Elaine’s Space

I’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! 

We’ve all been waiting with bated breath (well OK, we haven’t) for Next to announce the ‘changes’ to their Affiliate Programme as outlined on the A4UForum and, although we’re still waiting for Buyat to roll this programme out, Affilinet have emailed the full details this morning, and …

 mmm, well nothing’s changed actually, apart from the change of Network, the commission is still only 2%.

which will come as no big surprise to the majority of affiliates.  True, they are offering incentives to all affiliates who swap their links from Affiliate Window to either of the two new networks, so that’s a plus - well, it is if you’re one of the lucky 6!!

SO WHY THE SWITCH?
Obviously merchants and agencies do not need to explain why they choose one network over another, and sometimes it does seem like a virtual merry-go-round with all the switching that goes on between the networks - it is a pain, but part of Affiliate life.    

But the timing of this particular switch leaves a very sour taste in the mouth (Jonny started with the cliches - I’m just going with the flow)

In my view it’s been a  case of get someone to do the dirty work (Awin), they get all the flak and when the sh!ts well and truly stuck to the fan, then we’ll cut and run with our shiny reputations in tact and reinvent ourselves on other networks - DOH!!!

only one thing wrong with that scenario, Next and I-level are assuming most Affiliates are, in the words of Affi-liate, NUMPTIES of the finest order, and we’re so incredibly gullible that we’ll smile and swallow all that bullsh!t, as we did when they lowered their commission rates - twice!

So two things to think about before swapping those links -

Would you be happy in Affiliate Windows shoes now? and

If John Lewis, The White Company, Otto Group and The Home Shopping Group can afford to pay decent commission rates for quality traffic - why can’t Next, Argos, ToysRus etc?

IT’S YOUR FUTURE - ACT NOW - ONLINE SPENDING IS ONLY GOING IN ONE DIRECTION  AND WE CANNOT AFFORD TO SELL OUT TO THE LOWEST BIDDER