Affiliate Marketing Blog: Another Look At Brand Name Bidding

Saturday, 20 October 2007

Another Look At Brand Name Bidding

I've been inspired by Jamie Harwood's (UK Web Media) comments in this week's NMA in the feature about affiliate marketing to go over some posts by Paul and Fraser.

My understanding is that they're saying that there is "corruption" in the affiliate market place regarding the allowing of certain affiliates to brand name bid, whilst others are refused or nor even offered.

Personally, I don't think "corruption" may be the right word. But it may in fact be totally accurate - it all depends how these affiliates are chosen.

From what I see, there's no "quality score" in the sense of Google's score for ranking ppc adverts based on both earnings and quality of creative. It appears to me that most networks and merchents are lazy. They can't be bothered to look at other affiliates as they'll go down the safe route and offer the opportunities to others.

Jamie said when asked "What are the issues surrounding brand bidding, when affiliates target specific keywords?" His response was:

You have brands bidding to get to the enough CPA to drive your generic sales, which seems a bit back to front at times. The other aspect is brand protection. You have your long-term keywords. Put your brand there with paid search, then you get a couple of other affiliates to control the space.

It's about everyone working together rather than the search company saying, "We don't want any more because our prices have gone up." It's about control in the group and not letting affiliates fight between themselves for the top spot.

This comment is so annoying. It's like saying "we're doing it for your good" but then not making it clear that you're only saying this to cream off vast commissions for simply bidding on brands. There's no seriously hard-work. All you've got to do is get on the right side of the networks (somehow) and make those easy sales.

If it was for the benefit of the merchant then why not have a not-for-profit organisation brought in by merchants to take up the slack? They could report back their costs and will be paid back at cost.

It's like an old communist system where only certain people are allowed to manufacture vodka and you cream off the massive profits.

The problem is that these affiliates in entrenched positions making huge profits don't want competition. They don't want others with better bidding or cpa-marketing strategies to come in and take "their commissions".

This sort of "corruption" is hindering other affiliates from growing their business, it's preventing merchant risk from being diversified and breading contempt with affiliates with certain networks who are just seen as "brand bidding networks" that offer no real value to the affiliate market or community.

There's so much money to be made by networks and 2,3,4 affiliates from brand bidding because these certain networks and brand-bidding affiliates spiel so much crap that the merhcants can't see the truth!

It's all because some networks don't want to take risks these days - but they expect ordinary affiliates to take risks everytime they start a new ppc campaign or affiliate site. Some networks should stop being so bloody lazy and think of the longevity and reputation of the industry.

So how much will it cost me to be an approved brand-bidder? What do I have to do? Do I need by some knee pads and mints? Or is it all above board, open and fair?

In Jaime's case he's said on Frasers's blog:

"I would also like to make it quite clear that I have never paid or given a back-hander and never would! I work hard trying to show this industry in a positive and professional light, and think that it is essential for the future of affiliate marketing that we all keep as “clean” as possible"

I have to take him on his word!

p.s. some day I'm going to learn to proof-read before I publish!

19 Comments:

At 20 October 2007 at 10:49 , Anonymous said...: Excellent op. You are real mccoy Lee. Theres more than enough corruption in this industry, but its not talked about as most people don't have the vaguest idea what's going on. A few (not all, not even the majority of) account managers on the networks are v. much in the pockets of certain massive paid search affiliate companies making millions by locking everyone out. Go to the offices of tradedoubler and whose freebies do you see lying around?

They say about buyat that four Paid Search companies do practically all their brand name bidding for them. Buyat is sadly the network most closely associated with these Closed Groups, closely followed by dgm. Those 'in the know' are aware of it and talk about it, but the relationship between certain account managers and certain ppc companies is too cosy for anything to be done to shatter these cartels. Even the RFP processes are, lets say for the sake of politeness, 'heavily skewed' - just investigate who wins them.

The sickening thing is that I've seen evidence time and time again that these ppc companies, for all their shiny words, mainly just sit on brand if they are allowed to get away with it. The hypocricy is what gets to me. All their talk about benefiting their client and the industry is complete rubbish.

These guys have made millions from affiliate marketing yet haven't even been bothered to make a couple of websites.

Disclaimer -- not talking about any specific ppc companies including ones written about in nma.
At 20 October 2007 at 13:55 , Anonymous said...: An interesting post and comment too.

I've thought a lot about these things and unfortunately it's probably unlikely ever to change - perhaps never unless anyone can legally prove that there is a restrictive practice in place.

PPC once upon a time was like the gold rush... every man for himself and riches struck in plenty of places. Now it's organised, structured and that leaves the haves and have nots.

Unfortunately there's a situation now where say Affiliate A and Affiliate B want to be part of the PPC club for Merchant X - A has a £1000 budget, but B has £100,000 - it stands to reason that B is chosen (based on all other factors are the same).

How 'B' made their ££'s is neither here nor there... so that leaves 'A' sat with cash waiting for the next opportunity!

Is it "fair" or is it "business"? 'A' would say it's not fair, 'B' would say it's business!

Imo though all networks should maintain impartiality when dealing with affiliates... and senior management at networks should make sure that it's enforced. Perhaps after RFP's have been submitted and offered, there should be a public explanation of who's been chosen and why... I doubt any network would be that keen to offer such transparency though.

Perhaps the only way forward is for affiliates, such as yourself Lee, Paul, Fraser etc to start actively educating and opening the eyes of merchants to the affiliate riches and capabilities that they often aren't guided towards... and networks should seriously consider making themselves more accessible and transparent in 'closed group' area... if only to dispel the issues that surround it's current shrouded nature.

Jason
At 20 October 2007 at 17:32 , Anonymous said...: Another powerful article by yourself, it's good to see someone else take up the reins on this subject & have duly backed your blog like so many you have written.

Realistically the only solution around this is fight fire with fire, rather than the diplomatic channels which are now fairly exhausted & documented.

All it takes is a few good guys to group together & bypass the network. However these so called original closed groups have already made their fortunes (and still are) allowing them to plough into more adventurous projects, while some are still milking the same cow whilst it is still fat.

We are not talking hundreds of pounds but thousands of pounds here, & in some instances millions's of £'s.

I never forget when one high profile network representative said to me about another high profile closed group affiliate, that he/she was there to build the others business & that the situation wouldn't change. Which can be interpreted by one as what is deemed appropriate.

A significant income of of a couple of networks have been fairly dependent on the over-ride via closed groups, being if not top then amongst their top performing programs, because of brand bidding not generic alongside it.

Did you notice when the question was politely asked on the forum, the wording of which was agreed between the moderators, how a few networks shirked from responding with the actual answers or come forward with some well spun reply.

For the record I am in a couple of closed groups generating insigifcant income via landing pages & a couple where I have had permission to use the display url, one decent (via landing page) one I relinquished openly on the forum, but the post was censored because of a complaint by the network.

I have had what I preceive as so called occasional silencing offers on low value closed group bidding which I have refused, what they were I couldn't remember off the top of my head, because I have been dis-interested.
At 20 October 2007 at 19:02 , Anonymous said...: What we are witnessing nowadays is what I call the paving over of cracks. Whereby simply once knowing a few of the closed group programs, you could easily establish if whether by direct linking or landing pages whether the affiliate was putting any concerted effort into hybrid terms, product related terms or generics. Product related terms as anyone is aware are very easy to build keyword lists for, yet some of these favoured few were not in this space.

Why you have to ask yourself? Where is this so called incremental business?

As a result via comments on blogs or forums, some of these cracks are being covered by maybe having to dip into the slice of the profits to either appease / quieten the vociferous comments of the few. But still so much isn't. So the argument of incremental business being added is in the main not being fully justified.

This whole argument has to be split into two periods of time, with the aforementioned who have "already made their fortunes" (and it's important to note that) are now paving the cracks utilising an element of their "already made" profits to no where we still have the same "closed group" but a few less vociferous affiliates are being invited in.

Granted an affiliate should prove themselves on generics first, but this doesn't happen enough.

The so called battle has more or less already been lost, however merchants can be leveraged away from networks to more favourable & ethical practises.

Not everyone in closed groups can be tarred with the same brush & a few do bring additional but this perception of the "cartel few" are still there. There may well be and is new introductions on the lesser programs, though as you mention the tenure process leaves a lot to be desired.

On a personal note being involved in a closed group is a take it or leave it situation, though I won't activity promote these programs to any significant volumes if i am aware one is in place because effectively you are lining the pockets of those involved in the closed group.

Also why are some networks or agencies or merchants so scared about transparency of which programs have closed groups?

Generics are indeed more powerful, brand bidding should really only serve as a litmus test to ascertain anticipated conversions, yet so many big brands even fail this initial test.

Now on a final note we hear a term called "low hanging fruit" which is referred to my those involved within ppc, I have even used it myself, but we still see so many merchants not appearing within paid or organic search on variations & misspellings. But the point is you see, is that some who use this coined phrase today were the same ones who yesterday saying it is not. Why has the tune changed?

On a final note there is a whole lot more to affiliate marketing than closed groups, though it does require more work & is more satisfyingly rewarding, not always from a financial perspective, but it opens doors to better ideas & opportunities on both counts where you may not have looked before.

Though in response to Kieron's blog .. "Put up & shut up" .. why should we, I respect his opinion but I would have expected more & talking about meetings in dimly lit car parks doesn't win a discussion. Perhaps I don't look through the same rose tinted glasses & so what if someone wishes to remain anonymous! ... Like in the above comment .. Because let's face it, retribution does happen in big business and that is partly why we have what is perceived as apathy on the forum sometimes. Not a great example, but if you posted an anonymous poll to one which shows what you voted for on contentious issues, the difference in participation is significant.
At 20 October 2007 at 19:25 , getvisible said...: I'm a bit suprised Keiron focused on the "corruption" alligations. And he tried to sully my *good*(?) name by saying that I aspose the view that these brand name bidders are engaged in corrupt practices.

I did nothing of the sort. I refer him to the line:

"Personally, I don't think "corruption" may be the right word."

Also he slights me on the fact that I made the comment about what do affiliates have to do to get in these closed groups. I'm sorry he takes the matter personaly. I never thought he'd get upset by the comment and they were not aimed at him - I don't know why he thought it was!!

The problem is that this is an issue that many would like to sweep under the carpet. They say they care about the industry. But this is only in the context of keeping the industry allowing merchants and networks to keep these closed groups open without any pressure from "ordinary" affiliates.

I often don't see what the fuss is when I comment on controversial topics. I'm not in this industry to win friends (I already have enough out of if) but I am in this industry to make money fairly. Just in real life I believe in openness and honesty and I try and ensure that I do the same in my business life.

I won't have my opinions bought by advertising. No merchant or network can "encourage" me to post favourably for them or counteract bad publicity elsewhere. I just feel that the majority of posts around on this topic are based on an undercurrent of bias with the aim to use their "lofted" position to help the benefactor. This is something that I won't do!

So if I try and open up a discussion about brand bidding then I am doing that. Trying to get to the bottom of the topic. I want to keep the door open on the conversation and not close it because it doesn't suit me or my advertisers.

P.s. I feel a heated a4uexpo - will anyone talk to me?
At 20 October 2007 at 21:36 , getvisible said...: Just in case James's response to Keiron's comments goes missing. Here it is, and boy does it make interesting reading. I'm glad that James was so honest and open - I hope that this honesty will be more contagious than this year's flu!

The comment:

Interesting blog post Kieron.

I think there are a few things to take into account. Firstly, Brand name bidding can infact be corrupt. When I managed a campaign on a network that is well known for suggesting brand name bidding in the past it was suggested that I change my policy (from no brand name bidding) and allow about 5 affiliates to do so.

It was a good idea (as we didn’t have it trademarked with google) but the part that WAS corrupt about it was that the network (who knew I did my own affiliate activities) suggested that I be one of the brand name bidders myself.

To me, that is corrupt.

All that being said there are reasons to allow closed brand name bidding groups and often it is perfectly legit.

I think that transparancy is required and most of the networks (which pissed me off) refuse to do it.

As you know, I went to some of the IAB meetings & sat in a room with the senior staff at pretty much all of the networks. I suggested that to make things more transparent all they need to do is let affiliates know what programs allow BNB and what do not (and ideally when it’s up for renewal).

EVERY NETWORK IN ATTENDANCE (BAR ONE) REFUSED TO DO SO.

That says a lot for me - the industry is not a corrupt one but seeing as one of the glorious things about it is the fact that everything is so transparent it’s a shame that this is one area that isn’t - it’s something that needs to be addressed.
At 21 October 2007 at 22:30 , Anonymous said...: I've worked for two networks, dgm and presently Affiliate Window, over the course of the last four years.

Throughout that time most big networks have taken continuous criticism from affiliates who are determined that there's some big conspiracy going on with a secret band of affiliates. And I can categorically say the vast majority of the conspiratorial talk is totally untrue and unsubstantiated.

Surely if network staff had benefited so much from it they'd be sunning themselves on a Caribbean beach by now rather than working for a network (which can be a thoroughly thankless task with account managers potentially taking flak from affiliate, agency and advertiser alike during a typical 10-12 hour day in the office).

I'm not saying there aren't preferred affiliates - there clearly are and some in my opinion add significantly more value than others - but if an account manager has to prove a campaign will work from day one surely it makes sense to work with those who actively want to work with a network rather than those who flout the rules and brand name bid out of hours or at the weekend.

The affiliates chosen tend to be viewed as trusted strategic partners - reliable professionals who can pitch to a client directly about their business and how it not only works in conjunction with the rest of the affiliate campaign but also sits within the general online mix.

Lets face it - very few of these mythical closed groups exist anymore. They did but have largely disappeared as the industry matures.

And look at it from another perspective. With the affiliates, advertiser, network and possible agency involvement you're looking at potentially dozens of interested parties - not easy to keep something so corrupt under wraps with so many individuals involved...

I've always been pretty open about previous closed groups I've known about or worked with. I say pretty honest because I don't believe a network has a responsibility to share every detail about how campaigns are run. Besides I can be more candid one to one than I can in an open forum.

As previously stated I can't categorically speak for everyone. I know Buy.at & TD have (and continue to) run some closed groups and having never worked there I can't comment on their approach. I've heard occasional snippets of activity across several networks that could be construed in a negative light but just as all PPC affiliates wouldn't want to be labelled brand name bidders so every network running closed groups shouldn't automatically be damned.

Those networks who have relied more on the closed group approach than others have pioneered RFPs which is forward thinking.

Finally, I've posted on The A4U Forum about two opportunities to get involved in two different campaigns where PPC would be restricted (one involved brand). I asked anyone interested to get in touch. How may responses did I receive? Three. In total.

To sum up then - I apologise if my response seems a little assertive but why sit on the fence about this? Networks are always tarnished with this brush and given that all networks are working damned hard to showcase the benefits of affiliate marketing (with a great deal of success this year) this issue needs to met head on.

As always I can be contacted at my usual email address or direct line - 020 8269 4867, kevin.edwards@affiliatewindow.com
At 22 October 2007 at 12:57 , Anonymous said...: trying to convince a merchant to leave a window of ppc opportunity is hard work, and it only gets harder. You want it to succeed, when you get that agreement. Who would you open that opportunity up to? Affiliates who you've never worked with, affiliates who have been producing good results, but inconsistently and in small scale, or affiliates who have been consistently good, respectful of the merchant's targets, willing to put the effort in and expand their campaigns to the max? The name of the affiliate doesn't make any difference, provided you know what they are capable of in terms of results and trust them to follow the rules.

You never just hand out the brand, you always give it as an add on to a big generics list on multiple engines with quality copy & possibly landing pages. And, they know they are under review - no one's giving them the brand prerogative for good and no questions asked.

I backed this article on the basis that it invites for a very good conversation on something that a lot of affiliates are conserned about. Personally, I believe corruption is the completely wrong word - preferential treatment, yes, that's correct. You prefer to contact those affiliates you know and trust, for the aforementioned reasons.

All this conspiracy theory around the issue I think it's a bit over the top - sure, some networks are better at socialising and networking and publicity than others, but that does not substantiate the backhand payment suspicions in my view.
At 22 October 2007 at 14:44 , Anonymous said...: Well seeing as you have quoted me I thought I had better reply.

The idea of Corruption in PPC brand groups has been kicked about for a long while now and I can honestly say that I have been aware of NO known incidents where this has happened! Whether you believe me or not I and the networks we work with have NEVER come to any type of under-handed deal to be included in a brand group.

Yes, “once upon a time” brands where treated by many affiliates as gravy trains, but I’m now pleased to say that this type of attitude is very much in the past. If you actually look at what UK Web Media do you will see our aim (like the networks) is to drive sales/leads/conversions to the merchant, full stop! We always work openly to show the split between brand sales and generic sales allowing the merchant to then make an educated decision whether or not the added value driven by the affiliate is high enough to warrant their inclusion on brand related terms.

You said…"This comment is so annoying. It's like saying "we're doing it for your good" but then not making it clear that you're only saying this to cream off vast commissions for simply bidding on brands."

I would love to cover this comment in more depth and face to face, so feel free to come and see me at the expo and I will be more than happy to show you numerous sectors and generic keywords we bid on.

Quite clearly, you haven’t even done a basic level of research on UK Web Media before your post as you seem to think that we only bid on brands? Yes you are correct as we do bid in many brand groups, but all brand groups we work in have been earnt because we have something to add in the generic space. We spend tens of thousands of pounds a day bidding on generic traffic and are continually updating our campaign strategies to help increase our added value even more.
Without giving away all the details of how we work, please go and look at a few example keywords on Google such as "mobile phones", "broadband", "digital tv".

Lee… its sounds crazy but we actually are doing it for the merchants good!! The reason we are here is for the merchants! How much affiliate marketing would you be doing if there where no merchants? “Creaming of the vast commission” couldn’t be further from the truth, we have actually told merchants NOT to increase commissions if we have felt that we were unable to add more value to the campaign or have though that we are already at saturation point for that particular product or service.

Nowadays in many cases brand campaigns actually make very little profit and a substantial proportion actually lose money! We run some campaigns that actually lose on brand and make their profit from our generic activity!

Some brave Anonymous said…"They say about buyat that four Paid Search companies do practically all their brand name bidding for them. Buyat is sadly the network most closely associated with these Closed Groups, closely followed by dgm. Those 'in the know' are aware of it and talk about it, but the relationship between certain account managers and certain ppc companies is too cosy for anything to be done to shatter these cartels. Even the RFP processes are, lets say for the sake of politeness, 'heavily skewed' - just investigate who wins them"

HAHA… are you really this naive?

If you had done some real research you would have realised that the answer could be that the companies that win the RFP’s are among the most professional in the industry, You would have then found that they have the many strengths above and beyond the average affiliate including the business understanding & maturity to be able to talk to merchants at a professional level.

Many top level affiliates also have huge resource at the disposal. We, for example have over 20 staff and spend well over 1 million a month on paid search, do you really think we could spend that much on "brand" terms alone?

It really is a shame I have had to stoop this low, but it’s hard when some people don’t have a full grasp of the affiliate world so are unable to give a thoughtful and balanced argument.

Brave Anonymous said…""The sickening thing is that I've seen evidence time and time again that these PPC companies, for all their shiny words, mainly just sit on brand if they are allowed to get away with it. The hypocrisy is what gets to me. All their talk about benefiting their client and the industry is complete rubbish."

I would be more than happy to take a look at this, but I’m guessing it is utterly made up as you are unwilling to put your name to the post, as Kieron says “Put up or shut up”! If you like feel free to actually ask any merchant we work with, why are we still running programs 5 yrs later, could it be that the merchant actually understands the added value we add as a company?

Brave Anonymous said …"These guys have made millions from affiliate marketing yet haven't even been bothered to make a couple of websites."

ROFLMAO…Please!! Are you serious? We run over 30 websites, www.mobile-phones.co.uk, www.broadband-finder.co.uk... shall I carry on?

Thankfully some people do get it! I think what Jason said is absolutely spot on,

"Unfortunately there's a situation now where say Affiliate A and Affiliate B want to be part of the PPC club for Merchant X - A has a £1000 budget, but B has £100,000 - it stands to reason that B is chosen (based on all other factors are the same).

How 'B' made their ££'s is neither here nor there... so that leaves 'A' sat with cash waiting for the next opportunity!

Is it "fair" or is it "business"? 'A' would say it's not fair, 'B' would say it's business!"

Thank you Jason for adding some maturity and sense to this blog.

Don’t get me wrong, PPC brand is not perfect and I do feel that still some affiliates are sitting on brand terms making cash and adding little extra value, but their days are numbered and its about ruddy time if you ask me! The industry is maturing and merchants now want to see where the results are coming from. Good affiliates that add value will be able to do this and do it well.

I will be attending the expo and would be more than happy to talk to anyone about this subject, I have nothing to hide and would quite enjoy putting things straight.

Or feel free to contact me direct:
01264 774750
Jamie at ukwebmedia.com
At 22 October 2007 at 15:31 , Anonymous said...: Hi Lee,

Having worked at dgm for nigh on 18 months now, I can categorically state that in that time no-one here has entered into anything that could be construed as unethical/illegal practices with regards to the handing out of brand bidding rights for closed groups.

When a merchant decides, following extensive consultation with us, that brand bidding is something they would like to implement on their campaign then we will advise them of the affiliates we recommend. This is done in a number of ways, affiliates who perform well on the campaign, affiliates with whom we have a long established and trusting relationship, and/or an open pitch procedure. We have also run competitions based on generic sales over a set period to determine those affiliates permitted to bid on brand.

The fact that many brand bidding groups are peopled by the same affiliates could well be due to the fact that these affiliates have the heritage, the resource (both time and financial) and the inclination to do so. I would challenge anyone to dispute the assertion that a merchant would select someone or a network would recommend someone with no track record on the campaign or in this field. It is simply not good business sense.

As "anonymous" has tacitly associated dgm with the assertion of "corruption" I feel that I am unnecessarily forced to defend our practices. I would invite "anonymous" to flesh out their comment about the "cosiness" of relationships between account managers and certain PPC affiliates. I encourage my account managers to develop strong relationships with all affiliates on their campaigns, be they PPC, incentive, voucher code affiliates.

I do not think that these barbed, foundationless accusations about network corruption do anything for the industry that the very same networks do their utmost to advance day in day out. I cannot speak for any other network but we at dgm dispute these tacit allegations entirely.

Matt Bailey
Client Director
matt.bailey@dgm-uk.com
020 7943 4293
At 22 October 2007 at 15:47 , Anonymous said...: Nice spin Jamie, insulting those who have been in the industry for as long as yourself if not longer .. is bringing the debate to a further low.

Your elocution is probably better than mine however.

Not everyone with objections wants to be included in closed groups, and it seems some cannot see the woods for the trees.

You know as well as I do those that don't like going beyond exact matches on brand & those who have only recently engaged in generics to pave the cracks.

As I stiplulated earlier, closed groups, has to be split into two distinct (slighly overlapping time zones).

The solution is really quite simple, which was politely requested on the forum, rather than spinning words about transparency, let's have it. Simple listing those programs which have them on each network will go a long way to dissipating the whole topic. Most will simple say fair enough, make their own informed decision & move on.

We can't change what has happened, but it will assist the industry moving forward.

Yet again we hear the words strategic partnerships & professionalism being spun as if it's adds substance when in "some" instances there is no substance behind it.

PS The Gravy Train is still being rode.
At 22 October 2007 at 15:55 , Anonymous said...: Defintion of Corrupt

Adjective

1. Utterly reprehensible in nature or behavior
2. Marked by dishonesty, especially in matters of public trust
3. Ruthlessly seeking personal advantage

This not always pertaining to money as some may interpret
At 22 October 2007 at 16:22 , Anonymous said...: Jamie,

On a positive note I tilt my hat to you on www.giveortake.com, and you know I praised you rightly so when you initially discussed that with me when you were developing. I do sincerely hope that project works out well for you.

But the two sites you mention.

www.mobile-phones.co.uk
www.broadband-finder.co.uk

Good though the sites are are, they are only recent developments looking at whois & internet archive

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mobile-phones.co.uk
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.broadband-finder.co.uk

At end of the day all i want is to know which merchants have closed programs, so I can make my own informed decision in prioritsing which programs & networks I promote.

Then we can all move on
At 22 October 2007 at 17:18 , Jamie Harwood said...: Hi Paul,

"Nice spin Jamie, insulting those who have been in the industry for as long as yourself if not longer .. is bringing the debate to a further low."

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but no insult was intended to you or anyone else who I didn’t mention specifically. My post was aimed at Lee and his take on my NMA quote and mainly at anonymous.

I have already said that there are affiliates who are still riding the gravy train, but I like everyone would love to see them removed so that we can close this argument and move on.

With regards covering the cracks - I can see your point and know exactly what you mean, I think with new technologies and better reporting they should be shown up very soon. TBH I am a firm believer in setting % targets i.e. x% of all sales should come from generics.

In answer to your observation “Good though the sites are are, they are only recent developments looking at whois & internet archive”, here are the original domains with which we ran our mobile and broadband site on. Thanks to google, its algo and some prevoiusly rubbish domain names we decided to use the current ones.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.compare-uk-broadband.com

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mobile-phones.gb.net

"At end of the day all i want is to know which merchants have closed programs, so I can make my own informed decision in prioritsing which programs & networks I promote."

I think this is a very fair and valid comment, but i dont think the post was originally about this, my issues are with the talk of corruption, backhanders and "creaming vast commissions from sitting on brands"
At 23 October 2007 at 09:55 , Anonymous said...: The sooner that all brand PPC (and variations) are removed from affiliate marketing the better. Genuine content affiliates are pretty much having commissions stolen becuase of it. I've seen examples of over 75% of content cookies being overwritten by the brand affiliates. Merchants are being fleeced as they are paying content affiliates higher commissions to keep them active and also wads of cash on the brand affiliates.

Brand protection on the search engines isn't rocket science and something a merchant can do.

Generic terms - each term has a value, either the merchant is happy to pay the value for the sales from it or they aren't. Don't bugger up your other marketing channels trying to get the sales.

Corruption it's not really, but there are lots of agencies, affiliates and networks that are only in business becuase of it. Kickbacks galore are happening and damaging merchants becuase of it. Business decision makers are slowly starting to understand whats going on. Lets all help to clean up the industry.
At 23 October 2007 at 14:22 , Anonymous said...: "Buyat is sadly the network most closely associated with these Closed Groups, closely followed by dgm."

wow the power of the Internet is again rocking & rolling. Just because you say or write something it doesn't make it true. But if you keep saying things over and over and over and over and over and over.... people start to think they are true and an idea takes form in other peoples minds. That's called interpretation. Foundless accusations do not help our industry and only make us look unprofessional.

Right then, as I’ve been in this game as long as most of you here and have watched many of your businesses grow and in some cases helped you grow (important to note here that in every case you have all helped us grow as networks so your points do matter and are just as valid) I think I can come in and talk about this with some authority.

Have I been offered back hander’s to put people in groups? Yes. Did I accept them? No. This industry is a business and in business there are people that play by the rules and people that don’t play by the rules. And those which simply create their own rules and push people around. It’s the way it has always been and the way business will always be.

Do I think there are affiliates adding little to no value in some Paid Search groups? Yes, their work is average to poor at best. Do I want to have the best group that I can for the merchant and provide the end user the best experience possible? Yes that is part of my job.

Have account managers (industry wide) selected the wrong affiliates for groups? Yes. That is either based on poor judgement or lack of understanding of the environment and not knowing what other affiliates have to offer.

The industry is relatively new and Strategic Affiliate Paid Search Groups was a sector that was created from scratch and has been continually evolving since the first affiliate sent through the first sale for the merchant when nobody else was covering the space.

There have been many factors that play into how strategic paid search groups are formed. One of the things we have initiated at buy.at was creating an RFP process which is open to all affiliate to apply. This process has been great. It has allowed merchants and the agency to sit down with buy.at and go through the applicants proposals. As a collective we choose between us which affiliates are selected for the group. I don’t always agree with every affiliate that has been added into a group but I do know that the decision is a collective one that eliminates any special treatment or favoritism from the process.

But then you can counter that we recommend affiliates which puts a question mark on the whole process and that we are just doing the RFP’s as smoke screens. You’re entitled to that opinion but we do recommend affiliates that we trust and have a good working relationship with. Is that a crazy business decision? No. That is how business works. We recommend them as they have the experience, professionalism, trust and ability to maneuver quickly and adapt. Have extended keyword access and are not afraid to test keywords and provide maximum exposure. I think one of the great outcomes is that the RFP process has provided us the opportunity to see what other affiliates are able to do. As a direct result of this we have started working with 7 new affiliates in our Strategic Search Groups that we had previously not worked with. Most of them have delivered and become great new partners that we now work with on going.

Right all that being said I am sure this will go on but this is where we are at with this and if you have any ideas that would help us make this process better you know me so drop me a line or give me a call.

Cheers

Tyson
At 23 October 2007 at 15:14 , Anonymous said...: Tyson,

Nice to see you come forward with progress you are making seeing the phrase "diversify ... diversify .. diversify ..." having some meaning with the introduction of "7" new affiliates, hopefully they will too see opportunities on the established closed programs before their introduction.

I will make one comment .. as always ;)

"if you keep saying things over and over and over and over and over and over ... people start to think they are true and an idea takes form in other peoples minds."

let's rephrase & this is a general quote not aimed at anyone in particular

"if someone keeps "DENYING" things over and over and over and over and over and over.... people start to think there is nothing untoward and people start seeing things through rose tinted glasses."

I am still seeing the words strategic & professionalism all used too loosely without substance. Let's get the Roget's Thesaurus ot out find more suitable superfluous expressions.

On a positive note, I hope all those attending have an enjoyable & successful a4uexpo & that we all get on sweet & dandy.
At 23 October 2007 at 16:36 , Unknown said...: Hi,

I should say that I was speaking more from a general network insider perspective as opposed to Affiliate Window opinion. Affiliate Window (to my knowledge) runs no closed groups on any programmes and does not have a tradition of doing so.

That's not to say we don't have brands who do not allow bidding on their brand keywords but this tends to affect smaller companies when SEO is not as honed or who don’t run any in-house/agency paid search activity.

Thankfully common sense prevails as to the affiliates we choose based on past performance or initial punts to groups of PPC-ers.

I think it's short sighted to rule brand bidding out or in without bothering to devise a bespoke strategy for that client. Chances are for bigger brands there won’t be a direct or obvious value but you can't template a PPC policy without implementing a thorough audit of the paid search/natural space that advertiser works within - it's a wholly grey area and any network that advises otherwise in my opinion isn't doing their job properly.

I will however repeat that I've never seen or been exposed to any corruption/backhanders/whatever in the years I've worked in affiliate marketing; to suggest as such without substantiation simply sets us back years as an industry and adds fuel to the fire of those perpetuating the 'grubby affiliates' myth.
At 24 October 2007 at 13:37 , Anonymous said...: Hi Everyone,

Just as an example of how we select affiliates to operate a closed PPC group - click here

I'm sure we will be open to criticism in that the affiliates with the biggest pockets can spend a lot of money in the first month to win, which is a valid point, but we need to get this operating as quickly as possible so don't have the time to measure activity over a prolonged period of time.

If anyone has any feedback about this please let me know.

Thanks,

Matt

Matt Bailey
Client Director
dgmAffiliates
020 7943 4293
matt.bailey@dgm-uk.com