Ethics in Affiliate Marketing Session

[Aunesty]

Live in the session now - Haiko is speaking on the lack of ethics in the industry.

[Aunesty]

My number one issue with this panel, no Kellie Stevens. When I think of ethics in this industry, I immediately think of Kellie, it is hard to think of this panel existing without her being a part of it.

[samharrelson]

Sitting right behind you, Aunesty.

Agreed on the need for Kellie in this panel. Glad Brian and Connie are up there.

I also think it's good that Pepperjam and Paul from eBates are on the panel as well. Hopefully, more will come out of this than just the same old back-and-forth.

[Aunesty]

eBates stating that since 2001 they have implemented a non-redirect on others affiliate links....

[Kellie AFP]

I was asked to be on it, I agreed to be on it, I was led to believe I'd be on it. Then I was told I was not needed & would be kept in mind if a spot opened up. A couple of weeks later Brian was added. Politics or poor panel planning, don't know...but I LUV this biz!

I was glad to see Brian on it as you can't get more ethical than him. I do hope some good questions are brought up and about current practices. There are some challenging issues out there regarding quality assurance and compliance. It really goes beyond just whether something is ethical or not.

[7 Days Ron]

thanks for the updates for those of us who missed it, or in my case had to get to the airport.

[Beachy]

As Chuck Hamrick suggested, 2008 may be known as the year dialog was opened up on this issue. I, too, was disappointed that Kellie was not on the panel; but it was good to see discussion on such a contentious issue being held in an open presentation - without daggers, or even tomatoes, being thrown. I am glad to have seen and been a small part of today's session.

[jgoode]

I said it at the event and I think it'd needed to be said again and again until a real answer comes out....

no one has stopped the discussion long enough to pinpoint what "ethics" are in this industry. There is a lot of talk about the topic and using the word, but no one is giving an actual list of what behaviors they are and are not expecting. I personally don't think this means a difinitive list that everyone agrees on... but more of a broad spectrum view of what various people believe are the proper ways to engage within this industry.

I think a lot of the discussion relies on those involved having an understand of past and current issues, problems, arguments, etc. But, I think the more seasoned participants are forgetting that the industry is growing enormously, rather quickly, and not everyone involved knows the issues that are needing to be resolved.

So maybe the first step is to define the problem so more people can help view the issues and brainstorm a solution.

my take, in a nutshell:

• affiliates steal sales from eachother
• networks cover their eyes when an affiliate or merchant does "wrong"
• merchants don't always pay
• software is built to over ride and snag commissions and tracking doesn't seem to always credit the party that earned the sale
• there isnt always an agreement on who earns the credit when multiple parties are involved in a conversion

this is me summarizing for lack of time and experience on the topic. -- but its more for an example of what i hope those of you with more info will do. we need to define the problems, list the ultimate goals - then and only then can we really sit down to resolve and move forward.

we cant assume we each have the same basic moral values and perceptions, because we dont. so common sense and general good people respectful thinking has various lines and rationales that allow us each to make our own lines of "ok". so instead of arguing those lines, we need to define them

i could go on and on with analogies and examples, but for now, this is what i'll share.

[BillyKay]

Nail on the head Jen

There's more of course...

Where is this being discussed? Only at PMA? Here?

If we want to start a discussion here, count me in.

[Aunesty]

http://affspot.com/showthread.php?t=411 - Opened now

[Daniel M. Clark]

I said this at Summit and posted it earlier at ABW - to say that everything is black and white is as ridiculous as saying that nothing is black and white. Certainly there are some things that we can all agree are definitely unethical or definitely ethical. Let's figure out the edges and let the edges define the middle.

[Aunesty]

Originally Posted by Daniel M. Clark

I said this at Summit and posted it earlier at ABW - to say that everything is black and white is as ridiculous as saying that nothing is black and white. Certainly there are some things that we can all agree are definitely unethical or definitely ethical. Let's figure out the edges and let the edges define the middle.

Discussing edges here - http://www.affspot.com/showthread.php?t=411

[Donuts]

Kellie would have added something that was missing - facts. Facts observed and documented and with no real financial interest causing her to lean one way or another. If we are to be intellectually honest with each other, we have to admit we all have biases - and that including people with much less bias is critical to getting at the truth of these issues.

Besides that, I'd say every affiliate and merchant needs to watch this video once it's released - though little real progress was made (if any), much was revealed.

I remember Jen commenting about how she was seeing it unfold - and I wished I could sit with her and her hubby, with a DVD of it, and pause it in pieces and explain what the different parties were actually saying... and more importantly, what they meant with those words.

It was a fascinating session - and it would have been tremnedously better with Kellie there on it, in my opinion. Those same biases at work again, kept her from it. Give that some thoight Spotters... the better you become at spotting the truth of things, the farther you'll go in this both as a passion and a vocation.

[Daniel M. Clark]

I just posted this at ABW, and was asked to reprint it here
<---------------------------------------------------------------->

I've been trying to think of how to gather all my thoughts into one cohesive post, but I just can't - I've got too much on my mind and too much work going on! So, I'm going to throw out a few random thoughts in no particular order. Here we go.
-----
The presentation came across more like a college lecture with a guest panel than an audience participation event. Now, there's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but I was personally hoping for more audience back-and-forth with the panel members.
-----
I'm not going to claim to know all the inside details and I'm not going to comment on the events that led up to the final panel being chosen. That said, Kellie Stevens needs to be involved if there's going to be an Ethics panel discussion in Vegas. There's no excuse for her not to be involved short of Kellie herself declining to be involved.
-----
I was extremely put off by Paul Nichols' (Ebates) insinuation that the only reason we all haven't been sued for "interfering with our [his] business" is out of the goodness of his heart. I can't believe nobody called him on that - but then again, I didn't say anything either so I can't really complain . He really did mention several times that anyone who sought to interfere with Ebates' business was opening themselves to a lawsuit. Hopefully, expressing my disgust with that stance won't land me in court.

I'm also not convinced that Paul's assertion that they've been 100% clean for the past 7 years is true. I'm not saying he's lying. What I'm suggesting is that Ebates has had 7 years (of the 10 they've been around) to convince us that they're clean and they've failed miserably because clearly, the reputation is still there. Something is wrong with that. Are they, today, clean? If so, exactly how long have they been clean? If so, why haven't they shaken the reputation that's been plaguing them unnecessarily for 70% of their existence?

No, I suspect that they're not 100% clean (although you'll see in the video that Paul was lawyerly-specific when he said that "Ebates hasn't redirected on affiliate links since 2001". I won't rehash the 1% issue, but I'll say that I agree with those that are suspicious of it.
-----
Brian impressed me as always with his measured, well thought-out responses. He's not one to fly off the handle or start making statements without consideration, and I appreciate that. I agree that the networks should not be beholden to anyone but themselves as far as the idea for a common code goes. Shareasale should not have to lower their standards, other networks should be forced to raise theirs - and by forced, I'm talking about letting the market dictate that, not a third party. As an affiliate, I will always look to promote programs on Shareasale before any other network - and while I may still be a very small fish in a very large ocean, I feel that I'm doing my part to influence the other networks. If more affiliates, merchants and managers acted that way, maybe some change could be affected. Speaking of other networks....
-----
I would like to have a moratorium on the word "transparency" when applied to Pepperjam We get it - Pepperjam is about transparency. What I didn't hear though, was guarantees that Pepperjam itself would be transparent. I understand that we're expected to give up all kinds of information (be us affiliates, merchants or managers) to increase our "transparency score" - but Haiko mentioned Chinese walls and security, and to my recollection, it was rather glossed over by Michael Jones, representing Pepperjam. I think that I might revisit this after watching the video from the session, but this is what's on my mind now, three days later
-----
I disagree with the idea that the industry doesn't need or can't have police. I think we do need police, and that that role is best taken on by the networks. We've seen Shareasale police their own network, and it's resulted in a sterling reputation and a strong business. What we don't need is a third party trying to take that role on - be it the PMA, Voice or any other industry organization that decides to form. The networks need to establish and enforce their own codes of conduct. It's the enforcement that I see as the problem - too many networks give lip service to ethical practices and codes of conduct while allowing cheaters and thieves to flourish because they bring in the big bucks.
-----
I get angry when I hear people say that something technological can't be done. Nothing personal toward Haiko here - anyone could have said it because it's certainly a common idea - but "it would take terabytes of data" was a reason given for not splitting commissions among more than one source. I've got 1.5TB sitting on the desk next to me right now - cost me about $250. We are an industry of geeks, IT pros and technological innovators. If we want to split commissions so that all the sources who helped drive a sale can be compensated we find a way. We create a way to do it. There is nothing - nothing - in the realm of technology that should be used as a reason not to do something. Now, the question of whether or not commissions should be split is completely separate and I'm not going to offer my opinion of it in this thread.
-----
Connie and Chuck were fantastic. Not much more to say! If I think of anything else, I'll certainly post again. Overall, I'd give the session a solid "B". Not mind-blowing, but certainly not a waste of time. I strongly, strongly suggest that this be a regular session at all future Summits.

[Daniel M. Clark]

Haiko just pointed out that he didn't actually say that tracking and crediting multiple affiliates would be too hard because of the amount of data involved, and thinking back (and considering what he wrote in his response to me), I believe he's right - he didn't say that. The argument that it would be too hard isn't new, and I confused his comments with another argument. Mea culpa

I do stand by my general assertion that we should never base a decision on whether or not it's too technologically difficult

[Kellie AFP]

Since I wasn't there I reserve the right to change my opinion once I've actually seen the video of the session.

With regards to comments by Paul, this is not new. I've such many times over the years coming from Ebates and other companies as well. So my take on it is based on my experiences in the past. Ebates is thoughtful in their public statements. The company was founded by former prosecuting attorneys. Paul's background is in law.

If Paul said Ebates is clean (and this is something they have said repeatedly over the years), then the question one needs to ask is:

Clean by whose standards?

I can answer that one myself with a high degree of certainity. The COC.

The question that should then follow (and unfortunately often times doesn't) is what does the COC prohibit and what does it allow?

If Paul said that Ebates hasn't redirected on affiliate links since '01, then again the qualifiers for the statement need to be delved into. To a large degree this goes back to the COC. I'll just throw out a little tidbit for those who maybe weren't even doing affiliate marketing when the COC was born or for those who may not remember.

Server-side links used by affiliates were not considered affiliate links in the context of the COC. Only links provided by the network which were the link clicked by the end user were considered "affiliate links."

So in very general terms, I'd have to say that the statement made by Paul in the context I'm fairly sure he meant were true.

That is not to say that those statements could not be challenged by making the discussion broader and questioning exactly how much weight the COC carries in defining "clean" as well as how it ultimately defines "clean". <Hint: I've never personally agreed with the COC as a standard of acceptable use of adware in the affiliate channel and I said so from day one>

I hope that someone did challenge the statements, but so far it's not sounding like it. And I don't say it because Paul said it. It's not an Ebates issue to me per se. There are many other practices going on out there right now that concern me more than MoeMoneyMaker. It's important because those types of claims have been being made for years now by some adware affiliates and even more importantly by some Networks to merchants, managers and opms. It's a premise that has been and continues to be used to justify certain practices other than Ebates.

[Kellie AFP]

I should add a bit more clarification with regards to the "redirecting affiliate links since '01" thing.

The follow-up question to that one should be: If Ebates (MMM) hasn't redirectred affiliate links since '01, what do they redirect?

TopMoxie applications in general haven't redirected the actual affiliate link (and that very well could be since 2001), they are triggered by the merchant's URL. It is one the merchant's site, not the actual passing of the affiliate link through the browser, where the redirect (if it happens) occurs.

This may seem like hair splitting, but it's a very (and I can't stress how much so) point when discussing these issues. The implications are significant. The devil is often in the details.

I always cringe when I see folks post publicly say things like "XXX adware redirects my affiliate link" or "XXX adware places my affilate ID with theirs". I cringe because in the case of TopMoxie applications, those are not technically accurate statements.

And inacurrate public statements made as fact can lead to legal problems. So while many folks may have been offended by Paul's statements about being the nice guy for not suing, there is message to be heard and lesson to be learned from those comments.

Those who know me well, know that I am extremely careful in the way I state things. There are many good reasons why. One of them is legal considerations (but that is NOT the only reason). Wayne Porter thought me a very important lesson early on that I will be forever grateful to him for: Use terminology specifically and correctly.

[Daniel M. Clark]

/sigh

Nope, nobody asked those follow-up questions, Kellie. This is why I wish you could have been on that panel

[Aunesty]

Ethics - such a small word with such a large impact on everything in all of our lives.

While there is no "policing" in our industry, and I am not sure there should be, other than what is being done on the individual program and network basis. Solutions to revenue stealing needs to be addressed. I am not a proponent necessarily of commission sharing, but the idea has sparked me to think about ways we can start to see the value in clicks and properly recognize who is the true referrer of sales. With that data numerous programs can be implemented to encourage "ethical" promoting.

I have heard several ideas mentioned, a separate channel for certain types of sites, that way there is different tracking in place. Commission Sharing based upon a weighted click. First cookie dropped gets the sale, can't be overwritten by another affiliate cookie. I am not saying that I agree with these ideas, I am just saying a solution can be made to help deter true "unethical" practices.

I would love nothing better then knowing that the right affiliate got credited for the sale. That I didn't have to look each individual sale to check for fraudulent behavior. But until we decided what is definitely White and Black we can't even combat fixing the problem.

The gray area is a different topic, because without the gray innovation would be hindered, and the industry wouldn't continue to grow.

</vent>