Shareasale on Toolbars - Roundtable Discussion

[Linda Buquet]

I'm with you Tricia and just don't get some of the decisions merchants make.

[ayakobing]

I read this proposal over and over and I think what SAS is doing provides us a great opportunity to learn more about Toolbars. Not all Toolbars are bad and maybe SAS can bring a successful solution. I am very interested to see how this will work out.

[Kellie AFP]

2) Merchants won't allow their links to show up in the toolbars but will still work with the affiliates and will allow their links to be on the affiliate sites.

What I am seeing is the second one. They have no problem working with the affiliate as long as their cookies are not being overwritten. But they don't care that the very same affiliate is screwing over their fellow affiliates through LS, CJ, and Google. That just doesn't seem like a consistent message. Surely I am missing something?

I think most merchants are going to be concerned about their own program. They really aren't going to be worried about another merchant's program. Their primary responsibility is to their own business, not someone else's business. If the affiliate is following the rules of their program, that will be sufficient for many from a business perspective.

I'm not sure it's fair to expect a merchant to perform in the role of advocate for affiliates, at least not outside of their own program. Why should they?

The reality is affiliates continue to partner with those other merchants who allow adware through other networks. Why should a merchant drop an affiliate who is engaging in certain practices, but not in their program, when affiliates aren't willing to do the same for themselves by dropping the other merchants and/or networks?

I've never followed that reasoning.

I'd add a #3 to your list as well. Merchants/AM/OPM who states they have a parasite-free program(s), but in reality don't. And they knowingly don't. That is the one that gets me ticked off the most. There is more of that going on than many probably realize. If a parasite-free policy is important to an affiliate, they should verify that is actually the case.

[Kellie AFP]

Anyone have a chance to read it yet?
What do you think?

I attended the roundtable and have been providing feedback to Brian/SAS. Maybe more than they wanted. LOL.

I have been surprised at the amount of education that still needs to be happening, which has become apparent during this discussion.

I've been pleased with the way Brian has gone about this whole process. While I understand how such a process probably isn't realistic for the larger networks (esp. those publicly traded), it's been so refreshing to see a network solicit the level of input from the community at large in shaping such a controversial policy. Not an easy task by a long shot!

What I'm seeing so far with the proposed policy, I don't have any big issues with.

I see many things I like to see in policy, which are left out too often.

1. The disallowed and allowed toolbar behaviors are pretty clearly outlined. Affiliates can't be expected to follow the rules if they can't figure them out. And you shouldn't need to get your attorney to interpret policy.
2. Consequences for breaking the rules are spelled out. From my own personal experience with SAS over the years, if it's spelled out I've no doubt that is what will happen if the rules are broken. I've yet to have a network respond faster than SAS does when I send something over.
3. SAS is accepting the responsibility of this policy. They clearly state it is their responsibility. None of that business of having a policy, then saying it's up to the merchant, affiliate and anyone the network can think of.
4. Only completely passive toolbars will be allowed. That means no interference either of other affiliates or between channels for the merchant. While I personally think that it is possible for software to be active and still not interfere, I can understand SAS approaching the policy as they have.
5. Both merchants and affiliates will be able to report possible offenses through their accounts. I've always felt the most successful compliance efforts are achieved when all parties are involved in the process. At least that's been my personal experience. I do hope the reporting function isn't abused though. Kind of like the folks who call 911 when it isn't an emergency. It takes resources away from tracking down the abuse.

The most important aspect of this policy from my perspective is that it is in stark contrast with the policy of other networks. It's not just a "not allowed" policy without any type of qualifiers. It specifically states the behaviors which are NOT allowed, behaviors specifically allowed by the other major networks.

That contrast is hugely significant from my POV in the bigger picture of our industry defining acceptable and unacceptable practices. This is something long overdue in our industry and I'm excited beyond words to finally see something like this happening.

[TriciaMeyer]

Originally Posted by Kellie AFP

I think most merchants are going to be concerned about their own program. They really aren't going to be worried about another merchant's program. Their primary responsibility is to their own business, not someone else's business. If the affiliate is following the rules of their program, that will be sufficient for many from a business perspective.

I'm not sure it's fair to expect a merchant to perform in the role of advocate for affiliates, at least not outside of their own program. Why should they?

The reality is affiliates continue to partner with those other merchants who allow adware through other networks. Why should a merchant drop an affiliate who is engaging in certain practices, but not in their program, when affiliates aren't willing to do the same for themselves by dropping the other merchants and/or networks?

I've never followed that reasoning.

I think I was trying to be too polite in my response because I didn't want to name names. But here is what I was really getting at:

Merchant X says "we don't work with toolbars." But Fatwallet has a toolbar. So merchant X says "we'll work with fatwallet, just don't include us in the toolbar." Is merchant X really taking a stand that they don't work with toolbar affiliates?

My interpretation of the policy is that this is going to be the way that it works for most SAS merchants now. But maybe I'm not understanding?

[Kellie AFP]

I think I was trying to be too polite in my response because I didn't want to name names. But here is what I was really getting at:

Merchant X says "we don't work with toolbars." But Fatwallet has a toolbar. So merchant X says "we'll work with fatwallet, just don't include us in the toolbar." Is merchant X really taking a stand that they don't work with toolbar affiliates?

My interpretation of the policy is that this is going to be the way that it works for most SAS merchants now. But maybe I'm not understanding?

LOL on being polite. You're always polite! That's what I figured you were getting at. I first want to say that I personally know Tricia and her affiliate site. What they are doing is something that can be pointed to as an example of affiliate marketing done right. I also understand the challenges she faces in competing because her business model is based on competing fairly herself. So nothing I'm about to say is an attack on her, but she brings up a very important point, one that is worthy of discussion. It is something I personally feel has a lot of potential power to shape postive change within the industry in dealing with the realities of what is going on out there.

If Merchant X says "we don't with toolbars" (and that is how it is usually phrased) and then opts out of inclusion in the FW toolbar (I'll stick with FW because Tim's a big boy and can take it, but it really isn't a FW issue), they don't work with toolbars do they? They don't have the toolbar in their program. That was my point.

There is a difference between "don't work with toolbars" and "don't work with affiliates who use toolbars." Those aren't the same thing. Isn't the affiliate's revenue being protected from toolbar interference for Merchant X's program? Isn't the real problem for affiliates Merchant A, B and C who are in the toolbar?

Is the issue the toolbar itself or the fact a merchant works with that affiliate even if they aren't in the toolbar? For many affiliates, it's the latter. When it becomes the latter, the affiliate is then expecting the merchant to take on a larger role than just their business partner as merchant, but one as an advocate on their behalf.

I don't know if that is a realistic goal, nor one that benefits the affiliate in the long run. It's expecting them to take a stand on the affiliate's behalf beyond the merchant's direct relationshop with that affiliate. Indeed, it's asking them to take a stand for the affiliate's benefit of other merchants, merchants who may very well be their competitors. I just don't see why many merchants would want to take on that role.

And in the case of an affiliate like FW, who is driving legitimate revenue to them outside of the toolbar, they are being asked to sacrifice their own revenue from that affiliate. Why would they want to do that? Why should they do that? Haven't they fulfilled their duty to their affiliates by not letting in their own program?

Many affiliates aren't willing to terminate their own relationships with merchants and networks who are allowing the FW toolbar to operate within their programs. Why should a merchant who has taken the stance and the energy to make sure they are not in the toolbar terminate the relationship entirely, when affiliates aren't willing to do it themselves?

What I see many times is that the merchant who opts out but continues to work with toolbar affiliate catches more heat than the merchants who are in the toolbar. It just seems like displaced angst to me. I think it would be more productive for Merchant A, B and C to be held accountable for their business decisions.

What would happen if enough merchants and networks told FW et al, we'll partner with you but you can't promote us via the toolbar as it behaves now. If enough said that, at some point it comes a business decision for the toolbar affiliate....drop the toolbar or change it's behavior..too many business relationships are at risk and/or the toolbar no longer has enough benefit to their model.

[Kellie AFP]

My interpretation of the policy is that this is going to be the way that it works for most SAS merchants now

My interpretation (and I'm not compliance for SAS...and I'm not speaking for SAS) is that the current FW toolbar would NOT meet the new SAS policy unless no SAS merchant was promoted through it. If that happened, then yes FW could remain in the SAS network. If that didn't happen, then FW could face termination from SAS. Personally, I think Tim would be smart enough to just not do any SAS merchant promotion through the toolbar.

If SAS merchant's are not promoted via the toolbar, then you are protected with your SAS merchants no? Maybe not CJ, LS, GAN..but SAS? I don't think that CJ, LS and GAN policy is SAS's responsibility.

Although you will have 2 very glaring different policies to show your merchants on those networks now.

[Linda Buquet]

Good points all Kellie. I'm so glad you came over to weigh in,
since you know more than anyone about this issue.

[TriciaMeyer]

Originally Posted by Kellie AFP

My interpretation (and I'm not compliance for SAS...and I'm not speaking for SAS) is that the current FW toolbar would NOT meet the new SAS policy unless no SAS merchant was promoted through it. If that happened, then yes FW could remain in the SAS network. If that didn't happen, then FW could face termination from SAS. Personally, I think Tim would be smart enough to just not do any SAS merchant promotion through the toolbar.

If SAS merchant's are not promoted via the toolbar, then you are protected with your SAS merchants no? Maybe not CJ, LS, GAN..but SAS? I don't think that CJ, LS and GAN policy is SAS's responsibility.

Although you will have 2 very glaring different policies to show your merchants on those networks now.

Definitely. And it makes it an easy choice to decide whether to run merchants who have programs on multiple networks through their SAS program (as we already try to do).

It's nice to be able to think "out loud" about these issues and not feel like anyone is taking it personally or has ulterior motives. But it does kind of feel like Kellie and I are having our own little debate in front of everyone else. LOL!

[Linda Buquet]

Tricia, I was just telling Ron via IM, I wish more would weigh in to keep this conversation going.
Maybe some others will be by later today, see this and jump in.