiliate Window as the program is already on there, which is a more preferable network.

Oh, by the way where was the email that went out with regard to the keyword policy for Penguin? More like an ostrich, if you goto “Penguin UK FAQ”, the pop up has no information. On the merchant info page in program settings (not the same as the former) you’ll see the various restrictions which were added without notifying affiliates, if you go to the overview page for Penguin, you’ll see that the keyword policy says Open. If you go to program list it says open there too, so we have conflicting info again. So Tradedoubler accused “another” affiliate first, when nothing was there, then add them without notification. One of the problems is they find somewhere where it maybe is when they afflict their contemptious wrath.

The latest one is Vonage where there are currently no restrictions.

… and we haven’t even got onto affiliate support & payments yet which has been discussed a bit on the forum. So Tradedoubler be very careful when you accuse affiliates of doing something deliberately wrong, no doubt you’ll want to get your allies on board & I am sure one or two will be more than willing to furnish you with nonsense.

There are a plethora of merchants who we have wanted to promote a lot further than what we do already (if we do that is) on Tradedoubler, but as a message to those merchants, I can only apologise but Tradedoubler have historically made things inhibitive that for me & other affiliates they don’t offer the value of service when the need arises and thus lining their pocket with the undeserved over-ride doesn’t sit well.

Unfortunately some affiliates don’t speak up beyond airing opinions in private conversation as retribution is one of their fears.

From their representation at the AMC, there are one or two from Tradedoubler I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with having any vote on affiliate marketing issues.

I wonder if that AOL offer is looking like an attractive proposition in hindsight at 215KR, when the IPO was circa 108. When the all time high was circa 225KR, 52 week high is circa 185KR .. and what was is it today … circa only 61KR .. ouch!

This post is simply a thanks to ALL the networks who generously sponsored the bar (and remained for the best part of the evening 😉 without sloping of to another private party, which just isn’t cricket) for the pub get together yesterday at Dust (27 Clerkenwell Road, London). I think there was about 250-275 in all. It was a a refreshing change dipping back to the traditional informal pub meets to contrast with the always most excellent formal gatherings & events.

Also a special thanks to Kevin for instigating & organising the event.

It’s always a pleasure to bump into old colleagues, friends, foes & peers … old & new … I left about 1am and there were still about 20 enjoying the night. Being a wuss when it comes to drinking, I had more than my quota of two drinks, yet wasn’t drunk. The signs are that for grub on the way back I had a chicken kebab & not a doner kebab.

Once again thank you to the sponsors for a most enjoyable evening.

Also a message to those who were there for the first ever gathering but not last night, you were missed & so were the stormtroopers.

Whlist at the affiliate pub gathering yesterday a fellow peer pointed out a new blog to me called Affiliate Bitch

Affiliate Bitch is a no holds barred approach to blogging & posting anonymously. dedicated to telling it “how it is?” in affiliate marketing.

“Affiliate Bitch is fed up of people moaning about anyone and everyone involved in affiliate marketing. Affiliates moan about merchants, merchants moan about networks. Well, tough! You chose the job you do, so do it, and deal with the c***, moaning about it won’t make it better. The deed has already been done.”

Affiliate Bitch is a place to ask a question and get an honest truthful answer without the sycophant tendancies or exaggeration. Affiliate Bitch takes no prisoners, so it’s not going to be a good news bible or politically correct censored posts.

How will it be received? This will depend on it’s readership & author contributions. Will some quarters deem it as unprofessional or simply an echo of how it is in the industry in private conversations at any affiliate gathering (which is sometimes veiled on other forums ) or simply a bit of fun … You decide … Most blogs don’t have rose tinted glass opinions but do hold back in various degrees of discretion / circumspection some of what they would really like to say, I guess this is potentially going that extra yard in the ouch factor.

If you’d want to become a bitch then you simply email them, and your anomnimity shall be retained. They’ll monitor posts, and anything that’s way too dodgy may be ammended.

It seems to be in the very early stages atm, so check out yourself at Affiliate Bitch.

Since the recent AOL buy-out of Buy.at. There have been recent departures by the former Buy.at foundation building folk of Steven Brown & Malcolm Cowley who I can only assume have moved on to pastures new with a somewhat silent withdrawal, as if ushered out of the tradesman’s entrance & soon to be followed by Kevin Cornils.

Pushed? Shoved? Made their fortunes? Ran with the cash? or Gardening leave? We can only speculate. Differences to one side, it was anticipated but the quiet manner without fanfare it wasn’t.

Is Buy.at becoming the Titanic or the Mary Celeste? or is it a hybrid of the twane? As for the preceding showering of petals I scoff at the very notion.

In my humble, yet, vociferous opinion Buy.at veered off the correct navigational course many moons ago. On their maiden voyage the bearings seemed correct and the crewmen (affiliates) shouted “ship ahoy” in unison with what seemed a welcomed & fresh approach to the industry.

It soon became apparent, in my opinion, that they (the company) became pirates & plunderers as the Jolly Roger was hoisted (derived from “Old Roger” which was the nickname for the devil). Whether they were charmed by the mermaids or in the immortal words of Elvis … the “Devil in Disguise”… there is still barnacled driftwood floating about in the crows nest and whether the recently commissioned Captain AOL request that a few (not all) walk the plank or if newly recruited deckhands can steer them back on course is another question or will they eventually sink into the abyss.

Good luck Steve & Malcolm … Drink up me hearties, yo ho.

PS Do they lock away the nice people in a closet? Where are the likes of techie Paul,  horse loving Louise Green & Chris Tradgett.