Affili.net Accuses Again
Friday I was informed that I was bidding on a mispell that wasn’t allowed as per merchants T&C’s. Now the important phrase to note here is… “I WAS BIDDING“. Note that I wasn’t asked why the advert was shown, I was told by Affilinet that I WAS BIDDING. Obviously with previous issues with my campaigns appearing on merchant restricted keywords, (see previous post) I was worried that this was happening again, so immediately stopped all PPC activity.
Today I am the lucky recipient informing me that I have been removed from the Interflora campaign run on Affili.Net as my advert appeared for a mispell. I was told that over the last couple of months I have been identified twice bidding on restricted keywords and the email went on ‘Despite the term being removed we have subsequently identified you bidding on the restricted term “nterflora”, again on MSN.’
First things first, and I hope that Affili.net will read this, and will respond to it.
How have you identified that I am BIDDING on a restricted term?
The emphasis being on BIDDING. Did you have the same PPC expert who accused me of bidding on another keyword not so long ago take a look? If so, you may recall a phone conversation I had with him, that resulted in him apologising after I explained that I wasn’t bidding on the keyword, and educated him as to how my advert showed for a particular phrase.
Sadly, once again Affilinet have got it wrong. I do not remove words from my campaigns, leave them for a few weeks and then reintroduce them hoping a network or merchant wouldn’t see it, I actually have better things to do in my life. So here we are again, my advert is showing for a word I am not bidding on, and therefore am complying to Interflora’s PPC restrictions. The only way is to stop Search Engines from showing my adverts for these terms is to use negative keywords lists. However, speaking to Kieron, even he is surprised at the lack of understanding and goes on to say “I wouldn’t even have an exclusion list mate, don’t believe in them”.
I’m not one for dirty tactics, but what would stop me from bidding on mispells as they aren’t trademarks, and simply point them to a page on my website that heavily promotes a competitor on another network. In all honesty, I probably won’t do this as this time around I don’t think this has come from the merchant or is even a lack of understanding on the merchants behalf.
I have suggested that maybe someone should be educated on how search terms work in different search engines, and the difference between BIDDING on keywords and pharses, and when an advert is actually shown, as there is obviosuly a large gap in knowledge that requires addressing, and urgently before other innocent affiliates are accused of the same.
26 Comments
Leave a Reply
Social Stuff
I’m really surprised at Affilinet, for two reasons. Firstly for the huge misunderstanding on their part and their apparent lack of understanding of even the basics of paid search. And second, for the tone of their email to you which basically said you are guilty, goodbye. Very disappointing.
I’m getting fed up with this malarky too. I have NEVER run brand names in any of our PPC activity on any network but I really don’t appreciate threats of removal unless I add negative matching keywords. I’m interested Kieron doesn’t add them. Kieron, does this mean you don’t run campaigns that insist on them or do you get closed group permisson voodoo or what?
The thing that’s really bugged me is that last time I was accused of this by the same network (a different merchant), I proved to them and their so called inhouse ‘PPC expert’, that what they were accusing me of wasn’t actually the case. They had actually misunderstood how phrasing works, and also weren’t aware of the new introductions by Search Engines… by this I mean that the displaying of my advert on keywords I have not specified.
Last time, whilst I was on the phone to Affili.net, they did hold their hands up and apologise to me, and thanked me for explaining how it works to their PPC expert so I too was shocked at the nature and wording of the email. It will certainly make me think twice of working with this network again when the same merchant is available via another network. In in the past I have always sang their praises, now however, I would be wary, and all this due the wording of an email and off the cuff accusations.
I am not too concerned if networks insist on negative listings, infact I would welcome it with open arms. Maybe 1 list that covers all merchants? However I am pulling my weight by NOT bidding on brand names or mispells, so it’s now time they should pull their weight and get themselves trained up on how this industry works.
Joe, I never have and never will add a merchants brand name as a negative match for any ppc campaign. I don’t believe in it, simple as that.
Hi Chris,
I have just emailed you and as requested have posted a copy below:
I think the issue here is that when the client and affilinet have searched on various restricted terms on a search engine (notably “nterflora” and the brand term “Interflora”) your listing has appeared in the paid listings for these terms. Regardless of whether you are “bidding” on these terms or whether you are “displayed” for these keywords, we believe SEM affiliates should be accountable for where there ads are shown.
Affiliates do have the ability to upload negative keyword lists into the search engines in order that their ad’s do not appear as a result of extended broadmatch when using PPC to drive traffic.
I am happy to provide a negative list of keywords for you to upload to save you some time when promoting other advertisers. However, I feel that by not uploading a negative list at all you are running the risk of appearing next to a keyword that you shouldn’t be, whether you have actioned this or whether the search engine has done this on your behalf.
And does Interflora provide a comprehensive keyword negative list as default? Surely if you believe an affiliate is accountable for broadmatching issues you should provide them with the wherewithal to comply to your programme terms?
Furthermore, is your affiliate management team fully trained in what broadmatching issues actually are? Or is handing responsibility back to the affiliate simply an excuse for a woefully under-trained account management team?
I don’t promote any Affili.net programmes. Looking at this kind of attitude towards affiliate business partners (because that’s what we are… not some form of disposable nuisance), I won’t ever be.
Pete
This confirms my fears of the lack of understanding, and bending the rules when it suits Affili.net.
Firstly your comment;
Regardless of whether you are “bidding†on these terms or whether you are “displayed†for these keywords…
Regardless? Are you fully aware of the HUGE differnece here? Let’s take a look at your T&C’s…
Please note that affiliates are not allowed to bid on….
OK, the bit that is important reads AFFILIATES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BID
This is taken from YOUR website! Therefore I am complying 100% to YOUR rules, and if issues have been highlighted, then do not blame us affiliates, take a look at how your restrictions are worded as this is where the problem lies. Come on, put your hands up and admit you are in the wrong here!
In this case, Affili.net have chosen to ignore their own rules, and are now adding another laying of protection for themselves by saying;
“we believe SEM affiliates should be accountable for where there ads are shown”
Please explain why we should be expected to be accountable for issues such as this. Affili.net are passing the blame on to us affiliates due to their own short commings which is unacceptable. This is a prime example of not being accountable for your own actions, and shifting the blame on to somebody else.
As another affiliate said to me only minutes ago;
We’re not responsible for how search engines rank our sites so why should be accountable for where they ADD our ads?
Over the past few months, I have experienced changes to another merchants PPC restrictions, yet I for one, have never received any email telling me about this update. This relates to Whiskas and the addition of;
This includes variations mentioning E.g. terms like: (anything with Whiskas in it)
This additional rule came about following my discussion with Affili.net with your ‘PPC Expert’ when I corrected him on other accusations, and was NOT mentioned at the time the program started.
Also, I am extremely disappointed that there is still no sign of any apology for the initial accusation from Affili.net.
“we believe SEM affiliates should be accountable for where there ads are shownâ€
I strongly disagree with this. How are expected to predict where our general non brand name PPC campaigns are going to show up, especially on directory style sites where we promote hundreds of merchants.
Next you’re be instructing affiliates to cripple our own natural search engine listings.
This is a step too far and I note Kieron says he will NEVER add negative keywords to campaigns.
I have been forced to add some for a few campaigns already but if this goes much further I can see us dumping the merchants, running the non brand name PPC anyway and promoting their competitors instead.
It’s another unwelcome development which causes extra work just to reduce our sales and my patience is wearing thin.
“This includes variations mentioning E.g. terms like: (anything with Whiskas in it)”
That’s ridiculous. IF merchants, networks are going to force us to add negative keywords then they have to be 100% explicit otherwise there’s NO accountability.
This means supplying the exact list of negative keywords.
““we believe SEM affiliates should be accountable for where there ads are shown— ok yes to a degree.. BUT within parameters they have control over !! big difference from no idea to doing on purpose,
Imagine if the police turned up and said “someone painted your name on a bridge so we are nicking YOU and we don’t care where you were or what you were doing at the time son” it’s your name so you are accountable
Even Google adwords editors/account managers say somethings that makes you blink in disbelief (my recent fave is “you shouldn’t use more than one type of match on the same keyword in an account, that keyword should only appear once, broad phrase or exact not one of each”) so what hope have a network got of getting someone to understand PPC ?
unless it’s your own money or you make a slice off the top of it from managing it then basically you just don’t get it as the incentive to learn, hone skills etc. is not there.
Time and time again networks have shown a complete and utter lack of understanding when it comes to PPC, most don’t even know the fundamentals never mind anything to do with matching and bidding scenarios.
head wall bash bash.. move on mate.. move on..
“move on mate.. move on..”
I’ve already informed Affili.net that I no longer wish to be involved with the Interflora campaign via their network, just incase I was offered another chance. I will wait and hope Interflora appear on another network in the future.
What has really got my goat is the LACK OF AN APOLOGY and the fact that they still think I was to blame!
You after an apology by any chance mate?
It’d be nice for them to stand up and say ‘OK we got it wrong’. Don’t care if they still stand by what they think, but just to accept the fact that their accusation was bang out of order. They were quick enough to accuse me, and ban me from a merchant, and I know for a fact that I and other affiliates hold our hands up when we are wrong, so why shouldn’t they?
At affilinet, we try and build up direct relationships between publishers and advertisers and endeavour to speak directly to publishers about any issues that may arise, rather than post on a public forum. We contacted you on 2 separate occasions about this and although you mentioned the 1st time it was an error, you did not explain fully to us how this was happening.
Having gained some input from a well respected search agency and MSN themselves on this issue, they have both advised that someone could not appear on a single term i.e ‘nterflora’ if they are not actually bidding on it. We took this advice on board before deciding on a course of action.
In response to the postings above, affilinet will be looking at all of the terms and conditions of each client to ensure that none of the wording is ambiguous.
If anyone would like to discuss specific issues then please contact us directly.
typcal scouser always after something that’s free
seriously though.. an apology is free but would admit that you know more than a network so yikes.. can’t have that.. imagine a network admitting an affiliate has greater knowledge than they do about something… soon merchant’s would be thinking the networks might not be the ones driving traffic at all
or something lol
maybe we should have the networks nominate one person to step up and do an adwords pro exam tomorrow with no preparation just to illustrate the grand canyon wide gap in knowledge here.
oh and for the sake of balance some PPC / SEM agencies are just as clueless .. it’s not just affiliate networks
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one then I’m afraid.
In my eyes, ‘build up’ direct relationships does not constitute in sending (not for the first time) emails that are blatant accusations. I would only be more than happy to provide you with complete access to my account and drop you with an email containing all my keywords for you persual. Maybe, then just maybe, you will see for yourself that bidding on terms has not been taking place.
Sadly Affili.net have, as a Network, have gone down in my personal opinion over the past few months. Not only have I been accused of false bidding (on more than one occasion) I have been pulled from campaigns with NO explanation whatsoever (Toyota Yaris). How exactly does this constitute building up direct relationships?
Every Cloud Has A Silver Lining
Trying to put a bit of positive spin on all of this, atleast by discussing it in an open debate, Affili.net have recognised;
1. They don’t have any inhouse PPC experts and therefore rely other people – maybe something that needs to be addressed?
2. They are prepared to provide a negative list of keywords to upload to save affiliates some time when promoting other advertisers.
3. They will be looking at all of the terms and conditions of each client to ensure that none of the wording is ambiguous.
I’ve had a very similar experience the past 2 weeks with another network. I’m still waiting for an apology and I think I could still be waiting for an apology this time next year! Some people just don’t get it. Even after an email from MSN stating we were not brand bidding and weren’t even running a campaign on the merchant they still insisted we were. I expected it from the other network, I wouldn’t have expected it from Affili.net.
Don’t we all remember the previous Interflora debacle from several years back? When Pete mentioned to me they were coming onboard, I thought it would be a hot coal too hot to handle and that it would be handled differently.
Going back to a previous comment we made on Frosties blog wrt to Anne Summers
http://www.webaffiliate.co.uk/blog/seo/microsoft/you-cant-ppc-seasons.html
“Easy solution. Find a generic term they are bidding on then append your brand name i.e. “Lingerie + Your Brand Name†.. try various options until their ad appears, then tell them to stop bidding on your brand or variations or to put negative keywords of you brand into all they paid search campaigns, then face the other way, drop your draws and illustrate to them where the sun doesn’t shine.”
By the same token we could insist that network informs the merchant to put in Negative keywords of ALL affiliates brands & URL’s
When Affili.net first set up, I thought they really had a dream team in place, albeit the people in the company we know are very pleasant, it’s not a company we want to a considerable business for obvious reasons.
There are quite a few aspects of MSN Adcenter that are different to Google Adwords and even MSN Adcenter are not aware of a few of the few broadmatches that are thrown up.
“Joe, I never have and never will add a merchants brand name as a negative match for any ppc campaign. I don’t believe in it, simple as that.”
Even if it’s in the rules? Or will you just not promote the programme? It’d be interesting to find out if those terms actually put off affiliates from a programme.
Matt, I can only speak personally, however terms and conditions wouldn’t put me off a program unless they are absurbed such as Toys R Us
However, what does put me off is when a merchant introduces T&C’s and then weeks down the line decides to change them. Not only is this a pain in the ass for us PPC bods, but also I suspect they may simply USE us affiliates to see what keywords are best performing.
As long as a merchant stipulates from the beginning then the choice is mine as to whether to promote or not.
Cheers Chris.
I’m with you on the over-zealous t’s and c’s. I personally think requesting the brand as negative is acceptable (and from experience managing programmes, it has helped keep things clear), however, when we get into mis spells then it’s ridiculous.
I was just surprised by Keiron’s comment about never adding negatives thats all. Its a fair enough opinion so long as the programme is not promoted. If he’s signed up but refuses to add a negative, then that is not a good example to newer or smaller affiliates who have no choice but to adhere due to a lack of reputation.
Anyway, I agree with all other points on this post and its something we’ll take notice of at R.O.EYE.
The thing is determining whats is meant by Brand Bidding. For example, you may not be able to bid on “NIKE” in which case “NIKE” would not feature in my keyword list. However a merchant may then decide that they don’t want any adverts appearing where “NIKE” appears in the phrase. This is completely different to simply brand bidding.
For example, if I bid on “SHOES” as a broad match, then my advert would appear on a “NIKE SHOES” search term. NIKE is the brand and is trademarked, however NIKE SHOES is not the brand and is not the trademark. Some merchants and networks jump to the gun that affiliates are bidding on “NIKE” when infact you aren’t. If my advert then showed for term “NIKE SHOES” I am infact breaking no T&Cs set out.
In recent developments with more than one network, I am no longer resting on my lorals. If there are exemptions in place on a program, I will now add all these exemptions (specific match only) to a negative keyword list. This is purely because I am fed up of being accused of brand bidding when it actual fact it is ignorance on the networks part to blame.
This is where clarity is required from the merchant/network and where skills are obviously lacking that need to be addressed.
Matt, take this case in point as an example. Lets say I run a credit card site which compares all the credit cards in the market. So for arguments sake, 50 credit cards.
I don’t brand bid on ANY brand terms as I’m not allowed to. However I do bid on generic terms such as “credit card”. I then send users to my website which has a big old compare table on the homepage with about 30 credit cards listed.
Obviously as the term “credit card” is set to broad match then my ad will show up if people search for “egg credit card” or “MBNA credit card” etc. It will NOT show up however for terms like “MBNA” on its own as I don’t brand bid.
So a merchant comes along (lets say MBNA) for an example and asks me to add MBNA as a negative term to my ads. Do they have a right to do this? I don’t think so and I never ever comply. If they then want to remove me from the program them fine, they can, their loss.
Sorry if that upsets you but thats my stance and I’ve held firm to it over the years. Funnily enough I’ve never ever, not even once been kicked off a program because of it.
“It will NOT show up however for terms like “MBNA†on its own as I don’t brand bid.”
This is no longer the case. If MSN or Google think that your advert is related to that search term, unless you turn off advance something or other, they may decide to show it without your knowledge! However, as Kieron said to me “thats down to the search engine, not me”.
Never been kicked off a campaign? You should hand them over to me
Frostie I know about these options in the search engines but thats another story really.
My comments are related to merchants asking for their name to be added as a negative match for generic ppc campaigns. Its just not on!
Yes I take it on board that Ts and Cs need to accurately document what the merchant means.
However, I’m talking about adding a negative to brand terms that like Chris says, may show up on an exact term without you knowing.
There’s 2 schools of thought on this:
1) Like Chris says, Its up to the search engines and therefore not something to worry about.
2) Affiliates can accept that this can happen and regardless of the cause of the ad showing, accept the Ts and Cs and add an exact match negative.
It won’t mess up your generic campaign and the ad won’t show on exact brand terms regardless of search engine settings.
I agree, it’s not you directly breaking rules if it happens, but then again it’s not the merchants fault either. If there wasn’t a simple solution then I could understand it being overlooked. However, one exact match negative and you are covered as to any changes in the way the engines work.
Keiron, it doesn’t upset me – I’m just a bit baffled as to why its such an issue to add an exact negative and help minimise merchants blundering in with accusing emails.
Don’t take all this the wrong way, I’m just sticking by my views!
Matt