ReveNews
-
NAVIGATION
-
TOPICS
-
THE REVENEWS BLOGGERS
-
QUICK CONTACT
ShareASale Toolbar RoundTable
I had the pleasure of listening in to yesterday’s roundtable hosted by Brian and Carolyn of ShareASale. The topic of the round table was affiliates’ use of downloadable toolbars and what was acceptable to operate within the ShareASale network and what was not. I commend Brian for taking on such a contentious issue in such a public manner. I don’t believe there are other networks willing to publicly include their affiliates in issues like this.
The call started with a brief presentations, 25 minutes or so, by Brian that framed the discussion. Each participant was then given the opportunity to add to the conversation or ask a question, either by raising their (virtual) hand and commenting via audio or submitting an anonymous questions via AOL instant messenger. Great use of technology and it proved a very effective means of interaction. I had all of my questions answered during the call.
Brain framed the discussion of toolbars by first making the distinction of Customer Service vs Marketing. Customer service, in regards to toolbars, interacts with a previously identified customer to strengthen the relationship. Marketing attracts new customers. This was important point to start from.
The presentation then moved on to “who owns the desktop”. Here are some of the points Brian set out:
- User has the right to download software on their computer
- Marketer/merchant has the expectation that their content not be modified
- Toolbars should in no way interfere with content on an individual site. Example click to call, price comparison, product replacement.
- “people have created toolbars that allow for real time price comparison.” stuff in their cookie
Brian laid out three levels of toolbar download. I couldn’t take notes fast enough, but here is what Brian wrote on ABW:
- A Level 1 Toolbar is one that doesn’t interact with the user. The user interacts with it. For example, this could be a search toolbar that has nothing but a search box at the top. It doesn’t do anything until the user tells it to go do something such as look up a term, etc…
- A Level 2 Toolbar interacts with a user only after a click event from that same affiliate’s website. So – in a clear example based on loyalty sites in affiliate marketing: A user goes to the loyalty site on their own – and clicks a link to a merchant. Only at this time does any interaction such as a change in color, message, etc… The toolbar is providing a customer service function to a customer who had previously clicked on an actual website link. If a visitor direct type-ins a merchant URL, this type of toolbar does NOT interact with the user. The toolbar only interacts with the user when a click takes place directly from the loyalty affiliate’s website.
- A Level 3 Toolbar interacts with a user wherever site they may be on. Additional functionality of toolbars include notifications when users “could be” earning commissions by shopping at another site, etc…. This toolbar provides both a customer service but also a marketing purpose.
And went on to describe some of the behavior:
Automatic redirection
- Automatic redirection has been a real problem in the past
- “No room for automatic redirection at any time”
- Penalties should be severe
Positive vs Negative Notification
- Probably the area of biggest debate
- Most critical element
- Positive – a reinforcement of a previous click – if you are a toolbar provider and affiliate marketer and the toolbar is of the same affiliate. A user clicks from that same affiliate, allowing that toolbar to interact with customer is a positive interaction as the toolbar and affiliate are the same. Toolbar is prompted by a click from the same affiliate’s site.
- Negative notification – a pre-click notification. You are on a different site than the toolbar that is notifying you, it is pre any click from any user on the toolbar provider’s website
- The third type is no notification. A toolbar is sitting there and redirects or some other function without any notification.
- Brian’s goal was to allow those silent notification and positive notification while providing guidelines for negative notification toolbars
The last portion of Brian’s presentation focused around the fact that Technology moves very fast and he wants to evaluate what sort of toolbar technologies SAS wants to allow within their network.
The group, somewhere around 100, as a whole pretty much agreed that Level 1 and Level 2 were okay. I didn’t hear anyone specifically have anything wrong with either one, but one participant pointed out that no one can speak for the entire group, but it is safe to say those two levels are pretty safe.
Resulting from a question, Brian stated that his intention was to forge a new policy at ShareASale and not necessarily the industry. A few asked what SAS’ motivation was for this change and Brian was very forthcoming with his answer. Many merchants have asked if certain affiliates could be allowed within the network. This has moved SAS to re-evaluate their policy. Brian stated: “The changes come from technology and market request. We have merchants ask to allow inclusion of toolbar affiliates all the way up to level 3. … The solution may be to allow only level 1 and not 2 or 3, but this is the situation we are at…” “it may not be something that is an obvious problem to someone from the outside, to me, from what I hear and go over, I think it is a problem that needs to be addressed”. He also stated that no decisions have been made and that this call was intended to solicit responses, ideas and feedback on this issue that SAS feels is a very important one. SAS has often been at the forefront of this tool bar issue and it was refreshing to see them ask the community for their input on a company policy. I wish other organizations would do the same, and I bet you do too.
There was a flurry of questions. Here is an incomplete list of a few of them:
- What kind of punishment would be pursued on offending affiliates
- Would SAS identify toolbar affiliates within the affiliate manager’s interface – To which Brian responded ““yes definitely, this would be a pretty important piece for us” “an application process would be outside the current application process and may include other forms of documentation so the merchant understands what is going on and what we are watching. I do anticipate a change to the application process that clearly identifies these to the merchants”
- What toolbars fall into acceptable behavior? There really wasn’t an answer to this, Brian stated, as what is acceptable behavior hasn’t been established.
- Is there a level of toolbar that you will not allow in? Brain:“definitely….auto redirect are a no” “the debate I am looking for is between level 2 and 3”. “The reinforcement of a prior click doesn’t interfere…” “my hope is that after today we can get past level 1 and level 2 and come up with something for level 3”
There were many other questions and I had to leave a bit early, but the general gist from participants was that anything that interfered with another affiliates traffic or auto redirected was a big no no and SAS agreed with that sentiment. It was a great call that I am very glad to have been a part of. This type of thing is very much needed industry wide – discussion, participation and a bit of self regulation. It is a very contentious issue and it seems like SAS is going about this in the right way.
I may have missed a few things or missed a few quotes, if you attended, please add your impressions.
Thanks for the overview Jamie. I wish I had been able to listen in on the call. I was hoping someone would publish a recap. Kudos to Brian and Carolyn for having this discussion.
No problem. I hope it didn’t seem “jumpy” at all. I tried to take copious notes.
Nice recap of the call Jamie.
“This type of thing is very much needed industry wide – discussion, participation and a bit of self regulation.”
I couldn’t agree more…except if I added honest and forthcoming discussion. It is the exact type of discussion needed in our industry, particularly for the hard issues.
“Brain framed the discussion of toolbars by first making the distinction of Customer Service vs Marketing. Customer service, in regards to toolbars, interacts with a previously identified customer to strengthen the relationship. Marketing attracts new customers. This was important point to start from.”
There’s a problem with that starting point.
Customer service and marketing are not opposing forces. Marketing does attract new customers, it’s also used to try to keep previous customers coming back. A customer is new every single time since they can easily shop with a competitor next time. So there is no distinction between the two. That customer service is indeed marketing.
Little something you can read:
“I truly believe customer service is the new marketing and communities are at the very least, opportunities to engage customer service.”
http://www.briansolis.com/2008/10/social-media-customer-service-20.html
It’s all marketing. So trying to say customer service isn’t marketing and trying to make some distinction between the two, doesn’t hold up.
Trust, thanks for the comments. I believe what Brian was trying to show was that there were two kinds of toolbars, customer service toolbars and marketing toolbars and he wasn’t referring to the overall concepts. I apologize if that is what my post read like.
Oh no, your post was fine, thought it was a good one. Just for me a customer service toolbar might not be the type of marketing with ads, popups etc but still another form of marketing.
Jamie,
Great recap, I was really hoping to be on the call but it seems that you hit on all of the major points. Is there any chance that the call was recorded? I would love to hear it in it’s entirety.
Your notes were good. I was there taking notes too, but since you said you would post I took the easy way out and waited for you to write it up!
The call was recorded, but Brian may not publicly release the recording. Before the call he posted that it would be recorded but was not sure if he would make it available. If you missed it and want to hear it, I suggest you email Brian and ask him. Either he can arrange a listen or just talk to you in person and you get the story right from him.
Trust,
I’ve no reason to believe that Brian doesn’t fully understand the relationship between customer service and marketing. I doubt he would have gotten through Vanderbilt School of Business nor built SAS as he has to a large extent based on customer support if he didn’t understand those concepts quite thoroughly.
I think the key is the part of “in regards to toolbars”. It’s an important qualifier to the overall statement.
So if you went from:
“So trying to say customer service isn’t marketing and trying to make some distinction between the two, doesn’t hold up.”
To:
“for me a customer service toolbar might not be the type of marketing with ads, popups etc but still another form of marketing.”
I don’t think his starting point was necessarily such a bad one. I think that was part of his goal…to make the point that toolbars can be used for something outside of the type of marketing using ads, popups etc.
And those other types, such as customer service, can be non-problematic with regards to overwrites and channel cannibalization. Indeed a toolbar based on customer service can indeed benefit affiliates and thus everyone in the equation.
There are many in this industry who either don’t realize or haven’t considered the other possible uses beyond direct marketing (I would contend that some toolbar behavior isn’t even marketing or advertising). So if some are now more aware of that and educated regarding toolbar technology, then I don’t think his original starting point is necessarily a problem.
As a coupon affiliate, if you decided that you wanted to have a toolbar that would reinforce the benefits of the savings your site has provided your customers (users) by displaying a total of all savings they have garnered by using the coupons from your site, why shouldn’t you be allowed to do that? It’s not interference but reinforcing the customer service you provide to your visitors. Should you be restricted from utilizing such tools in your business model just because you *might* do something else because others have in the past? Should we assume that you would do something more nefarious with the technology?
If that kind of logic is going to be applied, then maybe the use of coupons by affiliates should be banned. There certainly has been quite a lot of coupon abuse over the years. There are slippery slopes everywhere.
Thanks for the recap Jamie I wasn’t taking notes on this one. I was happy to see a lot of people on the call and it went more smoothly than i expected. There were great questions asked and all in a professional manner.
Some good points but we’re talking about affiliates and an affiliate network. I haven’t seen those type of toolbars you’re talking about in regards to affiliate marketing. The ones being discussed, the ones that sparked all this recent conversation had icons turning colors (one has stopped it since) in the address bar when it was on the merchant site from direct traffic and from affiliate traffic. Even in these major networks they have rules that they’re supposed to stand down from affiliate traffic. And I believe from a recent post there are other add-ons that don’t adhere to that either. All the ones I’ve seen to this point in regards to affiliate marketing are straight up marketing toolbars, not these customer service ones.
When affiliates want to use this kind of thing, money and marketing are behind it. Then you have the problem with toolbars, add ons etc. can “glitch” which you’re well aware and other problems. And monitoring is a big issue in itself. So yeah, slippery slope, especially when you open the door to this kind of thing. And if and it looks like it is, minimum it needs to stand down from affiliate traffic.
Thanks for taking the time to compose the recap Jamie.
Although I applaud SAS for doing this kind of outreach with their affiliates and although I am technology agnostic; I am afraid I find myself agreeing with Trust.
Toolbars in this industry are only designed for one purpose. That purpose is marketing. Sure the technology itself is not the issue. But SAS has made a name for itself providing a safe haven for non-corporate affiliates. This is a move that I feel will hurt that reputation. SAS doesn’t have the internal resources to effectively monitor such technology and even if they did allowing the technology in effectively eliminate differentiation between SAS and other networks (even if in perception alone).
“I haven’t seen those type of toolbars you’re talking about in regards to affiliate marketing. The ones being discussed, the ones that sparked all this recent conversation had icons turning colors (one has stopped it since) in the address bar when it was on the merchant site from direct traffic and from affiliate traffic.”
But I have. I imagine that Brian has too. They exist and are being used by some affiliates. I personally don’t have a problem with those kinds. I’ve actually seen a couple of new ones lately tied to social media that haven’t been discussed at all (why I threw out an example during the call) that are actually pretty cool but don’t necessarily cause any interference.
I understand that’s not what you and some others are discussing. But it *is* what Brian is trying to discuss. Along with the blinky flashy icon ones as well.
I haven’t liked the blinky flashy icon thing for years now. Years. It is NOT a new issue. But here’s the thing with the other networks. They do NOT disallow for a prompt. Never had. They have never said that a prompt couldn’t happen, even when the traffic originates from another affiliate. It is within the other networks TOS (or at least how they interpret their TOS) to allow it. Buyersport prompted. WhenU prompted. LittleGrad prompted via icon.
I’ve been opposed to those types of prompting to get the “physical click” because I’ve always felt that it potentially interfered more with other affiliate’s sales more than some of the other apps that would stand down on another affiliate’s traffic (even to some degree).
My opposition to automation (whether in a redirect or a prompt) especially in conjunction of contextual targeting the merchant’s URL to activate the toolbar has not changed. I still oppose it. I’ve made my case to Brian over the years (again years) as to why I don’t like it and why I think it has no place in affiliate marketing.
If you don’t like the blinky flashy thing, then lay out the case that it not a good thing for the affiliate channel. Not just a global sentiment that amounts to toolbars are evil. Or the toolbar could do something bad. Make the case for exactly why the prompting should not be allowed. IMO, there’s a strong case to be made. I’m not seeing anyone really make the case beyond they don’t like it.
I think it devalues the affiliate channel. I don’t have to state my opinion to Brian on why I feel it does because I’ve already done that more than once in our general discussions on software. Make the case for why the integrity of the channel is more important than the consumer wanted the blinky flashy toolbar and it brings assists the affiliate in keeping their customers happy. That’s what the merchant’s having been being sold and buying into to. And there is a counter case to be made to that argument. A strong one IMO.
It’s not about if Brian decided to call something customer service or not. It’s about behaviors of toolbars, what should and should not be acceptable and why. And making the case for or against those behaviors.
BTW..there is a very easy solution to the blinky flashy thing where there is a toolbar but no controversary of interference (for other affiliates or the merchant). I shared that with Brian in Vegas during a general discussion (nope I didn’t know an actual policy change for SAS was in the works). The fruit just isn’t as low lying. But keeping low lying fruit available isn’t my concern in keeping a level playing field.
“Toolbars in this industry are only designed for one purpose. That purpose is marketing.”
I’d have to say I think that the majority of toolbars in the affiliate channel are designed to generate affiliate revenue.
Not all, but the majority of them right now. There a difference between marketing and revenue generation.
I would hope to see that change, since toolbars aren’t just going to go away.
There is also a difference between when affiliates are marketing for a merchant and for their own site. I think it is very doable for a toolbar to be marketing for their own site and not causing all those issues we are familiar with.
“But SAS has made a name for itself providing a safe haven for non-corporate affiliates. This is a move that I feel will hurt that reputation. SAS doesn’t have the internal resources to effectively monitor such technology and even if they did allowing the technology in effectively eliminate differentiation between SAS and other networks (even if in perception alone).”
Yes, that could well be true. But then that’s a marketing issue for SAS isn’t it? I can’t imagine Brian wasn’t aware of that risk going into this. My own conclusions from talking with him and what he’s said/posted is that he indeed is aware of that risk but feels that the issue has come to a point of needing to be addressed. It was worth the image risk to address what he feels is a very important policy issue, for both SAS and the industry as a whole.
I like Brian and SAS. I would hate to see them take a significant hit over this. However, my main concern is not SAS’s public relations and marketing, but rather policies within the industry.
I do understand where you are coming from Angel. It’s why I said in my blog post about the roundtable:
“The real challenge will be whether or not ShareASale can overcome the stigma that has become attached with downloaded software, turning what has been somewhat of a black eye for affiliate marketing into a positive.”
I do think it could also made a potential positive marketing point for SAS. If they can achieve something no one else has yet, while maintaining the integrity of the channel.
How it plays out for SAS from their own marketing/public relations standpoint, only time will tell.
“The real challenge will be whether or not ShareASale can overcome the stigma that has become attached with downloaded software, turning what has been somewhat of a black eye for affiliate marketing into a positive.”
That stigma has been good for business. If you look at the ABW favorite network polls over the years, they went from last to first primarily on 2 things IMO. Being parasite free and very good at communication. A lot of that growth has been because of being looked at as a clean network.
“I do think it could also made a potential positive marketing point for SAS. If they can achieve something no one else has yet, while maintaining the integrity of the channel.”
And there’s also potential for a lot of negative PR. Already it’s not looking good. Now let’s look ahead. There’s still a new policy coming. Once that’s in place, what happens if there is a “glitch” and based on past history, it’s possible. If following such a thing, there is some excuse, blaming the technology or something like that, just more bad PR.
Speaking of potential positive marketing points, this also opens the door to some of the newer networks like Avantlink and Buy.at (their competitors), since at this point, they still have a firm policy against this type of thing. And this could drive new business their way. They already have a working model to look at and can see the type of growth that model can bring.
I don’t see this turning out well because of all the potential problems that come along with it but like you said, time will tell.
Just wanted to add one more thing and this is based off a post a merchant just made. A merchant that wasn’t in this kind of thing before but now is looking at them because of these recent developments.
This most likely will be used by the other networks with their current merchants and their toolbar affiliates by saying look over there. If clean network is ok with them, then they’re not so bad. You might want to take it down to Level 1, 2, 3 and even 1a, 1b, 1c etc, get real specific with it but it’s going to end up being “generalized” as ok and that’s not good.