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

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

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.

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.