Conflicting Affiliate Cookies

**darrenw** · 22-10-04

Here's a "theoretical" scenario for you...

Time 09:00 - User comes to affiliate price comparison site and clicks through to merchant via affiliate link.

Time 09:02 - User then goes back to Google, and clicks on a PPC link to the very same merchant, paid for by the merchant themselves.

Time 09:04 - User completes a purchase. The affiliate network registers a "pending" commission for the original affiliate.

A few days later, the merchant rejects the pending commission.

From a merchant perspective, I can understand why the above commission was rejected.

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the above? This must happen a lot - it is probably quite common for merchants who use more than one network.

Regards,
Darren.

**Mogga** · 22-10-04

Its prob very similar to what happens to all those pennies from ebay.

**Supercod** · 23-10-04

Local Cookies would solve this problem. In this case the merchant was the last person to get the person to buy so they should get the sale, if they had used local cookies then you not see it show up in your report the same way if it had been another affiliates link it would not have shown.

**Darren** · 23-10-04

I agree with Clarke.

In this circumstance, the merchant was right to reject the sale, but it shouldn't have appeared in the first place, as it is just negative to the affiliate.

**justnozy** · 23-10-04

I agree with the logic - last intro gets the com.

But still does leave the bad taste that the aff did the pre-sell.

Don't know what the answer is ( if any ) but still a bad taste.

**lakrasia** · 23-10-04

I disagree. The buyer may never have heard of the merchant - or even if the buyer has heard of the merchant, it's only because of the affiliate site's recommendation that they decided to go for that merchant rather than another.

I thought that's what affiliation was all about and of course the affiliate deserves the sale.

**justnozy** · 23-10-04

Hi lakrasia

and of course the affiliate deserves the sale.

So if the PPC is from the merchant - the "pre-sell" aff should get the com ?

But if the PPC is from an aff - the "pre-sell" aff does not ?

Hey! the rules are last in first paid!

It is a matter of economics - if every merchant offered a lifetime cookie then every aff on the planet would be over the moon ! - Would they - well the one's that had cookies planted would be. But for newbies - hard luck pal?

And who would promote that merchant knowing there is a massive possibility your cookie cannot be planted?

For the moment there is no better solution than "last in - first paid".

As I said , some instances leave a bad taste - but so does paying tax.

**uksports** · 23-10-04

As a merchant on two networks, then the only fair way is to pay last in which is what we do - what is even more confusing is affiliates that link to the site via both networks as a sale will occasionaly appear on the both networks to the same affiliate - it's then flip a coin time to see which gets cancelled and which gets paid!

**Supercod** · 23-10-04

Originally posted by uksports
it's then flip a coin time to see which gets cancelled and which gets paid!

That's what I disagree with, it's very simple to set up local cookies so you know exactly who the last network was to send an affiliate. If you don't set that up, then you should be forced to pay out the sale on each network.

Local cookies would also stop the sale showing up to the same affiliate over 2 networks (or more) networks. It can happen by mistake (i.e. affiliate changes links and same customer comes back via there link and they still have the old cookie planted) but if it happens lots of times then chances are you have an affiliate trying to fraud you.

Read my post "merchants on multi-networks" in the Affiliate University http://www.a4uforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14389

**Supercod** · 23-10-04

Originally posted by lakrasia
I disagree. The buyer may never have heard of the merchant - or even if the buyer has heard of the merchant, it's only because of the affiliate site's recommendation that they decided to go for that merchant rather than another.

I thought that's what affiliation was all about and of course the affiliate deserves the sale.

We talking about the last method used to get to the site before the person buys something. Here is some examples of where the merchant has to pay out and some where they shouldn't/won't.

If an affiliate sends someone to a merchant site and then the following happen, they should pay for the sale to affiliates (if inside the cookie period).

- Customer returns to merchant site after seeing a TV, newspaper, magazine or hearing a radio advert.

- Customer joined merchant newsletter and couple of weeks later they email them about the site.

- Customer clicks on merchants PPC advert and then clicks on affiliates PPC advert then they should pay.

If an affiliate sends someone to a merchant site and then the following happen, they should NOT really have to pay for the sale to affiliates (if inside the cookie period).

- Customer goes of the site and then returns via another affiliates link, then the first affiliate doesn’t get the sale but the last one would.

- Customer clicks on several PPC adverts leading to the site, all different affiliates, then only the last one should get the sale (why because it's the last to send the person who buys rule).

- Customer clicks on affiliates PPC advert and then clicks on affiliates PPC advert then they should not have to pay. However if they not set-up local cookies and we no way of knowing for sure without it then they should be made to pay.

- Customer visit merchant with an affiliate on one network and then visits merchant from an affiliate on a second network then only the affiliate from the network that sent the customer last should get paid (i.e. the last affiliate to send the person gets paid regardless of network).

That's just a few examples however if anyone want to put up an another possible scenarios I be happy to let you know what I think is the right way for it to be dealt with and if any one disagrees lets here it as you never know there could be better ways to deal with stuff like this that no one has thought about.

**uksports** · 23-10-04

That's what I disagree with, it's very simple to set up local cookies so you know exactly who the last network was to send an affiliate. If you don't set that up, then you should be forced to pay out the sale on each network.

Are you sure you read the post correctly - the scenario is for the same affiliate getting credited for the same sale on two networks - surely you're not suggesting this should get paid twice?

Other than network redundancy, there is no reason why links from one affiliate should come from more than one network - that's just bad housekeeping

Just for your info, we have now gone beyond the practice of local cookies so that the whole visitor session is now tracked and recorded so that we can be completely sure of where all our sales come from - take a visit to the sportzwear site and you will see that you are assigned a session that is not dependent on whether the browser accepts cookies or not, getting around problems caused by Norton etc - this was introduced a few weeks ago and should solve all the tracking related problems related with all networks - certainly I've seen no double ups since the introduction.

**darrenw** · 23-10-04

Hi,

My original scenario was based on the second click being via the merchant's own PPC link. The other factor was the timescales, i.e. two minutes between the original affiliate click and the merchant's PPC click, and then the purchase being made a further two minutes later - from the affiliates perspective, the time between the original click on their affiliate link, and the pending commission appearing in their stats was just four minutes.

Therefore, my original scenario was about the merchant rejecting the commission a few days later with the reason "the same user returned to our site via our own PPC clink on Google inbetween the original click and the sale four minutes later".

I've accepted the merchant's explanation (yes, this was based on a "real" scenario) - after all, the commission was less than two pounds!

I was wondering how often this might happen in the future - it also made me think about merchants on two networks - I'm very careful to only have affiliate links to a particular merchant on the same network - these occasionally change when a merchant then appears on a different network that I prefer (for various reasons).

Thanks,
Darren.

**Supercod** · 23-10-04

Originally posted by uksports
Are you sure you read the post correctly - the scenario is for the same affiliate getting credited for the same sale on two networks - surely you're not suggesting this should get paid twice?

No not on the same affiliate, paying once is fine, however if it had been 2 different affiliates, than yes you should pay twice as you could do something simple to prevent this.

Originally posted by uksports
Other than network redundancy, there is no reason why links from one affiliate should come from more than one network - that's just bad housekeeping

Agreed, an affiliate on one site should pick one network only, however it can happen that the same affiliate has changed networks but not removed all links and so on. Then you have the fraudulent affiliate who is setting cookies on more than one network in the hope they get double commission, again this problem can be solved so shouldn't happen it's just most merchants and many network either don't know of a fix or are un willing to do it.

Originally posted by uksports
Just for your info, we have now gone beyond the practice of local cookies so that the whole visitor session is now tracked and recorded so that we can be completely sure of where all our sales come from - take a visit to the sportzwear site and you will see that you are assigned a session that is not dependent on whether the browser accepts cookies or not, getting around problems caused by Norton etc - this was introduced a few weeks ago and should solve all the tracking related problems related with all networks - certainly I've seen no double ups since the introduction.

Great glad that's the case, should have pointed that out in your first post and I would be saying well done for spotting the problem and doing something about it.

As you know with all of the networks your are with if the browser doesn’t accept cookies you will be getting the sale for free anyway as all networks (with the exception of one) work based on cookies for standard site set-ups, so you being able to track without cookies is of no real use to affiliates unless you have other systems in place where you can manually reward the affiliates that created non-cookie sales and if you have that's magic and you should make a point of telling everyone about it.

Also I take as your site has gone beyond local cookies that you have taken steps to ensure that you record each visitor so that on return visits are also tracked for the length of the network cookie so that the correct network call back script is used when an customer via an affiliate link buys something.

**Supercod** · 23-10-04

Originally posted by darrenw
I've accepted the merchant's explanation (yes, this was based on a "real" scenario) - after all, the commission was less than two pounds!

Hi Darren, I believe the merchant's explanation also, it just that they should have set-up their systems in the correct way so that stuff like this doesn’t happen. By doing things correctly it increases our trust in merchants, protects them from fraud and allows a level playing field where everyone knows where they stand.

What if the person had visited the merchants site via PPC first and then via your affiliate link and the merchant said.. I am not paying out twice for this sale, should you lose your affiliate commission because the person went via your link last? No you shouldn't and the reason being is that your PPC advert could have been for another merchant and it could have been that other merchant enjoying the sale and not them. That's why last person to make the sale regardless should be the one being paid, otherwise if we start excepting half jobs it won't be long before we all start experiencing more merchant fraud as just like affiliate fraud it happens however glad to say not that often.

**Supercod** · 23-10-04

Actually uksports, I was just thinking, if your system was actually better you wouldn’t need to flip a coin to see who gets paid.

The way I see it, if you had used local cookies and the same affiliate uses more than 1 network then it's a non-issue as local cookie should simply store the name of the last network, so if doesn't matter if the same customer clicks to the site from a number of networks, the local cookie should still only have the name of the last network and so pay the last person to make the sale, no coin flips needed. It's a very simple system that works.