Dodgy Bidder - Name and Shame?
We at CK Net towers have a dilemma today…..
We run the search campaign for a large client, with exclusive access to their URL and brand. We run this campaign on a CPA basis, with the profit from the brand paying for high cost generic terms. We have a very good relationship with the client and they closely monitor our performance to make sure we are reinvesting and driving as many sales as possible. We act for all intents and purposes as their search agency, just on a CPA basis rather than an override.
Recently we noticed a rogue affiliate bidder on brand terms, not the pure brand terms (as this would be too obvious) but the [brand.co.uk] and [brand
The loss of revenue from these terms affects the whole balance of the program meaning we have made a loss since this rogue bidder came on the scene.
After a little research client side we have found out which affiliate has been doing this, and to my surprise it is an extremely high profile affiliate who often gripes about “dodgy affiliates” bidding on brand terms and giving the industry a bad name.
So do I name and shame him? Would anyone benefit from that?
It isn’t really my style to do this, but why should this affiliate get away with these dodgy tactics while pretending to be white as white at the same time?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Fraser Edwards
Adii
Paul Wheatley
January 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I can’t see how anyone would benefit.
Just get in touch with them first.
Then report back later
January 14th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Hi Rob,
Personally speaking, if it was me I’d contact him and let him know that you know, as he may not know that BNB is not allowed or it could even be a complete oversight on his behalf. If you get no joy then name & shame.
Jules
January 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I agree. Talk to them first and ask them to stop. The name & shame can always come later.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
welcome to the angel world of affiliate marketing where people say one thing in public and do completely the opposite for their business.
Contact them and tell them that you were surprised to see it’s them doing it. Keep the situation in mind for future collaborations with this affiliate.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Many a time I’ve had to sit quiet and bite my lip at a4u and network events whilst a member of the expert panel has preached an ethical stance on affiliate marketing when I know full well I’ve had brand bidding issues with them in the past. As Hero implies, what’s said and done are very rarely the same.
Flag them up with the merchant, who I assume will be able to address this via the correct channels. Of course there’s also question of management, who’s not doing their job or sitting quiet making money on the side? How long has this been going on and what can be done about this in the future?
If something so obvious like this is going on what else is going on that’s so far undetected?
Cheers
Paul
January 14th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I agree with you all, there is no benifit from naming and shaming, mistakes do happen, and this might be one of those cases.
I just hope this can be resolved as quickly as possible, so we can get on with doing our job properly
January 14th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
You might want to check the program settings page for Jessops on Tradedoubler for this merchant.
Sponsored Keywords/Adwords:
Important: We allow affiliates to buy sponsored keyword terms relating to the Jessops brand including miss spells, but excluding the exact term JESSOPS.We allow affiliates to buy sponsored keywords/adwords on search engines, so long as they are clearly marked as affiliate links (”affiliate” or “aff” in the supporting text). However, we DO NOT permit affiliates to buy keywords relating to our competitors brand names or trademarks. e.g. “Dixons”, or “CamerasDirect”, etc. Any affiliates who do so will be removed.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I woulod defo get in touch with the affiliate first and just point out the fact that he is breaking the T&C’s. Obviously if he isn’t bidding directly on the brand, as Pauls comment above states, then I guess there are no rules being broken.
I am surprised though that at the wording from TD’s website. Because of this, the affiliate, if going via TD links, is probably unaware of it.
By the way, its not me. Although I often gripe, I am not high profile nor do I sit on any expert panels
January 14th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
You are right Paul there are conflicting terms and conditions, in one place is gives a “NO” to everything, and in another it is more ambiguous.
If the terms and conditions say no in one place and don’t say anything in another is it an affiliates responsibility to check both sets? or just look at the most obvious?
There were several people using urls and bidding on banned terms, not just one, the point was who responsibility is this to monitor?
And if terms are dubious do you take advantage?
I didn’t say this person blogged or sat on panels, so you can stop your guessing.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Personally I would imagine that if a programme is with a single network, then the network can certainly help “monitor” PPC campaigns. If a program is with more than one network, where there are amibguous T&C’s then it has to be the responsibility of the merchant themselves.
If Jessops for example joined Network#2 but I promoted via Network#1, I wouldn’t consider it my responsibility to check the T&C’s are the same on both networks. I’d adhere to the T&C’s of the network whos tracking I use, however I too in the past have found to be breaking them due to an oversite.
As I sometimes optout of network newsletters and don’t login as regularly as maybe I should, I’m unaware of merchants appearing on a second network in order to broaden their affiliate base. Therefore I wouldn’t even think about checking the T&C’s to ensure they matchup.
I can see problems with affiliate maybe bending the rules to suit their needs and taking advantage seems to becoming more and more popular. An equal worrying aspect is affiliates who turn on advertising campaigns when networks have gone home, therefore getting away with brand bidding between 7pm and 7am!
Sorry about the long post Rob.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Oh, forgot to mention the dreaded ‘extended broad match’ scenario. Very easy to appear on exact brand terms when the affiliate may only be bidding on permitted brand misspells. Have been caught out many times and from both sides with this one.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
You might want to read this pertaining to single points of reference for keyword polices & consistency across a network interface. Which is where Tradedoubler fall down on regularly & which has been pointed out to them on a number of occasions over the years. And it’s a merchants responsibility these are visible in the correct places & that the network is reprsenting them correctly before jumping the gun.
http://www.mooseontheloose.co.uk/brand-name-bidding-the-need-for-proper-guidelines.html
I am looking forward to Top Gun
January 14th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I think what this point highlights is that there are affiliates out there who will push the system as far as they can.
Without commenting on the individual case, of which i know nothing, I welcome Rob bringing to light an issue which Networks spend a lot of time dealing with. It is frustrating when affiliates knowingly flaunt the conditions on your campaign. Often there is a legitimate excuse, as has been highlighted in the broadmatching issues, but occasionally (and I highlight occasionally) we have seen affiliates knowingly break regulations.
What should the network do in this situation? As has been highlighted the network is still earning money from this affiliate breaking the rules. However, anyone who has any insight into how networks operate must realise that the risk of the client discovering this breach against the gain made from a laissez faire attitude to the affiliate is not worth taking the chance on.
What is unknown is the frequency with which the same affiliates are caught out. Do the same people feature regularly on the list of offenders for AWin, Affilinet and buy.at as they do for me at DGM? If so then there obviously is a problem. However the issue is not going to come to a head without network co-operation. I am not going to admit to AWin, for example, that I have dodgy affiliates on my campaigns.
Perhaps this is something for the IAB’s Afiliate Marketing Council to debate? Interesting to hear thoughts.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Excellent point Matt - properly highlights the need to have a central point for both merchants and affiliates who consistently do not play by the rules.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Well… I reckon the one thing this particular post has brought to light is that there should be NO doubt in anyones mind about the rules surrounding brand bidding. It is 100% the merchants responsibility to make sure these are crystal clear.
I think it also shows that it’s important to check the ins and outs of a situation before forming opinions about people (particularly in public).
January 15th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Just to add … you mention …
“We run the search campaign for a large client, with exclusive access to their URL and brand. We run this campaign on a CPA basis, with the profit from the brand paying for high cost generic terms.”
Honorable, you disclose this part where others probably wouldn’t, but in effect translated, this means that the merchant runs a closed brand bidding group for which you are currently the sole affiliate which was previously from a group of three. One of whom previously seems to be in the pockets of several networks pockets. Also noting that the merchant or network has not disclosed that a closed brand bidding group is in operation on the program details page. Transparent or Opaque?
March 17th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
“It wasn’t me…”