Moose on the Loose

Are Woolworths UK

(1)Fornicating Idiotic Plebeian Fibromuscular Tubular Tract

or plain and simply

(2) Fucking Twats

Whether your preference is masticating a Rogets Thesaurus as your early morning breakfast fibre or basically laymans terms. As referenced, forewarned & foreamed in this blog numerous lunar cycles ago, it seems that yellow bellied networks are going to allow an ever increasing fluxof merchant like Woolworths voucher code (for keyword density) to allow and encourage SEO restrictions.

The latest being :

Prohibited Web Site Domain Keywords:

Affiliates must not include the term “Woolworths” (or misspellings of) any higher than the second directory of their site, e.g:
www.affiliatesite.com/retailers/Woolworths – is permitted.
www.affiliatesite.com/Woolworths – would not be permitted.

Title tags:

Affiliates must not use “Woolworths.co.uk” in the HTML title tag.

Some networks will never learn that an affiliate’s (not publisher’s) website belongs to the affiliate NOT the network or retailer.

Below irrelevant :

woolworths voucher code blah fill the space woolworth shop discount code i cannot be bothered to create anchor text

Woolworths Shopping

It seems that the Government / HM Revenue & Customs may have been a soft touch with Google according to the article, they certainly could have done with a significant boost to the coffers to aid any languishing financial recovery in the UK, assuming that it is not squandered (and that that is some assumption). Or is it simple & shrewd business practice where Google has highlighted opportunities where even small to medium size internet businesses should up virtual office sticks and follows suit. Maybe any business can virtually relocate to more favourable tax liabilities which in turn incentivises SMEs to do well / better. Would SMEs seeking this alternative avenue of tax arbitrage by paying less CT or virtual premises be easy targets for the government? Would it be better to have lower CT rates & have HM earn more via Income Tax or increased overall rev of businesses coming to these shores & creating more jobs & tax revenue as it’s an incentive by itself? Beacause at the moment there certainly isn’t any incentive to do well beyond the lower tax threshold. Unless anything is done SMEs of all shapes & sizes may look to follow suit in some shape or form.

It’s unlikely that there are any avenues for the government to pursue or to claw back the billions from previous years trading via legitimate “loopholes / flaws in the system”. What with Google quite possibly having the likely future prime minister & other gulliable MPs in their back pocket with Google’s familiar preaching of being “holier than thou” and sweet talking, it’s unlikely anything will be done in the near future either, especially with the governments general ignorance to the real nature of the Google dark angel we are more familiar with & dealing with directly.

Should the government also look into Google’s unhealthy monopoly of Internet search? Maybe the public should be educated that Search is not synonymous with Google & that there are other good search engines & resources out there without the need to visit Google as a first stop, hmm … how long have we been saying that for? But do they really care? If there is enough publicity in general news rather than broadsheets a portion of public opinion maybe swayed. Something is better than nothing, but guessing how inert folk can be, it might just end up as tomorrows fish & chip wrapping. With the revenue Google earn from advertising  they could easily do £1million a week lottery draw for the public.

On the face of it we are all guilty in our small way of contributing & allowing this to materialise over the years from social usage to business purposes. Where in the dictionary does it say “search” means Google? no doubt it will one day say that in the Roget’s Thesaurus. Already you hear expressions like “Google It” or “Googling” as urban speel.

On a more important note for the internet industry, you are possibly aware Google has recently become the Grim Reaper for Affiliates, Home businesses & SME’s via what can be deemed as their familiar Kangaroo Court Approach to giving lifetime bans to thousands of advertisers across the UK and the world when less severe sentences are given for serious crimes including tax evasion. The conseuence is seriously affecting many of these businesses or forcing total closure, most of whom are reputable & many been trading for years, their direct actions just add to woes of the current financial climate and less tax revenue for the government. Since there is no appropriate or respected channels for recourse. Will the government look into this further backlash on UK Businesses (meaning less tax revenue for the government) or Google’s “perceived” tax avoidance.

Not On Your Nellie !

“Google pays no tax on £1.6bn in Britain”

Source & Comments : http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6962880.ece

“Google, the Internet giant whose informal corporate motto is “don’t be evil”, did not pay any tax on its £1.6 billion advertising revenues in Britain last year.

The firm, which has a substantial presence in London, diverted all its advertising earnings from customers in Britain to its Irish subsidiary.

The arrangement allowed Google legally to avoid paying more than £450m in corporation tax to HM Revenue & Customs in 2008, The Sunday Times has established.

The disclosure prompted politicians to criticise Google, widely lauded as a pioneer of the internet age, for “ducking its social responsibility” and for “tax avoiding”.
Related Links

Accounts filed with Companies House in the past week show Google’s 2008 UK corporation tax bill amounted to just £141,519 — and that was tax on the interest generated by its cash pile in UK bank deposits.

Vince Cable, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, urged the search firm to “pay its fair share” of tax.

“Avoidance like this is hard to stomach at the best of times,” said Cable. “But when the country is in recession and everyone is feeling the pain, it really sticks in the throat — it means higher taxes for the rest of us.

“Google’s reputation will be severely damaged if it continues to behave in this way. It is ducking its social responsibility.”

Google says its structure complies fully with UK tax rules and that the company makes a “substantial” contribution to tax receipts wherever it operates.

About 13% of Google’s global revenues now come from the UK, and 770 staff are based at its London offices.

Accountants said that if the firm’s £1.6 billion UK earnings were paid directly into Google UK Limited, the London operation, it would have been liable for UK corporation tax of between 28% and 30%.

This could have raised about £450m for the public finances — enough tax to fund three NHS hospitals, buy at least eight Chinook helicopters or pay the annual salaries of about 15,000 policemen.

Any British individual or company who places an advertisement with the search engine pays a fee to Google’s European headquarters in Ireland, where corporation tax is levied at between 10% and 25%.

The Dublin operation’s latest accounts show that only €7.5m (£6.7m) of Irish tax was paid in 2008, even though the bulk of Google’s €6.7 billion (£5.9 billion) European earnings flowed into Ireland.

Austin Mitchell, the Labour MP for Great Grimsby, who campaigns against tax avoidance, said: “Google isn’t just sucking money out of local newspapers and other people who rely on advertising for a living — it’s also draining money out of the public finances.

“The search engine is a marvellous service, but the company is run by tax avoiders. If they are going to make so much money here they need to give more back to society.”

As well as paying little tax, Google UK Limited’s latest accounts disclose that it made modest charitable donations of just £5,662 during the year.

The document also reveals that Google’s highest-paid UK director earned nearly £1.1m — an 80% rise on the previous year.

The average British-based Google worker earned more than £90,000 last year, with the company paying National Insurance and other social security contributions of £10m.

Peter Barron, director of communications for Google in northern Europe, said: “Google makes a big investment in the UK, with over 800 employees, and we make a substantial contribution to local and national taxation. But the fact is that our European headquarters is in Dublin. We comply fully with the tax laws in all the countries in which we operate.”

Google has established strong ties with British politicians in recent years.

Last February, David Cameron, the Tory leader, appointed Eric Schmidt, the company’s chairman, to the Conservatives’ economic recovery committee.

A few months later, Cameron suggested that NHS patient records could in future be maintained by Google.”

Where is it written (graved) within the 10 commandments on the two tablets of granite & stone that Moses brought down from affiliate mountain “thy cookie shalth only be 30 days”.

(Please excuse my lack of knowledge / ignorance on biblical history)

The wrong message is being sent, perhaps from outset even, rather than bending over a barrel & accepting the cookie period terms “any” merchant desires or badly recommended by “any” network, perhaps “all” networks should be actively persuading their merchants (there is no time like the present) to increase cookie periods. Nip it in the bud.

Perhaps 365 days should delineated as standard !

It was warned in an earlier blog entry to be wary of merchants squeezing the cheese from affiliates during a difficult finanacial climate that gradually more & more will try to reduce cookie periods to increase the merchants margins.

Two of the several oldest excuses given are along the lines of :

“These investigations have shown that the majority of transactions occur within 30 days of the original click time (with the vast proportion occurring within 3 days of the click).”

Poppycock … If so insignificant, why bother reducing the cookie period?!

“We have moved their cookie period in line with major competitors in the sector “

Poppycock … Well this doesn’t make the merchant stand out from the crowd, but more just one of the mindless sheep.

Moving Forward:

Perhaps there should be a a concerted campaign of a short period of time, where “all” networks make a real concerted effort, not just a token one, to ask “all” their merchants to consider & action the increase their cookie periods ideally 365 days or more, but at least some decent improvement. Some merchants like Buyagift already have a 9999 day cookie. Even affiliates could at least ask / persuade / educate merchants they deal with.

I think this is one sign which shows good intent from a merchant in how much they value the affiliate channel.

You don’t get unless you ask ! Even if only “two” out of “ten”say YES , that’s still a whopping 20% increase.

Depending on which angle you approach the discussion & the question. What is king? Is content king or is cookie king? As part one of however many I end up blogging about. Let’s look at “The Cookie Is King”, for some this maybe sucking eggs but through our own trial and error over sustained periods of time, this s what has worked for us, in our KISS approach (Keep It Simple Silly).

Can I firstly say, I am not condemning the discussion or subjective opinions of what actually is content, but consider this momentarily, how a ppc ad of less than 100 characters can trigger & yield as many if not more sales than a full page of content.

When you visit various sites displaying products, the most common button you see is “Buy Now”. The problem is with button appearing alone, there is an over assertive (aggressive) assumption as to presuming what stage the customer is during the purchasing journey. This command alone will probably not yield a massively high click through rate, you could argue that conversion is good if your pre-sell as well (just one type of content,  which we will come onto again), but if that person is not ready to buy now, there is more likelihood that the “Buy Now” button is not clicked & thus no cookie dropped, so what’s happened, your content (varying in degree & subjective in discussion & opinion to what is quality or effective) may have the bells & whistles or not, but realistically in most cases your site won’t necessarily be remembered if & when they are ready to purchase.

The next most common button used (though not used often enough) is “More Info”, again it can be suggested that you should only provide the potential customer just a taster of the product, if you provide them with too much information on your web site then there is less likelihood this button is pressed, thus less cookies are dropped. Very often when linking to a merchant web site or better still deep linking to a product, that consumer is presented with more or less the same information … again … the customer is being pre sold to what amounts to the same content twice, why? It’s a shame that still 10 years or so into affiliate marketing, the item cannot be put into the basket on the merchant site on following a link from an affiliate site, surely this could increase conversions.

From our own tests by featuring both a “Buy Now” & “More Info” with less content the click thru rate (CTR) increased, thus so did sales, as it considered different stages of a customers journey. Appraoch this sales technique like a funnel effect, the wide part of the funnel represents a stage where a customer is less committed to purchasing a product.

Some of you are thinking, “hey Moose, your teaching me to suck eggs.” … Fair enough.

By the same token & taking this still further now introduce a “Check Stock” button, the consumer maybe at a stage where they are thinking, “I don’t want to buy quite yet let’s check to see if the item is in stock and I’ll come back later.” The consumer clicks, another cookie is dropped, remembering the consumer is more likely to return to the merchant’s site than your own if returning later, but at least the cookie is dropped & in place.

So far we have “Buy Now”, “More Info”, “Check Stock”. Again experiments have shown the CTR has increased and so have sales, which do you think had the highest conversion rate or yielded the most commission? It might not be that obvious.

However, there is one more option. You know there has been a lot of heated debate, discussion & policies related to voucher code & discount code sites in relation to “click to reveal code & visit merchant site” when there is not a valid code available. Well the last option, stemmed from the aforementioned & considers that it is not necessarily a necessity to display the price of a product. With the adoption of a “Show Price” button, taking the user to relevant merchant page also significantly increases CTR, cookie drops & sales.

With these four buttons : “Buy Now”, “More Info”, “Check Stock”, “Show Price” you are considering different elements of a customers journey. But sometimes users don’t always click on these buttons as they are and you really have to say exactly what is meant to do on the tin, by prefixing these with “Click Here”, thus we have “Click Here to Buy Now”, “Click Here for More Info”, “Click Here to Check If In Stock”, “Click Here to Show Price”.

Long winded you may think, it’s up to you to experiment for yourselves to draw your own conclusions. For us, it has been conclusive that CTR’s have been increased & so have sales by reducing information or content about any particular product simply because more cookies were dropped. It’s also worthwhile split testing with different colour buttons or fonts for each one as well as different placement orders to find the optimum setting for you.

There are several other small improvements which can be appended to this to tweak even more, but this blog entry is getting quite long now, and I’ll save it for another time.

If you can get the right blend of “content” & consideration of the different stages the consumer is on their purchasing journey, you should hopefully yield better commissions.

Until a mechanism is found to reward affiliates at various integral parts of a customers journey (where content could be king), also remembering the recent adoption of voucher code “click to reveal “policies introduced via some networks partly because of the cookie dropping … Unfortunately it’s not an ideal world & for sometime yet Cookie will be King.

Are you exasperated or unimpressed up with the bulk of any merchant information / details  page being filled with telling what you what you CANNOT do? This goes for a good portion of the number of emails sent out too.

Rather than “hey” you CANNOT do this or CANNOT do that, otherwise we’ll castrate you and give you a life long sentence banished to the Badlands from a program for ever, where pillaging & murder often get less stiffer penalties/sentences.

How about, hey did you know you CAN do this & you CAN do that … like a summary of merchants who you can link direct on generic / product terms on paid search, we publish voucher codes or that your sales won’t be deduped against xyz … and these are really our top sellers rather than this is stock we are trying to shift so lets get the affiliates try & shift it. Tell us that you pay on gross value of sale (including delivery) or that your action referral occurence is not set to one (ie the cookie doesn’t burn after the first sale) even a decent merchant write up. Even boast about your EPC or conversion rate being higher than certain merchants (even name the other merchants), tell us your high ticket value items that sell. If tracking goes down, give affiliates a guarantee that they will be remunerated rather than hide under a stone until the affiliate forgets. Isn’t it strange that merchants can reject sales at the tick of a box or the snap of a finger, but affiliates claim remuneration on lost tracking by the same seedy process, where is the parity.

… and so forth.

Personally, on the PPC side I would like a single page on each network telling me who I can direct link to & use the display URL for generic & product related terms. Perusing through just one page is better than trawling through hundreds examining the small print telling me what I CANNOT do or worse still written in lemon juice (used to make invisible ink).

Don’t you see, these will make such better selling points & any program a more appealing & attractive proposition to affiliates rather than intimidating affiliates, if more thought & effort went into mentioning what affiliate CAN do.

You see when you are in the decision making process of selecting which merchants to promote, all this don’t do that & don’t do this or draconian measures simply makes you want to move onto the next program.

Most networks are guilty of this to varying degrees. For example have you ever been bemused when you read all the T&Cs on OMG (Online Media Group) on many of their programs, It is OMG (Oh My God). Rather than scrolling down monotonously, If there ever is a need for pressing the browser back button or that little red sqaure with the white cross on the top right hand side of the browser (the exit). To reiterate same can be said with many other programs & a few other networks.

So remember, tell affiliates what we CAN DO & don’t harp on & scold affiliates on what they CANNOT DO. Imagine new affiliates / fresh blood coming industry reading all this. They are going to think “sod this for a game of soldiers” I am going to find a new vocation earning my 5 stars at MacDonalds, when they don’t realise what they are missing out on, simply because they are scared off or felt intimidated.

Thought For The Day

There are quite a few respected industry peers who regularly attend the IAB AMC, in my own opinion if it is to gain a wider respect in the affiliate community, rather than focus on what affiliates shouldn’t be doing. It should focus more on protecting affiliates in relation to the usual problems we see occuring day in & day out. At the moment I don’t see the IAB AMC as representing any of my personal interests as an affiliate, therefore I don’t recognise it as so, but more in the interests of merchants & agencies, so lets see how it pans out during 2009. I still see the joining fee as an obstacle as there are other network & merchants opinions who I do sit up and listen to.

Remember … Affiliates are the lifeblood of the industry … Simple ! Sometimes that gets lost in translation.

Fancy having voucher code site with less hassle, here is a possibility of a cunning plan which might earn a few pennies. It might not be popular, but not all seem to be playing by the rules and networks maybe not proactive enough in addressing cookie overwriting within certain time frames. So please slap & spank this blog entry to your hearts content, but hopefully you can see through it, by understanding & appreciating the constructive criticism in the underlying message, by reading between the lines & the intended good intent.

• 1. Purchase a domain name with discount & voucher codes in it. Maybe a different name as a few might be cheesed off, though not their jurisdiction.
• 2. Develope a basic style directory adopted by some of current VC/DC sites with merchant logos.
• 3. It will be a voucher code site with no affiliate links, only sponsored listings for a given merchant. If you have the tools you know what they are bidding highly on, if not not brand names & hybrids will suffice.
• 4. Spam meta tag, you only have to do a search on search engine for “brand + voucher code” etc to get an idea.
• 5. Optimise the layout by old keyword style keyword stuffing, this old school tactic still seems to work with some.
• 6. Do hybrid brand bidding (not recommended) and claim ignorance. Do not have brands written in any url properties or strings. Otherwise broad match on generics & analyse the search string on site entry to present the correct merchants.
• 7. Acquire & aggregate as many published codes out there & display, whether direct from sites or free databases. Since it’ll only be an information / resource site. Maybe encourage users to post as they find them.
• 8. Sign up to all other voucher code site newsletters, making it easier to collect codes.
• 9. Collect & harvest email databases.
• 10. Earn via various sponsored link sources, easy to know what merchant bids on, but brand alone will bring in the pennies & with so many merchants converting poorly generally it might just be better than you think.
• 11. Note there are no affiliate links, so no networks are involved & thus out of their jurisdiction.
• 12. No revenue for networks, perhaps they should be doing more but not allowing other affiliate cookies to be overwritten within a certain time frame, or stop merchants de duping against voucher codes.
• 13. Click here to reveal code & visit merchant could be adopted.
• 14. Eats into the margins of competing VC / DC sites and you can still offer a decent service.
• 15. Reduces their margins of competitors so that some might have to look at other options.
• 16. No need to worry about merchants who are starting to exclude voucher code sites in their program t&cs.
• 17. You might initially think the EPC might not be great, but if you know what you are doing this can be increased to more appealing levels.
• 18. There is no jurisdiction for networks to get involved.
• 19. You have a VC / DC site without the network & affiliate hassle. Less merchant hassle.
• 20. If anything it might prevent “content” & “ppc” affiliates cookies being overwritten. PROTECTS THEM ! Unless merchant de-dupes against their own ppc activity and/or if a voucher code is used.

Finally:

Oh .. and … no cookie overwrite issues… no de-duping issues … no tracking issues … no not getting remuneration issues … no unpaid or late invoice issues !!!

“If not enough is being done or quick enough to appease affiliate concerns by networks (in their juggling & balancing act) who still get override, then affected ppc & content affiliates should shoulder the burden, take responsibility themselves by taking matters into their own hands … to protect their own (and other content & ppc affiliate) revenue stream by deflecting traffic to themselves preventing cookie over-write. There is no reason why a good site cannot be produced in the aforementioned way”

Are You Being Duped By De-Duping? Merchants deduping against various channels is probably a bigger issue than affiliates realise, which has never really got the column width on the forum. Some merchants are being naughty.

Yet, hardly anybody comments or notices, and industry wide this has been going on a lot more & longer than all this voucher code malarky. When, on the forum you can create a conversation about “aquamarine coloured widgets” & it ends up being a discussion on voucher code sites & then ultimately MVC … yawn.

I suspected something with a sports merchant recently who likes to post the same thing in about half a dozen sections on the forum, when I noticed their EPC had dropped right down. Once more those suspicions were founded. It reminded me of another merchant who declined sales because that user visited the site sometime in the past (not last click/referrer).

Anyhow I was having a chat with a network representative & this is the summary of the conversation we had.

“ironic that more attention is on voucher code sites when de-duplication transparency may yield a lot more revenue for all.”

Some merchants de-dupe against all channels, i.e. paid search, display, email etc, often this will be done using local cookies so only last referring tracking is shown on confirmation page, other times I am informed “they use 3rd party software like analytics packages (popular ones include Atlas,Coremetrics, Doubleclick ). Some of these have their own ‘rules’ system in place for attributing commission, thus merchants will choose which channels they want to de-dupe affiliates against”

It should not only be strongly recommended, but enforced through industry standardisation, that merchants do not de-dupe against brand PPC for obvious reasons, although which do and which don’t is difficult to establish. Affiliates commissions shouldn’t be de-duped against display advertising akin to de-duping against TV adverts.

If a programme is de-duped at source using local cookies, is it difficult for anyone except the merchant and their tech team to know how it actually works? Again where is the trust & transparency?

On the opposite side of the coin, there are merchants doing no de-duplication at all, could this open Pandora’s Box? Where merchants who don’t de-dupe start implementing policies which could see an overall revenue drop.

“in the interests of making things fair for all parties, so they know where they stand, everyone should be made aware of acceptable de-duplication policies. No nasty surprises for merchants or affiliates.”

Revenue from some merchants will go up and from others will go down, but on the whole significantly up in favour of affiliates. Quite possibly affiliates are losing out against deduping processes, so we need clarity on which programs have undesirable de-duplication policies but likewise there could be other big programmes where no de-duping takes place at all.

For the latter, if done correctly & fairly for affiliates it could free up budget for more affiliate activity.

Merchants who know about this issue in general take full advantage and de-dupe against whatever they can, some will take network advice on this & others do it arbitrarily. However, there’s probably a large amount that know nothing about it and don’t do it at all, this would cover most SMEs and probably a handful of larger merchants.

Are You Being Duped By De-Duping? How should we proceed?

Thoughts for the day:

1. Well done to Affiliate Window for announcing they are going to cover over £35,000 of commissions for the Empire Direct program, a merchant that recently went into administration. I genuinely applaud them. I believe the program is on at least one other network. Will they follow suit? As it has forced their hand slightly. I was also disappointed to see over £3000 worth of unpaid commission sitting on one network, via them being unable to collect commissions from merchants. If there was goodwill & they want me to trust or work with them more, then they should cover this debt themselves, isn’t that what they meant to do? collect payments, trusted 3rd party etc. Mutual goodwill payments would go some way in the affiliate placing more faith in the network.

2. Affiliate Window’s Raffle Bonanza – I didn’t get an opportunity to blog this, but wanted to say I thought that it was a very good promotion, I was a lucky winner with CD WOW, but wanted to say thanks to Affiliate Window & I hope they repeat it. How about an all year round one & more in your face withing the admin area?

3. I’ve been chasing a few merchants & a couple of networks recently for payments, it’s quite surprising how much is sitting out there not collected, worse still not even invoiced & disappointingly merchants stalling. If a network hasn’t chased to an affiliates satisfaction then network should cough up.

4. I am concerned about pending commissions disappearing from reports when a program closes or get automatically declined. Each network should have somewhere within interface where affiliates can easily access.

5. Not enough attention is paid towards tracking, even short durations (deliberate during peak periods & non deliberate). I ‘ll say again, there is a need for trend graphs over a rolling number of clicks, which affiliates can view for a merchant performance network wide. This will parties to more easily identify when tracking may have been down. It’s about transparency.

Again there is lack of transparency on merchant information pages or where commission details are listed, affiliates should be informed if they are being paid commission on the net value of the sale or the gross value of the sale & i.e. Taking a product for £115 at 10% commission. If paid net this is 10% of £100 = £10, Gross it be £11.50. You only need to scale this up to say £100,000 worth or products and you’ll be better of by £1500 (15% or the current rate of vat). Also we need to know if affiliates get paid a % of the delivery cost.

 It’s important to look at whether the commission rate is inclusive or exclusive of VAT as there is still a lack of consistency here, plus if commission is paid on delivery costs. Something which is all part of the decsion making process.

Bug Bear Of The Day :

A few years on I am still disappointed that we are still seeing “Action Referral Occurrence” set to once or “Recurring Events” set to none on several networks & are all networks disclosing? If so are they absolutely sure? Basically this means no matter what cookie length is published after the first sale the cookie crashes & burns. Something I’ll come onto again another time.

We Still Have “No Recurring Events” & “Action Referral Occurrence” Set to Only 1