<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Check Out The Checkout or Chuck Out The Affiliate?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/merchants/check-out-the-checkout-or-chuck-out-the-affiliate-836.htm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/merchants/check-out-the-checkout-or-chuck-out-the-affiliate-836.htm</link>
	<description>Online blog of Jason Dale, co-director of Loquax. My views on affiliate marketing, running a website and anything else that seems appropriate!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:55:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Pratley</title>
		<link>http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/merchants/check-out-the-checkout-or-chuck-out-the-affiliate-836.htm/comment-page-1/#comment-51275</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Pratley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:24:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/?p=836#comment-51275</guid>
		<description>We build stores for a number of merchants and a great many of them use voucher codes for incentivising, and tracking offline promotions so removing the voucher code box just isn&#039;t practical.

Your idea of somehow &#039;locking&#039; the cookie at that stage is a great one though. I&#039;d love to hear some feedback from the network tech guys on how feasible that is. Merchants are desparate to find ways of rewarding incremental sales and this sound like a good step in the right direction. Far easier to work to than other suggestions like first-click-wins or sharing-the-cookie.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We build stores for a number of merchants and a great many of them use voucher codes for incentivising, and tracking offline promotions so removing the voucher code box just isn&#8217;t practical.</p>
<p>Your idea of somehow &#8216;locking&#8217; the cookie at that stage is a great one though. I&#8217;d love to hear some feedback from the network tech guys on how feasible that is. Merchants are desparate to find ways of rewarding incremental sales and this sound like a good step in the right direction. Far easier to work to than other suggestions like first-click-wins or sharing-the-cookie.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Norris</title>
		<link>http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/merchants/check-out-the-checkout-or-chuck-out-the-affiliate-836.htm/comment-page-1/#comment-51272</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Norris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:28:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/?p=836#comment-51272</guid>
		<description>Interesting comments here, and I can see both sides of the story. We will always have the issue of needing to use codes to track our campaigns at Lovefilm, and have multiple offers out there. We do however check our leads so that we pay for people who have used a code valid in the affiliate channel, and not swapped for a different offer.

My main issue has been voucher code sites that are aware this is the case and then listing our standard offers to get the last click, or posting codes not valid in the channel and then wondering why they have not been paid. The former is an issue I hope the new regulations help with, while the latter will not go away but affiliates always accept the lead being rejected.

1 method to reduce is can be simple wording on the page and having the promotional box already complete with the default code. If you state promotional code and have a code already filled would you agree it is more likely to cut down on this, compared to empty voucher code boxes? Would people accept it is tracking from the sales journey they have taken, or am I giving people too much respect? Multi-variant testing is the best way to find out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting comments here, and I can see both sides of the story. We will always have the issue of needing to use codes to track our campaigns at Lovefilm, and have multiple offers out there. We do however check our leads so that we pay for people who have used a code valid in the affiliate channel, and not swapped for a different offer.</p>
<p>My main issue has been voucher code sites that are aware this is the case and then listing our standard offers to get the last click, or posting codes not valid in the channel and then wondering why they have not been paid. The former is an issue I hope the new regulations help with, while the latter will not go away but affiliates always accept the lead being rejected.</p>
<p>1 method to reduce is can be simple wording on the page and having the promotional box already complete with the default code. If you state promotional code and have a code already filled would you agree it is more likely to cut down on this, compared to empty voucher code boxes? Would people accept it is tracking from the sales journey they have taken, or am I giving people too much respect? Multi-variant testing is the best way to find out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Dalrymple</title>
		<link>http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/merchants/check-out-the-checkout-or-chuck-out-the-affiliate-836.htm/comment-page-1/#comment-51271</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Dalrymple</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:31:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/?p=836#comment-51271</guid>
		<description>Matt, I think you&#039;ve hit the nail on the head entirely there - in too many cases affiliate marketing isn&#039;t bought into throughout the merchant so what on the face of it is a pretty simple change is actually a big internal PR exercise in the making.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, I think you&#8217;ve hit the nail on the head entirely there &#8211; in too many cases affiliate marketing isn&#8217;t bought into throughout the merchant so what on the face of it is a pretty simple change is actually a big internal PR exercise in the making.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/merchants/check-out-the-checkout-or-chuck-out-the-affiliate-836.htm/comment-page-1/#comment-51250</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/?p=836#comment-51250</guid>
		<description>Couldn&#039;t agree more Jason. I feel that the problem is that for larger clients, the person responsible for the affiliate channel does not have a large enough share of voice to be able to influence such changes. There is often a lack of understanding of the affiliate sector higher up, and therefore it is easier for them to rid themselves of the issue that they don&#039;t understand rather than embrace it and tackle the problem as a whole.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more Jason. I feel that the problem is that for larger clients, the person responsible for the affiliate channel does not have a large enough share of voice to be able to influence such changes. There is often a lack of understanding of the affiliate sector higher up, and therefore it is easier for them to rid themselves of the issue that they don&#8217;t understand rather than embrace it and tackle the problem as a whole.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/


Served from: www.onelittleduck.co.uk @ 2012-02-09 03:48:53 -->
