April 26, 2007

Biznology Blog by Mike Moran

« Do Search Marketers Need Another Ad Vendor? | Main | Google Takes Another Step to Personalized Search »



Are Your Affiliates Siphoning Your Paid Search Customers?

Angie McCloskey makes a strong case in MediaPost's Performance Insider on how "Affiliates Are Pilfering Your Brand" by grabbing branded search terms and then charging the merchant for the trouble. She points out that if your brand is what caused people to search, then by restricting your affiliates so that they can't bid on those branded keywords you'd reap all the benefits of customers coming directly to you. Instead of paying affiliate fees for searchers using branded terms, you'd pay nothing to make the same sales. Although this sounds like common sense, I think it's wrong.

Certainly Angie has a point. If you've spent years building your brand, why would you want to cut affiliate marketers in on the sale when your customers search for branded keywords?

Some merchants running affiliate programs have heeded Angie's advice and changed their affiliate agreements so that their affiliates are not allowed to bid on certain branded terms. Unbranded category keywords are fine, and it makes sense to credit the affiliate with driving sales from those terms, but these merchants are making branded terms off-limits to affiliates. Studies by MarketingSherpa indicate that this practice is on the rise, with twice as many merchants blocking branded search terms since early 2005.

I think that's short-sighted.

As I wrote a year ago in my column in Revenue Magazine, "Unfortunately, no matter what a merchant does to block its affiliates from buying branded keywords, competitors can't always be blocked, because the merchant has no control over them. The merchant can buy just one ad per branded keyword, but the search engines always show several ads on each result screen. Although the merchant might have the top paid spot, who has the rest of the spots?

"Before that merchant began blocking its affiliates, the bulk of those other ads were likely from its affiliates. Searchers who clicked on those affiliate ads (and bought) were still buying from the merchant, even if the merchant had to shell out higher fees than if the searchers had purchased without coming through an affiliate.

"But Randy Antin, search marketing manager of Travelocity, notes that when his company restricted its affiliates from bidding on branded keywords, 'the spaces in the bidding were soon replaced by our competitors' affiliates.' Searchers clicking anything other than Travelocity's single ad might end up buying from a competitor. Yahoo has recently changed its policy to block competitors from using trademarks, but it remains to be seen if other search engines will follow suit."

To me, it's a shelf space issue. Every search has a set of results, and anything you can do to crowd out the competition is a good thing. I'd rather have higher cost of sales with a lot higher sales than lower my cost of sales while losing revenue to the competition. You can read my entire column, "The Search Tug of War," but I warn you that the Web site has mangled the text a bit from the original print version.

Posted by MikeMoran at April 26, 2007 2:58 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.mikemoran.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/236

Comments

You unfortunately don't take into account how Google's Quality Score and Ad Rank work when you responded here. By allowing affiliate to violate Google Adwords policies (yes, multiple sites is a violation) you are breaking up clicks, thus lowering Ad Rank score, and in summary, making it easier for competitors to show up.

End of story, no debating this fact: It is easier for your competitors to show up when you have a 6% click rate across 4 ads versus 24% click rate on one ad. Test it and see for yourself before commenting with biased opinions rather than facts.

Posted by: Joe Smith at May 21, 2007 6:09 PM

I'm sorry, Joe, but what I wrote stands. I am not talking about affiliates having multiple sites--I am talking about each affiliate having one site. You'd have a point if Google showed just one ad per keyword. Then consolidating your clickthrough on one ad would get your ad shown. Unfortunately, that's not how things work. If you restrict your affiliates from showing up in the list, you may succeed as you say in getting your ad at the top of the list, but competitors and rogue players will fill the rest of the slots. That's why Travelocity and other companies are reversing their restrictive policies for affiliates. Travelocity knows that their affiliates sell Travelocity tickets, which is better than selling the competition. It is more important to control the conversions than the rankings.

Posted by: Mike Moran at May 22, 2007 6:56 AM

Excellent article Mike--you are right on target. I mentioned you in a blog post I published today about Brand Siphoning:

http://www.semreportcard.com/delving-into-the-google-lawsuit-what-is-brand-siphoning-and-how-does-it-affect-mary-kay-cosmetics/

Posted by: Tom Crandall at May 22, 2007 2:22 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

Human detector: Please enter the letter "g" in the field below to help fight automated spam comments:

(you may use HTML tags for style)