Many people mistake marketing newsletters as “spam” despite them having joined a site and agreeing to receive email communications. In part online marketeers are responsible for this - some sites do bombard their mailing lists daily, whilst others happily flog details to anyone and everyone without thought.
The media also play a part by portraying spam as everything other than an email from your chums. However, the biggest culprits are the endless stream of drivel that comes in offering people access to bigger appendages, drugs to keep said appendages working, and sexy foreign girls who want a man with big drug fueled appendages in exchange for your bank account details.
McAfee know what spam is and to demonstrate their vast knowledge of the subject they’ve been running the SPAM Experiment where “participants will keep an on online diary of their experiences and update it daily. Their experience will show the real effects of spam”. Spam they say is “junk email”.
The BBC know what spam is too! Back in 2003 they reported about how “Unsolicited e-mails now infuriatingly clutter many inboxes, just as paper junk mail buried many a front door mat.”
So what does unsolicited mean… well according to Answers.com it means “Not looked for or requested“.
So if someone clicks on a link to “join” a website that they’ve signed up for - what has that got to do with spam?
Well according to a video report from The BBC, reporting on the project by McAfee, one of the UK’s well known names in affiliate marketing is being a naughty boy and spamming people - that’s if you believe you get spam by signing up for a site and then activating an account agreeing to receive a newsletter from them. You can find out more at Affiliate Marketing Blog.
The thing is The BBC have probably managed to pick the one site where the owner, Supercod, is able to drill down, show the activity of the user in the video and demonstrate what complete and utter tosh the report is! Let’s hope they issue a groveling apology as the report is nothing short of a disgrace.
And disgrace is something which could be applied to the whole SPAM Experiment. For something to be scientific it requires control and regulation in order for the end results to be deemed meaningful. The site has a blog by the UK participants and the daily reports make very interesting reading.
The bloggers claim they went looking for spam by posting their email addresses on forums, signing up for sites and even replying to genuine spam in order to see what happens. But isn’t spam “unsolicited” and “not looked for or requested”?
For this to be an acceptable scientific experiment one person should be doing one thing (e.g. registering on Site X) and using a specific email address to do it - so it can be tracked when “sold on”. By allowing the guinea pigs free rein to do as they please, McAfee’s experiment lacks conclusive scientific substance!
This makes the whole experiment as fishy as The BBC’s spam report that highlights Supercod’s site!
The BBC and McAfee should be educating internet users about spam, but they need to make sure people learn the difference between unsolicited email and requested newsletters - the TV clip fails to do that and the experiment and journalism behind it is nothing short of incredibly poor.
Swansea is a brilliant place to live - Mumbles (as loved by Nadeem) and Gower are close by and there’s even a pier to visit. It’s an ideal place for a Buy.at Event.
The winner of the latest Buy.at promotion is offering affiliate’s the chance to win a networking party brought to their hometown. Unfortunately the competition is based on the percentage growth of weekend sales over the summer and not the opportunity to pitch for it….. because on a pitch, Swansea would win hands down!
Despite being the fourth most miserable place to live in a recent poll (it beat Newcastle so good news for Buy.at people), the one reason why Swansea is ideal for an affiliate get together is this….
Voucher code sites and the click to reveal problem have hit the spotlight again on Affiliates4U. Click to reveal a code is used by many voucher code sites as a way of ensuring a cookie is dropped when a visitor comes looking for a discount. It at least beats them using the unethical 1×1 iframes or pop unders and most networks seem ok with this practice.
The problem is that the “click to reveal code and show site” has now extended to beyond just a valid voucher code and it seems it can now be applied to offers, promotions, free delivery and the biggest bugbear of them all “no discount code”. There’s no doubting that the mechanism is a powerful call to action but is this right for affiliate marketing?
The issue is this - in a content scenario I may write “Merchant X are currently offering 50% off Turnip Shaped Ornaments. Click here to visit the site” where as in a click to reveal scenario the copy is usually “Merchant X Offers & Discounts. Click for current offers and to visit site”. The user then has to click to see that the offer is for “50% off Turnip Shaped Ornaments” whilst having the cookie set.
Personally I think the user should be pre-sold and then encouraged to clickthrough rather than told/incentivised to clickthrough before they get the full pre-sell. It’s a subtle difference, and I can understand why some affiliates don’t see why there is an issue with this.
The concern for me is at what point is “click to reveal my content and drop cookie” acceptable or unacceptable?
If a price comparison search result was “We have found 15 cameras for you, the cheapest is £25. To show your results and visit the cheapest store - click here” would that be ok? Perhaps it is? Perhaps it isn’t? Yes you can argue a punter doesn’t have to click, but with such a powerful call to action the likelihood is they will.
You could also argue that as you’re dangling a carrott in front of the user (a code/details/information) you are incentivising the user to click… and aren’t incentives to click/drop a cookie frowned upon in AM?
To get a code perhaps click to reveal is required to safeguard the affiliate’s interest (?), but to see content or to find out a site actually doesn’t have a code, I cannot see why the click to reveal is required. Put up content and offer a user a link to a merchant.
The problem we have though is that the only people who can resolve these issues are the networks - and it’s shocking how little appears to be said from that quarter when it comes to offering solutions and guidelines.
You’d have thought that everyone in the industry should be striving for best ethical affiliate practice, and yet despite the tuxedos, IAB commissions and award waving, the affiliate playground is still pretty much wild west territory with no one willing to say anything in case it jeopardises their revenue.
Maybe I’m wrong in thinking that just because something makes money doesn’t necessarily equate to it being right!
And perhaps networks and merchants don’t see it as a problem?
A big thank you to Goldsmiths who very kindly emailed me to tell me I won their recent affiliate prize draw via LinkShare. I’m now a very happy owner of one Hugo Boss Gents watch with blue chronograph dial and very nice it is too.
Usually when we’re lucky enough to win something (or a merchant just sends something as a thank you) the items tend to get recycled as prizes - but not this time!
It does need a little adjustment as it’s way too big wrist wise, but other than I’m well chuffed with this
It’s not the usual iPod or vouchers, but something I’d probably look at in a shop and want to buy but “Mr Sensible Head” would interfere and I’d walk away from it!
So a big thanks to Goldsmiths….
However, there’s more to winning the incentive than just having a nice new watch!
Firstly it made me a look a lot more closely at LinkShare and their merchants - there’s some nice brands, albeit retail based, on board (e.g. House of Fraser, Wyevale, Koodos, Uniqlo and Lego) and they do have product feeds. It’s early days and I have to say that the user interface is a bit quirky but we’ll see how we get on.
Secondly it made me look a bit more at Goldsmiths and hopefully in the coming months we can do some more sales for them. It will be challenge, mainly because time (pardon the pun) is in short supply and the retail sector isn’t always the most profitable one for us to focus upon. However a few commissions from sales of their Corum Gents Golden Bridge Watch would be very nice!
Buy.at and Littlewoods have launched an early contender for Innovation of the Year 2009 with some quite funky new interactive video ads. At first glance they look just like normal videos but, and here’s the cool bit, if you hover your mouse over the products featured you can then click through, via an affiliate link, to buy them. At present there are five of the videos on offer, all ideal for fashion bloggers, but the scope for this technology is immense.
For example, imagine a TV advert showing offers/promotions for an electrical retailer converted into this format! Just hover and click - and you’re on your way to buying. Similarly take a Marks and Spencer ad and use the same technology - one click on Mylene Klass’s bikini and you’re one step away from purchasing!
Another useful feature is that the ads can also be shared socially with an embedding facility that’s integrated into the ad. Very clever!
The major challenge for affiliates is integrating this content into their sites so that it is used by the user and a major challenge for networks is providing options in terms of sizing to enable affiliates to meet that challenge. One size doesn’t always fit all!
That aside a very impressive step forward in the use of video creative!
This is the affiliate blog of Jason Dale, co-director of Loquax, which has been running (successfully) since 1998. One Little Duck is for news, views and observations about affiliate marketing, being a siteowner, a reluctant business person, a shy social networker and just general observations. Please feel to add comments!
