Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Full Member
    Join Date
    September 8th, 2005
    Posts
    182
    Fishy looking "Multi-Network Policy" voids
    I have a merchant that all of a sudden is doing a lot of reversals for this reason

    VOIDED Muli-Network Policy

    Somewhere around 50% in the last month. In the past 6 months I have never had a void from this merchant.

    Has anyone else noticed this from one of their merchants? If you have can you respond to this post? If there is enough response I will reveal the merchant so we can see if my suspicions are valid.

  2. #2
    ...and a Pirate's heart. Convergence's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 24th, 2005
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by janew View Post
    VOIDED Muli-Network Policy
    Are you signed up with this merchant in more than one network?
    Salty kisses, Sandy toes, and a Pirate's heart...

  3. #3
    15 years and counting
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,121
    Try to avoid working with merchants on several networks. By ex, SAS + GAN, LS, CJ or ...
    1-They can void sales at will.
    2-You are not protected against parasitic activities.

    Last click win, if the affiliate is on a shady network, your sale will be void.


  4. #4
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    This is one of many reasons why I try to avoid multi-network merchants.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  5. #5
    ShareASale President/CEO and ABW Veteran Brian - ShareASale's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    3,657
    janew,

    When a Merchant has a program running on two or more networks, it is common that a commission can credit to both or more at the same time. Typically, they have a policy that involves crediting only the last click across all their channels as opposed to just within ShareASale.

    I agree with a few other comments that this can lead to confusion but it is fairly common for Merchants to run multiple network programs.

    ShareASale requires that these transactions first be shown and then voided (that's what you are seeing) so that you have visibility into this situation and can make an informed decision on your partnership.
    Thanks,

    Brian Littleton
    President/CEO - ShareASale.com, Inc.

  6. Thanks From:

  7. #6
    ...and a Pirate's heart. Convergence's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 24th, 2005
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Convergence View Post
    Are you signed up with this merchant in more than one network?
    The reason I asked this is I have seen in a merchant's TOS that if you belong to program in more than one network they will void your commissions...
    Salty kisses, Sandy toes, and a Pirate's heart...

  8. #7
    OPM and Moderator Chuck Hamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 5th, 2005
    Location
    Park City Utah
    Posts
    16,646
    janew, with a little extra programming the merchant can avoid duplicate transactions and I am happy to speak to their webmaster. The common sense thing to do is only join in one network as stated.

  9. #8
    15 years and counting
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Convergence View Post
    The reason I asked this is I have seen in a merchant's TOS that if you belong to program in more than one network they will void your commissions...
    I've seen that too and it doesn't make sense. If you're an honest affiliate, the fact to belong to several networks doesn't hurt the merchant if the merchant removes the duplicate commissions. It can help you to do split testing and compare the tracking of the different networks.
    If you're using adware or worse, anyway, the merchant should remove you from the program.
    Last edited by Zeus; June 17th, 2011 at 04:05 PM. Reason: Added quote

  10. #9
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Hamrick View Post
    with a little extra programming the merchant can avoid duplicate transactions and I am happy to speak to their webmaster.
    Brian is requiring the SAS pixel always displays, and that the merchant voids transactions rather than just not crediting them in the first place. That is absolutely the right thing to do, so that the multi-network impact is clearly visible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian - ShareASale View Post
    ShareASale requires that these transactions first be shown and then voided (that's what you are seeing) so that you have visibility into this situation and can make an informed decision on your partnership.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  11. #10
    Affiliate Manager
    Join Date
    March 30th, 2009
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    33
    janew - have you emailed the program manager to inquire about those transactions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Hamrick View Post
    janew, with a little extra programming the merchant can avoid duplicate transactions
    You're correct Chuck, as a matter of fact we have tracking implemented on our site which allows us to avoid this. However, for our site it involves only displaying the tracking pixel if the last-in source is a link from SAS and as Michael pointed out SAS requires the tracking pixel to be displayed on every transaction on the site.

    This puts us between a rock and a hard place because if we don't display the tracking pixel on every transaction SAS will only allow a 0 Days tracking gap. Yet, displaying the tracking pixel and auto voiding the orders that do not qualify for commission due to not being the last-in source it artificially inflates our reversal rate, but we can set the tracking gap to 90 days.

    So which is better for our affiliates? I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer. After some review and having found several orders that should have been credited to SAS affiliates that were not we've opted to implement the multi-network policy according to the SAS requirements. Thereby giving our affiliates the advantage of a longer tracking gap which means sacrificing a lower reversal rate.

    Unfortunately this thread confirms my suspicions that the 'VOIDED Muli-Network Policy' transactions are simply confusing to the affiliates because they can't be expect to memorize every merchants policy to understand why these orders are voided. I recently sent an email to Sarah at SAS with my thoughts on their multi-network policy including recommended changes. I'm patiently awaiting a response.
    Last edited by Matt.P; June 17th, 2011 at 08:10 PM.

  12. #11
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    If you have a significant percentage of SAS affiliates whose commissions are being voided because one of your affiliates on another network set a cookie at the last minute, you really owe it to your affiliates and to yourself to research and understand the techniques that those affiliates are using. I can almost guarantee that they're up to no good, and your SAS affiliates are taking the brunt of the abuse as a result of it.

    As for not knowing which is better for your affiliates... Are you serious? On the one hand, you have 0 return days and a conditionally shown pixel. On the other hand, you have 90 return days and reversals when bad affiliates on other networks take credit for the sale. Neither is a great situation, but former is clearly worse than the latter. What would be far better would be to clean up your program.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  13. Thanks From:

  14. #12
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian - Shareasale
    ShareASale requires that these transactions first be shown and then voided (that's what you are seeing) so that you have visibility into this situation and can make an informed decision on your partnership.
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelColey View Post
    Brian is requiring the SAS pixel always displays, and that the merchant voids transactions rather than just not crediting them in the first place. That is absolutely the right thing to do, so that the multi-network impact is clearly visible.
    I was surprised by Michael's explanation of the policy Brian mentioned. I don't recall being aware of it before. (I first interpreted Brian's comment to mean that if a transaction were posted, it must be reversed in a specific way, not that it is required that merchants fire the SAS affiliate-network tracking pixel for every transaction.)

    I know that some multi-network merchants (who use SAS) only fire one affiliate network's tracking pixel, based on their internal algorithm (presumably based on "last affiliate-link click"). Thus, if a consumer were referred first by an SAS affiliate and later by a CJ affiliate, then for the subsequent sale, the CJ tracking pixel would be fired, but not the SAS tracking pixel.

    While I don't recommend that a merchant use multiple affiliate networks, it just seems logical that a merchant with programs on multiple networks should not fire multiple tracking pixels, unless it were required as part of the contract with the affiliate network.

    I don't see the policy (as Michael describes it) in the "ShareASale merchant service agreement" (which actually defines the term "Tracking Pixel" but never mentions that term again in the agreement itself), nor in the ShareASale Merchant FAQs (which doesn't mention tracking pixels at all), nor anywhere else on the public ShareASale web site. (Perhaps this and other SAS-merchant policies are sequestered so they're only visible to merchants who are logged in.)

    That's why I'm not naming any merchants here (though one AM actually acknowledged this practice in his post, above); if I can verify that this practice is a violation of ShareASale's merchant agreement, then I'll follow up.
    Last edited by markwelch; June 18th, 2011 at 03:39 PM.

  15. #13
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    The way I look at it is that I'm not going to get credit for the sale either way, but I would rather know how much the multi-network activity is costing me. I've always found that ShareASale (and especially Brian) go out of their way to create policies to either eliminate or reveal bad practices, and this is one prime example.

    Brian didn't exactly spell out the policy here and I haven't looked at the merchant TOS, but I'm fairly confident from previous threads and conversations that merchants are required to show the tracking pixel unconditionally. Also, Matt's comment about only being able to show 0 return days if he conditionally shows the pixel helps confirm it. Perhaps Brian can clarify.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  16. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Multi-Network Tracking Solutions - conditional representation"
    By Chuck Hamrick in forum ShareASale - SAS
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2011, 02:08 PM
  2. AdWords "site disabled" for "Site Policy"
    By markwelch in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: February 21st, 2011, 05:41 PM
  3. "Interest-based advertising" requires changes to privacy policy
    By Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: March 21st, 2009, 01:08 PM
  4. "Coffee Table" Computer - Multi Touch, Touchscreen
    By Trust in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 30th, 2007, 05:24 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 29th, 2005, 01:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •