Our Hippocratic Oath & Brand Bidding

[newbie]

Originally Posted by bcl

I'm not worried because I know you are barking... up the wrong tree.

But I am intrigued about what it is you are doing. Are we to see an army of affiliate sites (Jim's wider operational base?) seo targetting babyexpress? Sorry Steve and Victoria, no extra sales, just a shuffle between Jim's army of affiliates.

Why would they have anything to do with me? These are all existing and credible affiliates. I am just pointing out what is under their noses.

[bcl]

Originally Posted by newbie

Why would they have anything to do with me?

Good question.

Originally Posted by newbie

These are all existing and credible affiliates.

makes it an even better question

Originally Posted by newbie

I am just pointing out what is under their noses.

Jim, I have had affiliates examining and dissecting our sites for years. If your group are existing and credible affiliates, I don't think there is anything you can tell them that they don't already know.

Let's get this straight. The way you are going to prove that I seo brandbid to make sales is to get lots of other affiliates to seo brandbid and push me down in the listings and then you think I'll have a resulting drop in sales. Definitely barking up the wrong tree.

I think the only effect my sites appearing in the seo listings for merchants' names is to annoy you.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by bcl

Good question.

makes it an even better question

Jim, I have had affiliates examining and dissecting our sites for years. If your group are existing and credible affiliates, I don't think there is anything you can tell them that they don't already know.

Let's get this straight. The way you are going to prove that I seo brandbid to make sales is to get lots of other affiliates to seo brandbid and push me down in the listings and then you think I'll have a resulting drop in sales. Definitely barking up the wrong tree.

I think the only effect my sites appearing in the seo listings for merchants' names is to annoy you.

Logic Gayle.

I already know that answer but you are making so much noise about it you might as well put a signpost up for everybody else.

If the organic search brandbid was not so valuable to you, then you would not be making such a long-term, high-voltage fuss about PPC brandbidders taking some of it away from you.

I thought you would have realised that by now.

It was a stupid plan, stupid then, stupid now, and getting more ridiculous every day. Give it up.

[fintan]

Originally Posted by firefly

I can see from the previous posts and remarks made in this forum that there are many varied and wide opinions held re 'brand bidding'.
Would participants in this debate care to briefly define what they understand 'ethical' to mean.

• If the merchant allows brand bidding and you have a contract with them its ethical.
• If they diss-allow brand bidding and you do its unethical and breach of contract.
• If a merchant doesn't know what brand bidding is (and has nothing in their T&Cs that dissalow it) and you brand bid, your in a grey area and personally I'd err on the side of caution and say its unethical.(this really depends on the nature of the merchant and nature of relationship, the merchant does have to take some responsibility).

Second question to ask, what determines ethical behaviour from a merchant?
Common issues include:
Tracking not being 100%
Cookie duration
Payment delays
Retrospectively changing T&Cs

[bcl]

Originally Posted by fintan

Second question to ask, what determines ethical behaviour from a merchant?
Common issues include:
Tracking not being 100%
Cookie duration
Payment delays
Retrospectively changing T&Cs

Good questions.

Tracking not being 100%

Monitoring tracking is a constant chore and we often do test purchases - which is easier at some shops than others .

I often find tracking is removed during site upgrades and testing and they forget to put it back. Almost always unintentional but some merchants need to learn that it is their responsibility to check tracking and that they should notice if there don't appear to have been any affiliate sales for 2 months - because the tracking is missing. Although, maybe networks should pick this up too because they get access to all stats, not just one affiliate's.

I did find one merchant once who hard-coded a small amount into his code - and there was no product on his site for that amount. When given the chance to fix it, he didn't. That's one merchant who'll never get the benefit of the doubt again.

External payment systems are often a problem if they don't automatically return too.

Cookie duration
I insist on repeat sales - especially for the customers who do a small purchase to test the shop and then a bigger one.

Payment delays
Interesting one - not sure if you mean delayed as in not paying on the agreed schedule, or paying x months after the sale.
Travel usually pays after the booking/tour etc which I can understand because the affiliate can be long gone when the booking is cancelled.
Long payment terms is also supposed to be an effective methods of combatting affiliate fraud.
Not paying on the agreed schedule can make you worry that they are having cashflow problems so you keep a close check on how much they owe you

Retrospectively changing T&Cs
This is a hard one. Merchants might claim that they had no idea an affiliate might do "x" and that it's totally out of order so they want to change t&c immediately and retrospectively. Affiliates would counterclaim that they've invested time/money doing something that either they've been told they can do, or not told they can't do.
Perhaps it comes down to avoiding the situations that encourage this - if a merchant doesn't like what an affiliate is doing, or appears to be doing, they should ask for, and get, clarification. If an affiliate thinks what they are doing is something the merchant might object to, or not understand, they could ask the merchant before they do it. (I do that if there is ever any doubt)

Having said all that, there are a few merchants, just as there are a few affiliates, who will do anything they can get away with and spoil it for everyone else.

So we end up with the same spectrum - clearly unethical, clearly ethical with a whole lot of grey in between, a lots of misunderstandings.

[newbie]

Originally Posted by fintan

If a merchant doesn't know what brand bidding is (and has nothing in their T&Cs that dissalow it) and you brand bid, your in a grey area and personally I'd err on the side of caution and say its unethical.(this really depends on the nature of the merchant and nature of relationship, the merchant does have to take some responsibility).

Originally Posted by bcl

So we end up with the same spectrum - clearly unethical, clearly ethical with a whole lot of grey in between, a lots of misunderstandings.

Grey seems to be a favourite colour but you have both lost the plot.

This is black and white, either right or wrong.

Discussion of "grey areas" and "ethics" only makes a simple issue unnecessarily complicated. This is really basic stuff.

• Merchants choose a policy that is in THEIR best interest, not the affiliate's.
  
• Affiliates adhere to that policy or lose access.
  
• The merchant's policy is policed by the networks assisted by responsible affiliates.
  
• There, not so difficult to understand after all, is it?

[fintan]

Originally Posted by newbie

Grey seems to be a favourite colour but you have both lost the plot.

This is black and white, either right or wrong.

Discussion of "grey areas" and "ethics" only makes a simple issue unnecessarily complicated. This is really basic stuff.

• Merchants choose a policy that is in THEIR best interest, not the affiliate's.
• Affiliates adhere to that policy or lose access.
• The merchant's policy is policed by the networks assisted by responsible affiliates.
• There, not so difficult to understand after all, is it?

There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. In my example I mentioned a merchant who didnt know what brand bidding was (I've seen it on a few inhouse networks), once they learn what it is they realise they should have added it to their T&C's at the beginning.

As it wasnt in the T&C's any affiliate who was brand bidding was abiding by the letter of the law. Which to me is a grey area.

However, if the affiliate had asked the merchant is brand bidding allowed (as there is no mention either way in the T&C's) and they say oops, no it isnt. Then that to me is in the spirit of the law and the better way to behave.

I wish everything in the world was black and white as it would make life a lot easier

[fintan]

Originally Posted by bcl

So we end up with the same spectrum - clearly unethical, clearly ethical with a whole lot of grey in between, a lots of misunderstandings.

<braces self for backlash from newbie/>
Totally agree
<runs away/>

[newbie]

Originally Posted by fintan

<braces self for backlash from newbie/>
Totally agree
<runs away/>

I have a lot of mates in Ireland. You can run but you can't hide.

[fintan]

Originally Posted by newbie

I have a lot of mates in Ireland. You can run but you can't hide.

That better be the postman who has just knocked on my door

[bcl]

Originally Posted by fintan

However, if the affiliate had asked the merchant is brand bidding allowed (as there is no mention either way in the T&C's) and they say oops, no it isnt. Then that to me is in the spirit of the law and the better way to behave.

In the spirit of the law is also the way to build good long-term businesses and goodwill - in both directions. Merchants tend to expect affiliates to act in the spirit of fair trading obeying the same sort of written and unwritten rules that (most) businesses do in the real world. They don't expect people to game the system for what they can get, just because someone hasn't told them not to, or just because they will get away with it. It can come as quite a shock when they realise.

Likewise, affiliates expect merchants to pay commissions fairly. If you both treat each other well and with respect, there are lots of tangible and intangible benefits for both.

[fintan]

Originally Posted by Crow

Your a gentleman with a good mind Fintan but in Australian forums people shoot the messanger!

Crow

Well I must be practically native as the guy dressed as a "postman" got it right between the eyes he said he knew nothing about this site, however, I could tell he was lying.

I need to go bury a body
Talk later
Fintan

[newbie]

Originally Posted by fintan

There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. In my example I mentioned a merchant who didnt know what brand bidding was (I've seen it on a few inhouse networks), once they learn what it is they realise they should have added it to their T&C's at the beginning.

As it wasnt in the T&C's any affiliate who was brand bidding was abiding by the letter of the law. Which to me is a grey area.

However, if the affiliate had asked the merchant is brand bidding allowed (as there is no mention either way in the T&C's) and they say oops, no it isnt. Then that to me is in the spirit of the law and the better way to behave.

I wish everything in the world was black and white as it would make life a lot easier

Fintan, mate, your "example" pre-supposes that brandbidding is a bad thing when for almost every other entity on the planet, it is a good thing which produces positive outcomes.

You may think it is not, and you are entitled your opinion, but if you take the time to think about it, other people might have the opinion that yours is badly-thought-out, and simply missing the big picture.

Before you get apoplectic, remember who you are talking to. We have as much to lose as anyone from PPC brandbidders. We certainly have more to lose than BCL. On just one of our sites, we carry more than double the amount of traffic that BCL can muster up from everywhere. Check it out.

Surely that must make you realise that we categorically believe our own message.

It is not a paradox, we just believe that our merchants deserve the best outcome they can get from us. If that means we ourselves earn a little less, it is no big deal. We do not have to extract the last drop of blood.

[fintan]

Originally Posted by newbie

Fintan, mate, your "example" pre-supposes that brandbidding is a bad thing when for almost every other entity on the planet, it is a good thing which produces positive outcomes.

I never said that, most merchants I've talked when they first learn about brand bidding dont like it. However, a lot of them do eventually come around.

Personally I believe brand bidding has its uses for merchants, affiliates and merchant competitors. However, I blame google for relaxing the rules and creating a mess

[bcl]

Originally Posted by fintan

I never said that, most merchants I've talked when they first learn about brand bidding dont like it. However, a lot of them do eventually come around.

Personally I believe brand bidding has its uses for merchants, affiliates and merchant competitors. However, I blame google for relaxing the rules and creating a mess

Maybe it's time to look at definitions again and separate the vastly different practices that have been put under the umbrella of brand-bidding in these threads, and also add the difference between controlled, accountable brandbidding appropriate to the merchant and situation and a free-for-all on a novice merchant.