"The networks have too much money at stake to be expected to do anything that deviates from status quo. Inertia will keep that body at rest until a really strong force moves it. A few angry affiliates certainly doesn’t do it."
Exactly. I've also spent years educating merchants, gaining no ground. So that path is unlikely to do it as well. Once any individual affiliate reaches the same conclusions that I have, what comes next? If you're good at this, and get hounded by it everywhere you go, you'll eventually step in the answer and tire of wiping it from your heel. For me, this new direction was initially an exploration meant to be a solution to this problem... but instead, it's become a whole new path entirely. Secret project #67, my destiny. And I'm gonna kick some people's ass three ways to sunday, professionally speaking. :-)
I know semantics can derail a good discussion, but the word "referral" has become twisted as well. The current session and/or window is pertinent here now, with a complete disregard for who actually referred a customer, in the classical marketing sense. Their lingo, and arguments, are a very cool way (if you're them), to make it sound like the integrity of the referral process is being protected... then when you consider the COC is only requesting a stand down on handoff, and the persistence of the referral is wholly ignored, you'll see the difference between describing a referral in the business sense, and making a mockery of it in the techno sense.
Return days, returns days.... where forth art thou?
That's the thing, the COC isn't even requesting a stand-down, just visible confirmation. Many of the early plugin still implemented a complete stand-down, going dormant on the click if there was an affiliate link in the mix.
They didn't need to do that except for the shit-storm that they were getting back in 2002.
And yes, of course, return visits days are a different story.
The newer ones that have been getting some visibility in the past few weeks don't stand down at all, first visit or return visit.
Thanks for the clear explanation of the networks' stances. I attempted to get some feedback from some of them on this issue this week and got the standard "we check everything against our terms and conditions" without really saying much on the issue. I appreciate your thoroughness and, like your other posts, will be sending this to my clients and colleagues to help bring them up to speed on this important issue.
Why so much confusion? Ah, the wonders of the internet.
Peter Estephan - http://www.peterestephan.com" rel="follow" rel="nofollow"> Edmonton Property
© 2012 http://www.jangro.com/
RSS
Since we're talking about loyalty sites and their use of browser plugins, I thought it would be a good idea to review the current network rules governing this behavior.
As you watch the screencasts that I'll be doing, you should probably be familiar with what the networks have to say about this and what they consider legitimate.
Commission Junction
Commission Junction published their latest version of their Code of Conduct in May of 2007. I didn't do a comparison with the previous version from 2004, but pertaining specifically to the behavior of browser toolbars there is this:
Linkshare
Linkshare chose to go their own route on this issue and incorporate it more tightly into their legal language. Here's the pertinent section our of their Network Policies and Guidelines (bold is mine).Google Affiliate Network
It appears that CJ and Performics, now Google, have parted ways on their joint Code of Conduct. The Google Affiliate Network Agreement and Terms state the following (bold is mine):
So this means what?
It's pretty clear that CJ's code of conduct states that it is ok for software to be used and overwrite other affiliate links as long as there is user consent.
It's not so clear when reading the Linkshare's and Google's terms, but their actions demonstrate clearly that they allow the same.
The bottom line is that it is ok for one affiliate to have software that resides on a user's computer that effectively gives them infinite, self-refreshing referrals for that user, and allows them to overwrite other affiliate clicks as long as the user agrees to that action with some sort of affirmative confirmation of visible notification.
In short, the networks condone what amounts to an infinite super tracking cookie. One that never expires and that almost always wins when up against other affiliates.
But why is it ok for the end user to decide who gets the commission on a sale? That simply shouldn't be the case.
This might be a good time to remind you that I was involved in the creation of the original code of conduct in 2002 when Be Free was the third company in that consortium. While the concept of one affiliate being able to employ technology to overwrite another never sat very well with me personally, Be Free wasn't really a network. So in our case, it was truly up to the merchant to dictate what happened in their program.
When it comes down to it, I still feel that way. In the end, it remains up to the merchant in all cases to allow this or not. No matter what the network says, they have the power to accept or reject any affiliate from their program to allow or disallow this behavior.
The networks have too much money at stake to be expected to do anything that deviates from status quo. Inertia will keep that body at rest until a really strong force moves it. A few angry affiliates certainly doesn't do it.
In the meantime, merchants need to take more responsibility on this issue and do the right thing for their affiliates. One by one.