Brand Bidding Pt4

[ikonic]

Originally Posted by bcl

So, ikonic, I take your second post to be a retraction of your earlier post that the statement I made was inaccurate.

That is correct. However, that statement I made was also incorrect. They are bidding on 'without surgery' not the domain name which means you statement (below) is also incorrect based on my other posts which cleary indicated what terms I believe they are bidding on. Its 6 of one half dozen of the other (though it is misleading as they aren't bidding on the url)

Originally Posted by bcl

Probably converting very well indeed for the affiliate who is bidding on withoutsurgery.com.au

In regards to the following, you are saying (for the record since that seems to be the flavour of the thread) that you have nothing against BB or using company/brand names in urls on your website(s)?

Originally Posted by bcl

As to the rest of it your analysis, it is quite correct and does not contradict anything that I have said. I have never said it was against Google's t&c.

[bcl]

I'm going to answer this one...

Originally Posted by ikonic

I think the problem here is that you deciding on what constitutes affiliate abuse and you seem to see brand bidding as one, whereas having a web page with the company name in appears to be acceptably fine.

As far as I am concerned, if a merchant wants to allow brandbidding, that is their decision.

However, I also have the right to decide not to promote a merchant if I believe that their decision means that many sales I create for them will not be credited (whether by brandbidding, by faulty tracking, by failure to return from an external shopping cart etc) and I also have the right to tell them why. Jim is trying to stop me telling them for reasons of his own.

I have also had a lot of contact with Australian retail merchants who think they have been abused by these affiliates ppc bidding on their URL. They didn't decide to allow brandbidding - either nobody ever told them that it could happen, or the affiliate has copied their advert and duplicated it exactly. I have even had a case where a merchant knocked an offending affiliate off their program and the google ad which looked like it was theirs, with their landing page, redirected to a competing merchant's website. They come to me because they can't find the answers elsewhere. These people are not ppc experts or affiliate marketing experts, they are retailers trying to build real world businesses and risking a lot more that the PPC affiliate who bids on their URL. The actions of the PPC brandbidders, and many coupon sites, makes no sense to anyone if they don't understand the mechanics of how affiliate marketing works. Jim claims that it is wrong for me to explain to them how all this works, and how they can manage their affiliate programs if they want to stop it.

Originally Posted by ikonic

So, let me ask you this, what happens when then webpage ranks higher then the merchants, should we simply ban all AM from using company or product names in their URL's since the implied effect is identical to brand bidding? I don't think so.

If a merchants site is not top of the list for their name, they need a new web developer.
The big difference is that the natural listings show quite clearly the affiliate's URL, and the PPC ad shows the merchants URL.

[bcl]

Originally Posted by ikonic

That is correct. However, that statement I made was also incorrect. They are bidding on 'without surgery' not the domain name which means you statement (below) is also incorrect based on my other posts which cleary indicated what terms I believe they are bidding on. Its 6 of one half dozen of the other (though it is misleading as they aren't bidding on the url)

Ok - if we're going to split hairs, they are bidding so that they appear when the URL is typed in - which is why a lot of experienced merchants with names made from generic terms state in their terms and conditions that affiliates must negatively match the URL and other selected keywords so they don't appear then the URL is typed in.

Originally Posted by ikonic

In regards to the following, you are saying (for the record since that seems to be the flavour of the thread) that you have nothing against BB or using company/brand names in urls on your website(s)?

I think we did this in another thread.

There is nothing wrong with and affiliate PPC brandbidding if the merchant knowingly allows it . There is also nothing wrong with any affiliate refusing to promote a merchant because they allow it.

re websites and SEO

There is nothing wrong with mentioning a merchant's name on the page, or making the filename merchantname.htm if the page is about that merchant. It is quite clear to the casual google user that www.affiliatesite.com.au/merchantname.htm is a page about a merchant on that affiliate's site. I wouldn't call this brandbidding - Jim is the first one I've know to start calling it brandbidding. A more accurate term could be SEO targetting - depending on the extent.

However, I do think it is wrong to do it in a misleading way - eg
"merchant name DISCOUNT COUPON SALES" etc if there is no authorised coupon.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by bcl

Jim is trying to stop me telling them for reasons of his own.

Originally Posted by bcl

Jim claims that it is wrong for me to explain to them how all this works, and how they can manage their affiliate programs if they want to stop it.

Clever answers as always but simply not true.

I consistently ask you to go direct to the merchants to tell them what you think instead of incessantly applying the broken-record-technique here.

ClixgaloreTutor.com has plenty of information to assist a merchant to choose a set of Terms and Conditions that suit their business, (not yours).

As you are neither a merchant nor a PPC bidder, it is none of your business. Oh, except that a PPC brandbid competes with your organic search brandbid.

[bcl]

Originally Posted by newbie

Clever answers as always but simply not true.

I consistently ask you to go direct to the merchants to tell them what you think instead of incessantly applying the broken-record-technique here.

ClixgaloreTutor.com has plenty of information to assist a merchant to choose a set of Terms and Conditions that suit their business, (not yours).

As you are not a merchant and not a PPC bidder it is none of your business. Oh, except that a PPC brandbid competes with your organic search brandbid.

Jim, as far as I am concerned, unauthorised PPC brandbidding and similar practices are industry-wide issues, not tied to one particular network. It's just you and firefly that are trying to make it a personal issue.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by bcl

Jim, as far as I am concerned, unauthorised PPC brandbidding and similar practices are industry-wide issues, not tied to one particular network. It's just you and firefly that are trying to make it a personal issue.

It is not personal. I was just pointing out that what you said was not true.

For the 99th time but with just as much enthusiasm as the first time:

Re: "Unauthorised PPC brandbidding" - This is nothing more than an administrative issue.

For ANY breach of a merchant's terms and conditions, (not just brandbidding), all responsible affiliates notify the network and can observe the offending affiliate's removal from the program almost immediately. All it takes is an email.

It is certainly not worth the fuss that you are trying to make out of it.

Re: "similar practices are industry-wide issues" -- Similar practices? There are no similar practices, that was just another clever smear perpetrated on the industry you are privileged to participate in.

[bcl]

Originally Posted by newbie

Re: "similar practices are industry-wide issues" -- Similar practices? There are no similar practices, that was just another clever smear perpetrated on the industry you are privileged to participate in.

Similar practices are all those designed to get commission for sales without doing anything to generate those sales. They include adware, unauthorised ppc brandbidding, cookie stuffing, fake coupon sites.

Affiliate marketing is an excellent business model and the ideal method for a lot of online marketing. That doesn't mean that we can't admit that there are some traps for the unwary, or that while 99% of affiliates are hardworking and honest, a small minority may not be, or for that matter that while 99% of merchants are hardworking and honest, a small minority may not be. You didn't have any qualms about claiming that most independent programs don't pay out in another thread. The majority of my income has always come from independent programs - and they do pay out.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by bcl

Similar practices are all those designed to get commission for sales without doing anything to generate those sales. They include adware, unauthorised ppc brandbidding, cookie stuffing, fake coupon sites.

Affiliate marketing is an excellent business model and the ideal method for a lot of online marketing. That doesn't mean that we can't admit that there are some traps for the unwary, or that while 99% of affiliates are hardworking and honest, a small minority may not be, or for that matter that while 99% of merchants are hardworking and honest, a small minority may not be. You didn't have any qualms about claiming that most independent programs don't pay out in another thread. The majority of my income has always come from independent programs - and they do pay out.

Yeah, right.

[ikonic]

Originally Posted by newbie

As you are neither a merchant nor a PPC bidder, it is none of your business. Oh, except that a PPC brandbid competes with your organic search brandbid.

Aha - I wish this statement had of been at the top of last 3 PPC BB threads.

Eitherway, now I've got more involved in the discussion (and I am glad I did) I have to say I do agree with Jim on this one. You can't say SEO brand targeting using a url within a domain not controlled by the merchant is fine but PPC brandbidding isn't when the merchant isn't aware of the implications.

Lets face it. If you are targetting merchants name/brand or trademark in your URL's then the result is almost identical to that of a PPC BB (assuming we aren't talking about stealing LP etc) in that you are trying to make money off another brand's good will (regardless of you SER).

However, given that you don't participate in marketplace as either a merchant or a PPC BB you appear to have a very strong vested interest in the subject.

Quite possibly (as I have already stated) it could be seen that you are trying to portray PPC BB as a bad thing in public forums (rather then going directly to the merchant) in order to get more merchants to drop allowances for these types of programs... which in effect makes your job easier to capitalise on branded urls on your site.

Eitherway, I don't see a suitable resolution or agreement coming from this thread.

EDIT:
Before I actually posted this. I received a pm from BCL explaining her position further and I thank her for this.

However (and this is where my problems lies) both BCL and Jim appear to both have the same thoughts on the subject with the difference between to 2 coming down on how to manage and report this. As an example, BCL posted into the thread for without surgery (and we need to be careful with this term else we will rank #1 ) immediately pointing out someone was making money of targetting the URL rather then contacting the merchant directly to discuss. Therefore, this presents AM in a negative light for any new users or merchants that visited the site and never bothered to recheck the thread where the merchant said they didn't have a problem with it.


****
Note: I am happy to keep discussing the subject along we keep it above board.

[bcl]

Originally Posted by ikonic

Aha - I wish this statement had of been at the top of last 3 PPC BB threads.

Eitherway, now I've got more involved in the discussion (and I am glad I did) I have to say I do agree with Jim on this one. You can't say SEO brand targeting using a url within a domain not controlled by the merchant is fine but PPC brandbidding isn't when the merchant isn't aware of the implications.

I think merchants should be aware of all the implications, and pros and cons of all aspects of affiliate marketing, just as they would with other marketing or distribution of their products. Get a group of experienced merchants together and you'll hear them talk about the processes they go through to decide whether something is a good idea or not - to discount or not, included, free or calculated delivery, etc. I think the problem arises with the "don't ask questions, just trust us" and "no risk" line. There is always risk for merchants and affiliates - it's a matter of having sufficient information and weighing up the risks.

Originally Posted by ikonic

Lets face it. If you are targetting merchants name/brand or trademark in your URL's then the result is almost identical to that of a PPC BB (assuming we aren't talking about stealing LP etc) in that you are trying to make money off another brand's good will (regardless of you SER).

I think this is partly from one of Jim's claims about how people find our sites and the merchant promotions within them. He's trawled through the search engines looking for places where BCL ranks high in the SERPS and claims it means something. Now I have access to my stats, and my merchants know which of my sites and pages the traffic and sales come from and it is not those pages that Jim found in the SERPS. If targetting brand names with SEO (without shouting COUPON) was what got sales, Jim would be a much more successful affiliate that I am.

You are right about a brand's good will and it works both ways - assuming that your affiliate website has some credibility which ours does.

Jim must acknowledge this can happen because he puts "Outstanding enquiries: 0
(www.dicksmith.com.au has no outstanding enquiries or issues currently lodged with ShopSafe against all the merchant pages on his site)

Originally Posted by ikonic

However, given that you don't participate in marketplace as either a merchant or a PPC BB you appear to have a very strong vested interest in the subject.

I do have a very strong vested interest and have never denied it. Every affiliate has a vested interest in getting paid for their traffic.

It is in my interests to get paid commission accurately when I create a sale for a merchant. It is against my interest if that commission is diverted or fails to track. Between those is the case where a customer genuinely shopping around who clicks on a later affiliate cookie and that is just swings and roundabouts. I have never minded sharing the space with other affililates - indeed a lot of good quality affiliates is more likely to make affiliate marketing attractive to merchants.

Because all the promotion I do is long term, it is against my interests if I spend time and money building up promotion for a new merchant only to have them close the program abruptly because somebody else has upset them.

And when I drop a merchant who does appear to convert, only to have them phone and beg to go back on my sites because their sales stop when we drop them, I begin to wonder who is getting my commission.

This has always been the case. It was only when it reached crisis point that I made the change and set up OEPL. Yet here we have Jim and firefly trying to make out my vested interest is in getting merchants to move to my platform. It would have been far easier and cheaper for me if the affiliate network space was cleaned up.

Originally Posted by ikonic

Quite possibly (as I have already stated) it could be seen that you are trying to portray PPC BB as a bad thing in public forums (rather then going directly to the merchant) in order to get more merchants to drop allowances for these types of programs... which in effect makes your job easier to capitalise on branded urls on your site.

See above - that's not how I make sales, nor how I try to make sales. Jim may not know any other way to get traffic but I do.

Originally Posted by ikonic

Eitherway, I don't see a suitable resolution or agreement coming from this thread.

EDIT:
Before I actually posted this. I received a pm from BCL explaining her position further and I thank her for this.

I agree. There will be no resolution. But there may be increased understanding.

Originally Posted by ikonic

However (and this is where my problems lies) both BCL and Jim appear to both have the same thoughts on the subject with the difference between to 2 coming down on how to manage and report this. As an example, BCL posted into the thread for without surgery (and we need to be careful with this term else we will rank #1 ) immediately pointing out someone was making money of targetting the URL rather then contacting the merchant directly to discuss. Therefore, this presents AM in a negative light for any new users or merchants that visited the site and never bothered to recheck the thread where the merchant said they didn't have a problem with it.

re reporting.
My first reaction is always to go to the network. All networks have had tips from me when an affiliate is up to something. The difference came when one particular network made it clear that they had no intention of doing anything about it.

My next reaction is to go to the merchants. Jim has attacked me many times for doing this, claiming it was some sort of FUD campaign. There is ample evidence of this on the board. Merchants then started getting phone calls and emails trying to insinuate that I was being misleading. Strangely most merchants have taken up my suggestions re managing their programs and none have complained that they think I have misled them.

So knowing all this was going on in the background, why not get it out there in the open on the forum to give merchants somewhere they can go to get a variety of viewpoints and make their own decisions. It's also a good opportunity for newer affiliates who are trying to learn how everything works, what they should look for in a program, what all those convoluted terms and conditions mean and why merchants write them. Overall the forum should present a good opportunity for discussions about these complex questions from a variety of viewpoints.

Originally Posted by ikonic

****
Note: I am happy to keep discussing the subject along we keep it above board.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by bcl

Jim must acknowledge this can happen because he puts "Outstanding enquiries: 0
(www.dicksmith.com.au has no outstanding enquiries or issues currently lodged with ShopSafe against all the merchant pages on his site)

I know that site, and yet again, your statement is simply not true.

There are two merchants with currently-posted issues. The reason there are not more is because they disappear if issues are not quickly resolved.

Let's stop attacking non-players. If we really have to talk about websites I have a list of 30 or 40 sites here.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by bcl

My next reaction is to go to the merchants. Jim has attacked me many times for doing this, claiming it was some sort of FUD campaign. There is ample evidence of this on the board. Merchants then started getting phone calls and emails trying to insinuate that I was being misleading. Strangely most merchants have taken up my suggestions re managing their programs and none have complained that they think I have misled them.

So knowing all this was going on in the background, why not get it out there in the open on the forum to give merchants somewhere they can go to get a variety of viewpoints and make their own decisions. It's also a good opportunity for newer affiliates who are trying to learn how everything works, what they should look for in a program, what all those convoluted terms and conditions mean and why merchants write them. Overall the forum should present a good opportunity for discussions about these complex questions from a variety of viewpoints.

Again, all of this is quite simply not true.

There is not a merchant in the whole of Australia who can say I have called them on this issue but I can name any number of category leaders who have called me for my take on the vapour coming from your offices.

Since, in your own words above, you have already "gone to the merchants", ("My next reaction is to go to the merchants."), what is the point of coming on these boards to add your viewpoint when you have already passed on your viewpoint direct to the merchants?

(from above - "why not get it out there in the open on the forum to give merchants somewhere they can go to get a variety of viewpoints")

What is there to "get out in the open" that you have not already conveyed in person?

Notwithstanding, I am quietly confident that the worm has inexorably turned back onto the course which produces the best long-term outcome for most of our merchants. I admit there a still a couple suffering from "headless-chook-syndrome".

Why not give it up? All this wasted effort seems crazy to me. Wouldn't your time be better-employed trying to win back some of your lost traffic?

Have you figured out where it went yet?

[newbie]

Originally Posted by bcl

My first reaction is always to go to the network. All networks have had tips from me when an affiliate is up to something. The difference came when one particular network made it clear that they had no intention of doing anything about it.

This makes it sound like the network would not be "doing anything about it" when the "it" refers to something that was bad.

I am wildly guessing you are referring to May last year when you tried to convince me that your plan was not crazy. My view both then and now is that the network was perfectly correct to tell you to take a running jump.

You wanted the network to stop PPC brandbidding in all cases regardless of whether the merchant wanted affiliates to PPC brandbid for them or not. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

[bcl]

Originally Posted by newbie

I know that site, and yet again, your statement is simply not true.

There are two merchants with currently-posted issues. The reason there are not more is because they disappear if issues are not quickly resolved.

Let's stop attacking non-players. If we really have to talk about websites I have a list of 30 or 40 sites here.

The point was the credibility can flow both ways - people may trust an affiliate site because of the advertisers they see there - they might also trust the advertisers if they see them on a site.

So some people trust shops more because they are on BCL and presumably they may also trust shops on shopsafe more in the same way - at least that is the impression I get from what you say on the site as in the quoted example.

So what is simply not true?
And what non-players are being attacked?

[bcl]

Originally Posted by newbie

This makes it sound like the network would not be "doing anything about it" when the "it" refers to something that was bad.

What I asked the network to do was to provide the customer support that merchants were asking for because I did not see why I should be providing it. When a merchant tells me that they can't find out from the network which affiliate is behind an affiliate ad and asks for my help, that raises concerns. And that's if they got their phone calls or emails answered.

I was also referring to many months before May (you are not the centre of the world, nor are you party to every conversation). You were brought into an email conversation much later by the network - presumably in the mistaken believe that your wild rants would convince/intimidate me. And this was all before I decided I'd had enough and set up my own tracking.

And if you bother reading my post carefully I didn't say that you were phoning and emailing - although the person that did was singing exactly the same tune - presumably your mate firefly.