Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldydish  Post a statement on what you believe should be limits to bidding on brands (or part brands with the same inference) and also write any pros and cons you find in brand bidding. |
There is a wide range in the use of brands in affiliate marketing which means that there is not an absolute answer that fits every situation. Each case needs to be looked at to work out what is happening, who benefits and how, and the possible consequences.
PPC brandbidding, merchants display URL, affiliates link, looks like the merchants ad. and/or
PPC brandbidding, merchants display URL, is the merchants own ad.
- this is primarily designed to catch customers who are already so aware of the merchant and ready to buy that they type in the shops URL/part URL in google. The customers intention is to go to the merchant's site so their most likely action is to click on the first instance of the merchants URL they see.
Who benefits if the affiliate does it? It's the lowest hanging fruit for the ppc affiliate. The merchant will pay them commission on a sale that probably came from the merchant's other marketing efforts, other affiliates, word of mouth or repeat custom. Cookies from content affiliates could get overwritten, thereby taking commission from those affiliates.
Who benefits if the merchant does it? Merchants often do this to "protect their brand" It has the same effect on the customer and is usually much cheaper for the merchant than paying affiliate commission on this sale. It won't affect previously referring content affiliates unless the merchant uses this to override affiliate cookies - either by overwriting the affiliate cookie or by using conditional tracking so the network pixel does not display. (this happens, be wary)
Merchants need to work out what is in their best interests. Many bid on their own name (or use their agency to do this) to ensure that they are at the top especially if there are issues with their
SEO listings. Some also prefer to do it themselves so they have more control over the wording of the ads to ensure that it maintains their brand and is not misleading in any way.
Content affiliates weight up the likelihood of their commissions being diverted by a PPC brandbid. This will vary from almost nil for a merchant which tends to convert on the first session to very high on a merchant which tends to covert on a later session especially if their name is difficult to spell.
PPC brandbidding, affiliates/competitors display URL, looks like the affiliates/competitors ad.
- this attempts to divert a customer who is aiming at one site to a different site. Most customers will ignore it (how many people really click on a shopping.com ad)
If the customer does this, they do so knowing that it is not the merchants site they are going to. Many merchants bid on their competitors which many get them a few sales or get them known to customers in that market. It may even have a negative effect on the merchants brand if some customers see it as intrusive. This could be why some merchants forbid affiliates bidding on competitors.
Use of brand names in webpages, domain names, directory/filenames etc.
Unlike PPC, publishing websites that appear in the search engines is not under the affiliate's absolute control. They can try to appear under particular search terms and can often appear under search terms that they never thought of.
Using a merchant's name on a webpage is more like standard advertising. The merchant will want it to be accurate and positive. We always use the merchant's name so the reader knows where we are sending them - particularly on a page where products from several merchants are mentioned. I think this benefits everyone. I find it harder to understand the case for putting
www.merchantname.com.au all over the page as this is designed for
SEO, not the person reading.
Using a merchant's name in the filename makes sense if it is a page about that merchant. On the other end of the spectrum is a domain that is almost the same could be seen as simply trying to profit off the merchants name. Lots of MFA sites do this.
A customer who searches for
www.merchantname.com.au is unlikely to move beyond the merchant's own natural listing (which should always be at the top) down to one of these listings. If anything, they could push negative review pages etc down.
However, a site that targets
www.merchantname.com.au COUPON when the merchant offers no coupons is likely to draw the customer down, and also catch the customer who actively searches just in case there is an online coupon. This can cause the merchant to pay out commission unnecessarily or to the wrong affiliate. It can upset customers who think there is a coupon when there isn't. Posting of valid coupons taken from other sites or the merchants newsletter can skew the merchants marketing statistics and cause the merchant to pay out twice (commission to affiliate + discount to customer)
So there aren't any easy answers.
Perhaps the best way to work it out for an affiliate is to ask themselves...
- Is this providing sales to the merchant that they wouldn't otherwise get? Then do it.
- Does this fit with the merchants branding? Then do it.
- Is this misleading the customer in any way in order to get a cookie set? (Don't advertise "cheap widgets" to get someone to click on a link to an expensive widget shop) Then don't do it.
- Would you be happy to justify this to face-to-face with the merchant? Then do it.
Clarification without attack - brand bidding 
Linear Mode
