Moose on the Loose

There are currently 2 responses to “The Worm Has Turned”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On March 30th, 2007, Adam Ross said:

   Programs closing at a moments notice, thus cookie periods are being not being honoured or worse still merchants leaving without paying invoices.

   The 30 day notice period is adhered to except where we know commissions past a period will not be honoured (also see response below).

   The lack of protection for affiliates when a merchant goes out of business. Legally is the network liable for outstanding payments.

   Since we pay affiliates within about 2 weeks of validation it is often before we ourselves have been paid, so we already shoulder this burden. In addition where pending transactions have not been validated due to closure we have recently confirmed and paid the affiliates anyway.

   Prepayment by merchants should be prerequisite if they are serious enough about this industry.

   Again, we act as the financial buffer paying affiliates in advance of our own payment as a sign of commitment and support. We do not claw back from affiliates confirmed validations.

   Some of the merchants terms & conditions would require a skilled solicitor to interpret them. There shouldn’t be any additional legal jargon outside the scope that which is acceptable & generally laid down by the network & the affiliate.

   We have already tried to enforce a limited T&C’s approach from merchants to affiliates. When was the last time anyone read a mobile contract T&C’s? With this in mind it’s no wonder exclusions are overlooked. We want to have T&C’s limited to the key salient points in clear understandable terms. The only issue here is that affiliates can see this as a standardisation of T&C’s with the network acting to restrict affiliates business which is simply not true.

   Affiliates should be allowed to enforce their own T&C’s.

   Obviously merchants may have issue with this unless handled in a way where they can see benefit. As we roll out our affiliate charter (complete with network penalties/affiliate compensation) it will allow us to grade affiliates on specific aspects, like PPC, web content, etc. The grading will then allow us to enforce requirements of our own for these affiliates such as faster payment, pre-approval, pre-launch testing, higher standard CPA’s etc. This is not dressing it up but merely taking a beneficial ‘quid pro quo’ approach.

   When a merchant updates their site, often the first thing to come out is the tracking and “if” remembered is the last thing to be placed back in.

   The key here is to work closer with all merchants anticipating their changes. We’re also educating merchants prior to launch regarding the classic dos and don’ts so they can learn from the mistakes of others. Nothing, however can legislate for those merchants who deliberately want to ignore affiliates and that’s where we would be willing to take a stance regarding compensation or restrictions. In addition, we are looking to implement early warning signals for tracking anomalies so that we can discover any issues before our affiliates do.

   There should be a compulsory remuneration deal written into any merchants contract with the network when tracking goes amiss or when the program closes suddenly.

   This is being looked into for the affiliate charter. Recently we owned up to a tracking issue on the Next programme. We chose to still validate the transactions and pay the commissions ourselves. Aside from the impact of lost override, the commission payout was significant but demonstrated our position not to hide behind bureaucracy.

   Any reduction in commissions, cookie periods, changes in keyword restrictions for pay per click for example should be given with adequate notice of 30 days. None of this immediate notice rubbish. Since they are actually changing the terms of a contract.

   Except where a merchant has been ill informed and feels the existing terms adversely affect the performance of the programme. A classic example is where a merchant has no brand name restrictions and subsequently sees a load of affiliates bidding on the brand keywords to re-direct traffic. Allowing this to continue for 30 days is both counter productive for the life of the programme and reflects badly on those affiliates who drive true incremental traffic.

   Most networks are still stuck in the dark ages of banner creatives, where are the streaming media tv style ads with the tracking embedded or white label product search sites?

   Hopefully, ShopWindow, the new video content (e.g. JML) and inclusive aff ids in programme deeplinks, demonstrates our agreement with the points you raise. It’s the world wide web, it’s meant to be interactive and offer total functionality.

   Some networks still cannot handle product feeds correctly.

   We’ve had some recent issues but this was mainly to the ultimate benefit of affiliates as we can now categorise products using ‘refine by’ features.

   How difficult is it to get a simple logo of the size you want?

   We already request EPS logos for offline branding and a request has been put in to supply these to affiliates for all merchants. This allows you to re-size accordingly.

   As for merchant reviews, we don’t want to read reviews on the network interface on how the merchant think they are the best thing since sliced bread and that we shall all make mega £££’s or $$$’s. How about creating reviews of various lengths written in the third person which project the merchant in a favourable hue without over pitching.

   It’s in a merchant’s nature to try to ‘sell’ itself. With the advent of the new affiliate interface we hope to include affiliate to affiliate reviews on key programmes. Whilst this may be seen as elitist for top affiliates it stops hoards of affiliates joining a programme based on some top reviews.

   If a merchant is late paying an invoice, then the network should pay an interest surcharge whether a fixed fee or form of % interest to the affiliate and to be predetermined by an individual affiliate. If the merchant doesn’t like it then they don’t have to have us as an affiliate. However, if they had every intention of paying affiliates up to date, then this wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. The network can always claim this back from the merchant, or do some already, but don’t pass this on to the affiliate? I do suspect that most networks pay themselves first prior to paying the affiliate.

   As mentioned previously we pay all validated transactions for all merchants regardless of when they pay us. As an aside our merchant contracts include a fixed % penalty fee for late payment as standard.

   Have you noticed that if there is ever a merchant affiliate dispute, 9 times out of 10, the only compromises are those that have to be made by the affiliate.

   In the last 10 disputes cases, AW secured compensation and joint responsibility in 5 cases, 2 of the remainder had liability lie with the merchant alone and the final 3 were affiliate only.

   Why is it that affiliates who tends to notice non tracking first?

   It’s true but they are part of the first line of defence. On a network wide basis, we occasionally suffer from reporting issues but we have built incredibly robust backup systems that ensure we are recording transactions in all circumstances. As mentioned previously, early warning signals for individual programme tracking downtime are currently under development.

   Lack of response to emails, especially if something is wrong.

   An internal CRM system will allow us to identify timelines on response and we’re working on a comprehensive knowledge base for both merchants and affiliates. The affiliate charter will see affiliates who do not get a response within the specified time period receiving some form of reward.

   Lack of communication when they know something is wrong i.e. just hoping they can fix it before anyone notices.

   I know it can appear that way and I can’t say that this isn’t always a concern. But transparency breeds trust and that’s the stance we are taking. Affiliates have to still take the responsibility that networks have priority schedules too and that a polite approach yields more than a sarcastic dig. It’s in our interest to fix things and be seen to be proactive to affiliates needs, it’s counter productive to think we’re in ivory towers drinking champagne with our merchants. (If only J)

   Lack of resolution to problems. Some networks play the waiting game, especially Tradedoubler, doing an ostrich impersonation, by burying their head in the sand. Can you hear the sound of tumbleweed? Then over a period of time more often than not the affiliate loses resolve and the problem disappears unresolved.

   In all forms of communication AW is trying to be a leader taking a stance and driving the industry. Our work over the last 12 months with the external bodies is only just starting to pay off but the industry at large is not always visible. As they say with ‘wealth’ comes ‘responsibility’ and we must tackle industry issues, it’s just painful to always do it in isolation.

   All networks should utilise ticket based system or something similar so that any affiliate communication can be tracked and accountable. This can be extended still further whereby any communications of a priority nature like changes in any terms or conditions are copied on an internal mail system & not just sent out by normal email.

   We have all of these as well as an internal CRM system for logging records.

   I dislike no reply email address, these are filtered by us to go straight in the bin & deleted. It’s impersonal & arrogant.

   Hopefully we don’t do this, we’re keen for affiliates and merchants to have multiple contact details in the event of escalating issues.

   Affiliates should have the option to receive emails from whichever merchants or networks they desire /pertaining to specific programs, not be unduly bombarded.

   We’re already limiting this but can do more. It’s in the pipeline with a new categorisation planned for the affiliate base.

   Some networks still refuse to publish merchant / agency contact details. How’s that for paranoia? How can a synergy develop with this obstacle?

   Agreed, networks need to add value and innovation to remain a core intermediary partner. Guarding details is not a barrier to exit.

2. 2 On March 30th, 2007, Paul said:

   Adam, many thanks for your detailed & honest response. It is very much appreciated & beautifully emboldened too . Just to clarify Adam Ross is the Client Services Director at Affiliate Window.

Leave a Reply