Results 1 to 13 of 13
January 9th, 2010, 11:27 AM #1First click crediting or Last click crediting?
I manage an affiliate program that is on multiple networks and I wanted to pick your brains on what's the best way to go as far as giving credit for sales would go.
Obviously, I can't pay out a commission twice for an order that involves two publishers from two different networks in the clickstream leading to the sale (i.e. A user clicks on an affiliate link from Publisher A from Network X, doesn't buy yet, but later in the day clicks on another affiliate link from Publisher B from Network Y).
I'm torn between two schools of thought: Credit the publisher who referred a sale first because, after all, that publisher's link created "awareness" for your product or brand.
Credit the publisher who referred the sale last because that publisher's link (probably better copy/presentation/a bunch of other factors) is what compelled the visitor to buy
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!
January 9th, 2010, 11:31 AM #2
- Join Date
- May 31st, 2006
- Houston TX
January 9th, 2010, 11:38 AM #3Originally Posted by Eric Ewe
Your "a bunch of other factors" is where the parasites com into play. If you allow them into your program a lot of serious affiliates will NOT be in your program.
January 9th, 2010, 11:42 AM #4Originally Posted by Eric Ewe
I'm getting a lot of inquiries on why their sales have been voided because of a "Multi-network policy" and had a few drop out because of the number of voids they get--sometimes even accusing us of voiding sales for no reason.
January 9th, 2010, 11:45 AM #5
It's not an SAS "problem" - the programming can be worked out. However that is a good example of why a lot of good affiliates will NOT work with programs on multiple networks.
January 9th, 2010, 11:48 AM #6
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
- jacked by sylon www.sylonddos.weebly.com
Last Click gets the sale.
January 9th, 2010, 11:52 AM #7Originally Posted by Bill
January 9th, 2010, 12:10 PM #8
That would have to be between you and the SAS tech team. (and/or maybe with the tech team at the other network(s)). I haven't seen the concern about the "voids" in other posts, so other merchants' carts must have something in place to control the tracking pixels.
You mentioned having a "few drop out" because of a multi-network policy - just imagine that some (how many?) may not have joined in the first place - knowing that there are often problems when programming is not done correctly.
I am by no means an expert. But I have been an affiliate for ten years and have seen a lot of "stuff." That's why, when we decided to open our merchant program, we had already decided on one network and one network only.
January 9th, 2010, 12:20 PM #9
We do have something in place--logic that controls which network pixels to fire on our confirmation page based on the last-referring network/publisher.
SaS is the only network that requires us to display their tracking pixel all the time. This means that it's either:
a.) We display the tracking pixel for a valid sale
b.) display a tracking pixel that automatically voids the sale (for sales not referred last by SaS)--This means that the affiliate will see the amount of the sale he/she didn't get paid for in his account with a "voided - Multi-network policy" status.
I really can't blame affiliates for being disheartened by this. I probably would be too considering I know that sale could've been mine.
January 9th, 2010, 12:26 PM #10
Just a thought, and it might sound like a lot of work but.... probably a crazy idea...
Look at what wolfcamera and cameraworld do (and I think there's one more in site as well). They just have multiple sites, using multiple domains, selling the same products.
If you did something like that and promoted 1 site per network, then you wouldn't have the original issue?. Could solve more problems as well, such as affiliates not signing up because your on multiple networks or dropping you because of reversals.
January 9th, 2010, 12:43 PM #11Originally Posted by MikeVillar
-rematt"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." - Richard Nixon
January 9th, 2010, 02:43 PM #12
I like the way SAS does it, although I'm not confident that all multi-network merchants comply. It gives affiliates more visibility into what's happening.
Take a VERY close look at those affiliates on other networks who are grabbing the sale. I bet you'll find some parasites, cookie stuffers, and other unethical actions going on. (I'm not saying ALL of them are, just that you should be taking a closer look.)
January 10th, 2010, 02:04 PM #13
Its called "conditional representation": http://forum.abestweb.com/showpost.p...06&postcount=5
Wasn't aware that SAS requires their pixel to be present on all thank you pages. Can someone clarify this? Would be a deal killer for running a SAS program to me, just like LS trying to force exclusivity.
By Lanny in forum Rakuten LinkShare - LSReplies: 5Last Post: October 24th, 2010, 11:26 AM
By bcorso in forum ShareASale - SASReplies: 11Last Post: February 21st, 2005, 04:46 PM
By HardwareGeek in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 0Last Post: February 15th, 2005, 11:37 PM
By donutclub in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 6Last Post: January 3rd, 2005, 05:30 AM