23rd September 2007

Void & Rejected Sales on Performance Reports

posted in Affiliate Marketing |
Spread the love

Each network presents their reports in their own individual manner, some are better than others, however one report which generally requires deeper drilling pertains to void or rejected sales & commissions.

I just think that these void / rejected sales should also show in an adjacent column running parallel with the columns for confirmed & pending sales, it would simply allow checking stats a smoother & easier process whereby we can infer these simultaneously at a glance … very much like how Paidonresults do it, where each value whether a confirmed, pending or void/deleted sale is hyerlinked for easier drilling down reports.

This would help easily identify those merchants which appear to have high rejection rates, so you can ascertain whether its the quality of your own traffic or an over zealous merchant pressing the rejection button saying to himself .. “one for you, one for me …. one for you, one for me” or simply that due to stock levels that merchant often has problems with fulfillments of orders or abnormally high return rates compared with other merchants in their sector.

Following which, how easy do networks make it for merchants to reject sales? Shouldn’t affiliates be given a written explanation for each rejected commission, rather than the simpler methods like a drop down box?

A possible solution to the above paragraph, is whereby more merchants should establish a commission structure where rejection rates are taken into consideration (as a side note i don’t think affiliates should have sales rejected if the merchant is out of stock). For example if a merchant offers 10% commission but the product returns / rejected sales rate is 40%, then simply reduce the commission by 40% to say 6%, thus the affiliate doesn’t suffer the disappointment of seeing sales rejected & can calculate their expenditure (ie ppc advertising) more effectively.

Hopefully we might see the introduction of the above in the future.

There is currently one response to “Void & Rejected Sales on Performance Reports”

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 September 24th, 2007, Kevin Edwards said:

    Hi Paul,

    Some merchants do take into account deletion rates into their CPA. This has worked successfully for Travelodge who consistently have a decline % of around 8-9%. We therefore reduced the CPA by 10% (building in a slight margin of error) and validate everything.

    Not only does this provide great transparency but it removes any validation admin function from the management of the campaign, freeing up time to work on more pressing areas of the campaign.

    Having said that this is a bit of a minefield. I can understand why this would be unattractive to some merchants. Those with ‘softer’ actions may be jittery about this as it could be abused if certain affiliates knew all their sales were being validated regardless (I’ve seen this in the past with some affiliates turning in actual valid sales rates of 0% with a validation rate of 100% but because of daily validations it becomes tricky to claw the commission back). Also other advertisers look for the transparency of knowing exactly how much their affiliate business is worth – this is removed when implementing a blanket validation process.

    Often you may find all sales are validated where back end systems can’t cope/be reconciled with a network’s stats easily or sometimes not at all. This is never an ideal situation as we always champion the transparency of affiliate marketing but practical considerations can prevail in order to save everyone involved a huge ongoing headache.

    Essentially then it comes down to the reliability and consistency of the approval rate as well as the ability for a merchant’s back-end technology to provide a workable, automated solution whilst having confidence that rogue affiliates won’t abuse a merchant’s goodwill.

Leave a Reply