Super Cookie – Fact or Fiction?
Image credit: orangachang
Reading Clarks excellent blog post on how affiliates could be missing out on hard earned commissions reminded me of a post i noticed whilst travelling by Doug Scott titled “Super Cookies for Super Affiliates“. As is Dougs style, the post caused a bit of a stir, but my general understanding was that some affiliates cookies are “worth more” than others. I.e. a “super affiliate” places a cookie, then no other cookie can overwrite it. Or if they do, the sales get cancelled.
At the time i was somewhere in Northern Argentina so didnt really have time to look into my own stats. But now that i am back at my PC i thought i would investigate a little bit…
I have a merchant that i make around 800 sales a month for. Doug published his blog post on the 4th of April, so i thought i would look at my cancellation rates before and after this date (see below). The theory being that Dougs exposé might have some affect on cancellation rates.
Januray cancellation rate: 4.23%
February cancellation rate: 5.01%
March cancellation rate: 5.01%
April cancellation rate (after the 4th): 1.24%
May cancellation rate: 0.74%
June cancellation rate: 0.83%
Now it could be just be pure coincidence. My numbers are by no means big enough to prove anything. It could be that this merchant changed their cancellation policies around this time anyway… it could be that i suddenly started sending better traffic… it could be seasonal… but as a paranoid affiliate it does look suspicious.
I think the point that i am trying to make is that the affiliate industry really needs much greater transparency. At times it feels like a bit of a boys club, or at least that some “dodgy practices” go on. I know that the industry has been taking massive steps forward in recent years, and that has come in no small part from the IAB (who are talking at this years A4U). So i thought i would submit a question from my blog, and twitter.
What can the IAB do to help improve transparency within the industy, inparticular regarding “dodgy” cancellation policies by merchants?
Pete – amen.
Couple more things to bear in mind:
* you have stats for the “cancellations” that are reported … what about those that aren’t reported or are caught before they appear on your stats screen ….
* I think there may also be an issue with “deduping” against what are hypothetically called other “channels” eg xyzcomparator.com is influential in the sector and has a special deal, they don’t drop cookies perhaps but still their clicks may override an established cookie. Does that happen … perhaps eh? Likewise even a merchant’s PPC, or even their SERPSs….. who knows?
There’s no problem in principle with these practices. It’s a fact of life in business that playing fields are not level, and I believe merchants have every right to propose any affiliate terms they want, it’s then the affiliate’s choice whether to accept them or move on to promoting someone else.
But transparency is necessary for any party aiming to be ethical. Policies on this should be published on the program terms rather than the little guy investing in starting the program then to find out the hard (and expensive) way it was a mistake.
& of course merchants with no such policies in place should shout about it.
Hi Matt,
thanks for the comment.
i think transparency is so imortant. Some networks are better than others, or at least give the merchant more room to be descriptive with why sales were cancelled e.e. de-duped, cancelled order, returns etc. But like you said, it is the “hidden agreements” that make it so hard for smaller affiliates to compete, and this is the issue i would like to see change.
Hi Pete,
Welcome back to the UK. Thanks for the question and look forward to seein g you at the Expo next week where we will seek to provide an answer to you.
Matt
Hi Matt,
looking forward to hearing the answer! I am actually based in Berlin now, so looking forward to heading back to the UK for the expo. Hope to see you there.
Peter