Brand Bidding - Why Don’t They ….
February 15th, 2008I’ve been following the whole brand bidding debate with interest and this is the conclusion I’ve arrived at and it seems remarkably simple ….
Every merchant has the indisputable right to pay for placement in the paid search arena for their own name/trademark - if somebody simply types Next, Argos, John Lewis into a search box, being too lazy to input the full url into the address bar, then it’s only right and proper in these circumstances that the merhant shouldn’t have to pay affiliate fees. (whether they found the product previously on an affiliate site is another argument - but for the record I don’t have a problem with this - swings and roundabouts!)
I also appreciate that many merchants don’t have a clue how to implement paid search or simply don’t have the time and are quite prepared to pay someone else to do it for them.
It’s also pretty obvious that those folk who are implementing the paid search on behalf of said merchants are absolutely creaming it in - money for old rope, shooting fish in a barrel etc etc.
Yet it is, apparently, quite easy and quick to implement that even I could probably whip up a few PPC adverts for, let’s say, NEXT - with the added bonus that if there’s not that many ads then the cost is pretty cheap.
But it, appears, to be incredibly tricky to police 24/7 and some, unscrupolous, affililates, take advantage of this and do the brand bidding thing anyway - adding to the merchant’s bill and the network’s coffers.
So, obviously, the poor merchant is actually paying out oodles and oodles of money to agencies/brand bidding groups/networks for something that doesn’t actually cost that much to implement and can be done quite quickly and doesn’t require too much manpower to oversee.
So why on earth don’t networks or agencies offer this function as part and parcel of their service without involving any third parties?
Well, apart from the fact that they would lose the oodles and oodles of cash that this racket produces!