Talk Talk do not understand Affiliate Marketing - brand protection gone mad
How very sad to see Talk Talk getting affiliate marketing completely and utterly wrong. This morning I received an email from their Affiliate Network, Tradedoubler announcing the Talk Talk affiliate programme relaunch. Here it is:
Hi Kieron,
Apologies for the delay in this whole process, it has been a challenge finalizing the relaunch details as there have been several levels of sign off but we have come to an agreement. The criteria to rejoin Talk Talk has changed slightly along with a new payment process.
1) All affiliates joining the program (s) must be a registered company
2) All affiliates must be credit checked (http://www.experian.co.uk/index-c.html) and provide the proof of the check to M-Chi (Agency), and,
3) The programs are changing to a 60 day pending sales period where sales are only recognized upon a complete connection at the users end, upon which the affiliate will paid.
If you meet the above criteria and are still interested in promoting TalkTalk please send over your credit check report and I can turn you back on
Thanks
I don’t have a problem with point 3, I know it can take a long time for broadband sales to be registered so this is fair enough.
Point 2 is a little bit over the top in my opinion. Why do affiliates need to be credit checked? Talk Talk are the ones who will be paying us commissions on valid sales so surely they should be credit checked and not us? What am I missing here?
Point 1 is where I have a real big problem. Why on earth would Talk Talk only allow affiliates who have registered companies to join their programme? Maybe their misguided thinking is that is an affiliate is a registered company then they must be “legitimate” and therefore worthy of promoting their brand? How utterly and completely ridiculous. There are lots and lots of very good affiliate sites and blogs out there run by affiliates who aren’t registered companies. They are just as ethical and legitimate as some of the bigger affiliates so why cut these guys out? It could be that they’re just starting up or it could be that they don’t see the benefit of operating under a registered company. This does not mean they should be discriminated against though.
Actually I’m a perfect case in point. Back when I was just starting out in or around 2000, I was the biggest broadband affiliate in the UK. I was generating tens of thousands of broadband sales a month. Broadband merchants were paying me huge CPA’s and tenancy deals and they all wanted to be on my sites. Was I a registered company at that point? No.
I understand that large companies are getting increasingly precious about their brand but if managed well they can still keep control of it’s use by affiliates without having to resort to this draconian behaviour. After all, lets be clear, affiliates have to be approved by the merchant, so they can simply refuse unscrupulous affiliates who want to join their programme. Networks have all sorts of clever technology to identify and stop affiliate fraud these days so the chances of letting the less desirable affiliates through are slim. I think it also needs to be said that the merchant, Talk Talk in this case has the last say in whether commissions should be approved or not. It’s easy to click that “reject” button.
It just makes me laugh that Talk Talk have such a giant ego that they think affiliates must jump through all of these ridiculous hoops just so we can promote them on a performance based basis. I mean come on! If we were positioning ourselves as nice shiny “digital” agencies and fleecing charging Talk Talk tens of thousands of pounds a month to run CPM campaigns on some popular sites then maybe, just maybe they would have a right to ask for a credit check or insist that we are a registered company. But that’s not the case, we are merely humble affiliates who promote Talk Talk for FREE on our sites. Yes for FREE! We give them our traffic that we work so hard (and sometimes pay for) to generate and then give them banner impressions and clicks all for FREE. All we ask is that if we generate a sale for you, that you pay us a commission. Now isn’t that simple and very, very fair? I think so.
So come on Talk Talk, stop being so utterly ridiculous and play fair. By discriminating against affiliates who don’t run registered companies you are not only missing out on lots of sales but you’re really pissing off the affiliate community.
What I’m listening to right now: Chrissette Michelle – “Mr Right”
Friday, May 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am and is filed under Affiliate Marketing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Welcome to my blog. My name is Kieron Donoghue and I am the founder of ShareMyPlaylists.com, ContentNow.co.uk and some other businesses. I thought it would be fun to blog, writing about my experiences in Internet Marketing. I'll include some personal stuff too, probably about my other passions, music and cars. Please feel free to post your comments and thoughts too.
Charles Dickens meets affiliate marketing. Bravo Talk Talk!!
Talk, Talk will be talking their selves in to a lot of trouble taking this type of stance
It’s not a legal requirement to be a registered company to carry out business in the uk or 90% of the world. It makes no sense for a company to want to know want the status of any individual circumstances is unless they want to use this information for their own benefit. which again would be breaking a lot of rules. And there is defiantly no law that says you can not pay someone for their work if they have some type of default against them. This reminds me of a few years ago when I was in business in the bricks and mortar world. My local council was giving improvement grants out to home owners
And a friend of mine asked if I would do the work for him, I agreed when he filled the forms in and put my name in has the person who would be carrying out the improvements, the council wrote back to him saying he had to use a registered
company on their list of builders and be VAT registered. I immediately asked my solicitor to write to the council in regards this matter. Long story short they where braking the laws, and I was invited to join the list. I completed the home improvements and was paid. I would say they are breaking employment laws and the laws of faire trading by excluding individuals.
I have been affiliate marketing for a little over 4 years now and have never come across this.
Some good points Steve. I’ve been involved in affiliate marketing for around 10 years and never come across this either.
I agree with all you said. I have been waitng to get back onto the TALK TALK program since it was stoppped earlier in the year but don’t operate as a registered company so looks will have trouble. And what do I need credit checking for exactly!!
I agree, its totally insane, especially the credit check bit. My credit rating is none of TalkTalk’s business. As for being a registered company, totally agree with your points.
They will lose a massive number of affiliates. The only trouble is, they are one of the cheapest in the UK for home phone and broadband, so they might not lose that much business as a result as the consumer will know about them already.
Well said Keiron.
I hope Talk Talk listen and realize how ridiculous they are being.
Yes, this is just ridiculous and no brainer from TalkTalk. They are surely losing their customers.
Did you approach TT or their network for a comment prior to publishing?
I know you’re not a journalist but there is a reason they do this, it makes for a much more informative and constructive story. I agree points 1 and 2 sound a little crazy but they’re not idiots, there must be logic in there somewhere.
Yes anonymous I emailed Tradedoubler immediately after I received the Talk Talk email this morning. I told them I was going to write a blog post about it and I asked them to give some background on the decisions made by Talk Talk. I have not had a reply.
This is a pathetic idea and must have came from someone with a very warped view on affiliate marketing.
I would have thought the network would have explained the impact this will have on talk talks rep. Its Ratner 2.0
Lol Ratner 2.0
The phrase “Registered Company” is surely open to interpretation though - it doesn’t specify where the company has to be registered. I might start trading as BFG Holdings - & I’m registered at the local British legion - does that count? If anyone wants to become a registered company - simply drop me an email & I’ll add you to a register I keep (I affectionately refer to it as the spam folder) - if you like I’ll even issue you with a ‘number’……
A credit check! - what on earth for? I could see the need if Talk Talk where offering a line of credit to affiliates, but it’s the other way around!
Grrr
BFG
This doens’t reflect particularly well on TradeDoubler technology nor account management but suspect that a lack of understanding along the lines you have suggested Kieron, has prompted this unhinged policy.
Lee - love the Ratner analogy
Whenever a traditional marketing agency gets involved in an affiliate programme you know it’s going to be a fail party.
I would imagine they use these requirements when hiring people for TV and Press work. Which is understandable in that instance, because you don’t want a contract a company that folds mid-project. For a CPA model it’s just crazy though.
Thanks a lot for this blog post. It arrived to me today and I had the same feelings. I just couldn’t be bothered to respond to them as I know it took them 3 months to respond to my email last time.
Ratner 3.0… 2.0 was 2 years ago my friend!
This attitude pisses registered affiliates off to the point that some of them too will unregister themselves.
We’re seeing stupid decisions being made on a weekly basis nowadays which is why I feel more disillusioned about the whole industry in the UK of late. I get the feeling that some networks are actually afraid of the credit crunch and this is affecting their “advice”.
When a merchant makes a decision, I’m sure some networks have a quiet word with them but as they prefer to keep their business, don’t push the point too much. The result is the merchant gets slated in public, the network continues to reap any rewards and the affiliates get p’d off.
Very good post.
1. Like you say - we’re earning money for them! What’s our credit status matter?! We should ask to see theirs! (ok, I’m sure it’d be in the red!)
2. We went limited in Dec but had been in am for years before that so that registered requirement shows a complete lack of knowledge about the industry. Like someone here said, it’s just cos they’re used to getting “fleeced” by “media agencies” (who outsource to smaller companies like us anyway!).
I was talking to an international company the other day about their affiliate program and the marketing guy said something like “oh you’ve done a lot of stuff already then?” or words to that effect, like it’s a new marketing angle - which it is to so many big co’s who maybe havn’t done enough homework.
As for hearing back from tradedoubler about your email - good luck with that. We’ve found tradedoubler support to be a bit 1 way traffic for the last year or so.
Doh! Meant their credit status would be in the “green” ofcourse! Sorry! Haha!
I hope affiliates all have a health and safety policy in place which is regularly audited, because at this rate you’ll have to show a video of yourself at the right distance from the PC, in an ergonomically designed chair, and log your hours spent in front of it while you’re working, to show that you’re within national guidelines.
We received a similar message from TradeDoubler yesterday.
On the basis of these ridiculous requirements, we have withdrawn from the TalkTalk program. TalkTalks loss (my site ranks page 1 in Google for TalkTalk).
No great loss for us, conversions for TT have never been great due to poor customer service reviews.
It seems that TT have more important things to nail (i.e. reputation for poor service) than its affilaite channel craziness.
TT, let’s talk again when you’re serious about your affiliate channel.
This is such an unusual move, I’ve not been in the industry as long as you ahve Keiron, but I’ve never seen this kind of approach either. Seeing this from an agency, network and affiliate perspective, I’m stumped as to how this would improve anything for the TalkTalk campaign, the only thing it seems to indiciate is that their affiliate staff don’t have a clue about approving affiliates or assessing fraud affiliates on their program, even then these measures seem so excessive and counter to the spirit of affiliate marketing, it beggers belief. amazing.
i HEARD IT WAS BECAUSE SOME FRAUDSTERS PRETENDED TO BE AN AFFILIATE AND SLAMMED SOME CUSTOMERS IN ORDER TO GET COMMISSIONS. DAFT THING COS YOU WILL ALWAYS GET CAUGHT IN THE END. I AGREE IT MAKES THEM MORE OFFICIOUS THAN OTHER PATERNERS BUT i CAN SEE WHY THEY WOULD DO IT. ITS THE EASIEST SALE OUT THERE SO I’M GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT PLUS i DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE
Have to agree that it’s a silly requirement. I’ve been a full time affiliate since before the turn of the millennium and am still not a limited company. I may convert to one soon, but not because a merchant insists on it. They’re just missing out on good affiliates with rules like that, but I suppose it’s up to them what they do.
Hi,
First off, can I apologise for the late posting of this reply. I was only made aware of the post after this had been aired. We at M-CHI and TalkTalk have always been extremely open and forthcoming regarding any communication or feedback regarding the programme and have posted regularly on the forum with contact details. Personally, if anyone would like to discuss this in further detail then feel free to call my mobile on; 0799 057 7997.
Regarding the post and the subsequent comments. I have detailed out the reasoning as to why these decisions have been made below and although I understand that there will still be an argument against these points, but, they have not been taken likely and contrary to what has been stated here – show TalkTalk’s commitment to re-enter into affiliate marketing albeit with significant changes.
Background :
Towards the back end of 2008 it became apparent that an unprecedented volume of invalid orders had been placed on the TalkTalk website. After an exhaustive internal investigation the orders where sourced back to several affiliate partners. Unfortunately the majority were individuals taking advantage of loyalty websites, however there was also a sizable volume from direct affiliate partners themselves. With this being the case, immediate action had to be taken to reduce and restructure the entire programme and ensure that no loopholes could be taken advantage of again in the future. These measures have formed the basis on which we can reintroduce the affiliate programme and to ensure that we maintain a high quality of traffic that we have received in the past from the vast majority of affiliates.
All affiliates must be a registered company
Yes, this is a contentious issue and one that on first view smacks of indifference to the affiliate market. I think it also demonstrates how much the affiliate marketplace has developed. Our priority is that the sales generated from our partners are of the highest quality. Therefore, the affiliate channel has to be managed like any other direct partnership and follow the same guidelines. Yes, this will mean that some affiliates are not eligible to join the programme and will / has spark debate whether this is right in affiliate marketing. Again, if anyone like to discuss this point in further detail I a more than happy to talk through.
However, there are two points why this is important:
An affiliate is considered a partner to TalkTalk just like any other business .
Full accountability on all sides of the relationship between TalkTalk. TradeDoubler/Buy.at and the affiliate partners.
All affiliates must be credit checked
In line with the measures taken to work with register company’s, we have also had to take steps to ensure we work with legitimate business’s who are interested in working with TalkTalk. What was not mentioned in the post is that TalkTalk will reimburse the cost of this credit check once a sale has been made. Yes, I understand that this will be a major inconvenience for some and we will help out as much as possible, but – like the points above – this commitment to the programme is needed.
60 day pending transaction
As mentioned in the background – the practices and subsequent investigation – has meant TalkTalk has fundamentally changed the way in which we recognise a reward for the TalkTalk programme and this action should alleviate any need to post transactions and then delete.
Summary
I understand the consensus here is that TalkTalk are not engaging with affiliate marketing, but I can honestly say that there has been hours of resource put into re launching the affiliate programme when it was extremely conceivable that it would be easier not to.
In the coming months there will be lots of development for the affiliate programme as it is an important channel and we will work with and be as transparent as possible with any affiliate that would like to become a partner for the programme.
If you feel like you would like to join the programme but do not meet the above criteria - especially point 1 - then please contact me to discuss on an individual basis or you would like to contact me to discuss any of the above then please do.
David
David McDermott
Direct Line: +44 20 7079 9896
Mobile: +44 799 057 7997
Email: david.mcdermott@m-chi.com
The fraudsters usually have a registered business so when people catch up with them they simply disolve the business and start again.
This was my experience when I dealt with an affiliate selling phone cashback deals as a customer of theirs. They simply would not pay out the cashback and the network refused to get involved. After I saw he used AF and Tradedoubler a quick call to them and they were suspended. Less than a week later he shut the business but at the time I looked at the Companies House info and saw he’d chanced his business every few months. Probably still going under a new name and probably a registered company again too.
A rare situation I’m sure and this kind of policy wouldn’t protect them against it. Although the unamely network in my situation didn’t care as long as they got the sales and could just blame the affiliate for bad customer service.
Yikes!
I never realised that they expected for ME to pay for my very own credit check! Hahahahaaa erm….. thanks but no thankyou. Never mind TalkTalk, more like ByeBye
Chris, Roly : I am not happy about this but let’s be honest. What are you guys planning to do on the comparison tables? Do you actually remove TalkTalk from comparison just because its hassle getting commision out of them? I believe this would not be fair to the consumer. So you are saying, you will send free traffic to TalkTalk because you can’t be bothered to go through the signup process? I would be curious how you guys approach it. As for myself I think for all the hurdles I may still go through the process as I don’t want to alienate consumers not giving them full choice, and spending couple of hours on getting approved is still worth rather than sending traffic for free. Any thoughts?
I used to promote Talk Talk myself, but looks like I’ll have to make do with promoting some of their competitors instead.
Luckily there are plenty of other options for publishers who are not yet a registered company - I’m not at a level yet to make that worth my while and this certainly wouldn’t be a reason to change that position.
Hi Janusz,
In answer to your question
We will continue to list TalkTalk in our reviews. However, any area that would previoulsly click through to the TT site has been disabled. This includes any branding, advertising or similar images. TT will no longer features in our speed test comparisons or post code availability checker.
This is similar to any other broadband provider that we list and do not have any affiliate relationship with.
We never completely remove a broadband provider from our listings. We believe that consumers should have access to our full range of data to help make informed decisions. We simply don’t provide an easy way to click through to a broadband provider to companies with which we have no relationship.
Hope this helps.
The networks and agency should have reached out to the affiliate community before implementing an idea such as this.
The problem with all this policing is it will isolate the creative talent of the bedroom affiliate who is often the one who works harder than anyone to gain the merchant new customers.and create a buzz around the brand.
I hope that the community as a whole learn from this and we do not see this model rolled out by any other merchant. If anything can be improved it should be end user interfaces and customer screening which would avoid all these issues
Hi David (from m-chi.com),
Thanks for taking the time to post here.
I think it’s great that this site has stimulated discussion (thanks to Kieron for setting the thread up).
It is unfortunate that this explanation wasn’t provided prior to the introduction of qualification criteria that has quite clearly gone down like a lead baloon with affiliates.
Surely someone at your end must have realised how draconian these measures would be perceived without explanation? Was this discussed at all in the “hours of resource” put towards relaunch?
We’ve historically had a good (direct) working relationship with TT tech team having helped them out on several occasions by supplying our review and speed test data. It’s a shame that this couldn’t be converted to affiliate traffic for TT but hey-ho.
I wish you the best with the re-launch but will still not be participating.
p.s thanks for listing your phone number but if there are calls to be made, surely you should be making them with some reasons why affiliates would want to join the TT programme in its current form? After all, as affiliates, we are doing TT a service by driving referrals.
Did anyone else get the email from The Post Office? Similar lines - loads of fraud/hassle, so kicking out all affiliates except for the big ones.
At first it seemed silly - why stop people earning money for you? Few sales are better than no sales. But the more you think about it, the more it does just become an issue of maths - and if Post Office people are spending ages sorting out fraudulent commissions, then the benefits might well tip them towards a closed programme.
But I guess the difference with TalkTalk is that they’ve imposed such strict - and not really industry related - guidelines. If they want to be really picky with their affiliates, then fine. But making them tick a ‘registered company’ box has just sparked outcry, when they could have just said ‘we need to know lots about your site and will consider you carefully’. I guess again, though, reviews of sites take man hours, and by adding in rules they are limiting the amount of applications. But not very effectively I don’t think. They’d be better of having a decent automatic sorting system on the applications, so they could at least cut down their work that way.
Mike - “The fraudsters usually have a registered business so when people catch up with them they simply disolve the business and start again.” haha! Very true!
I’d just like to add into the mix my dismay at Talk Talk’s decision but also to say not all agencies suffer from affiliate myopia!
Here at Brilliant Media in Leeds we are traditionally an offline agency, however in recent years we have built a dedicated online offering and are currently working on integrating this with offline channels to offer a better service to our clients (which include De Vere, TD Waterhouse, Thomson Al Fresco & Netflights).
In terms of affiliates we have a 3 strong team which works full-time on our affiliate offering and are in the process of designing an online affiliate resource centre to coincide with our personal approach!
Thanks
Andrew Crowther
andrew.crowther@brilliantmedia.co.uk
0113 3940000
http://www.brilliantaffiliates.co.uk
Bit of self promotion there Andrew? I would normally delete these type of comments but am in a good mood today
First up, I don’t know any of the details about this other than has been reported in this blog post so am not necessarily aware of the finer details.
While I’ve never been in a position where I’ve had to enforce T&Cs like the above I have some sympathy with David and I’d like to give him credit for responding here.
I can’t comment on this or The Post Office example but both are indicative of a wider issue that is causing a great degree of concern in the industry amongst networks, agencies and merchants at the moment - that of fraud. I don’t mean ‘dodgy’ affiliates or people pushing through a few false sign ups because of loopholes in a programme’s T&Cs, I mean actual fraud.
These sign ups are coming from a variety of sources and affiliate ‘types’ so there’s no easy solution here but unless we collectively do something then we are faced with a significant problem that could result in dozens of brands pulling out of the industry.
I’m pleased to say there is more of a general awareness of this issue now and networks are tightening their procedures and that of their affiliates but lets not be complacent that this is just another merchant screwing their affiliates.
I can imagine Talk Talk’s decision gave them or David no pleasure and I’m making no comment either way on their approach, how it’s been enforced or the finer details. I’m more concerned about the wider issue and what we do as a community to ensure it’s stamped out.
I back David and Kevin completely on this and would like to stress that this kind of fraud is being actively tackled by all networks who are part of the IAB’s Affiliate Council.
It is unfortunate that there is an element of criminal malpractice occurring in our industry and sometimes you have to take a broad brush. I suspect that the client was ready to pull the plug on their entire affiliate operation and Dave and his team came up with this compromise to allow it to continue for the ethical affiliates with a strong track record with Talk Talk.
Dave has been more than open in his offer to speak to anyone so I suggest that anyone with issues speaks to him directly instead of sniping anonymously on forums/blogs.
Thank you to Matt Bailey for taking time to post his thoughts. In response:
Is the freedom of expressing an opinion in a public forum “Sniping”? Really? I am sure that the intelligence of affiliates here has not been insulted in any way;)
Affiliates on this blog would be law abiding citizens trying to make an honest business from affiliate marketing. They also would probably understand the general nature of problems with fraud in the industry at the moment and would be able to provide some practical ideas and suggestions to reduce the problem if asked. I am sure the IAB Affiliate Council has considered and has this well in hand.
With the issue of fraud and this particular programme put to one side for the moment, it is apparent that a rift currently exists between various affiliate (+ media) agencies and some affiliates. It seems to me that there is a lot of effort put into maintaining accounts with broadband providers with perhaps not so much effort going into working with affiliates.
From a business perspective, would it perhaps make sense for some affiliate networks (and media agencies) to foster better working relationships with affiliates?
A simplistic perspective of an affiliate network suggests 3 core aspects: The operational aspects of the network itself, the client, the content provider (affiliate). Surely by ignoring (and possibly alienating?) one of these core aspects(by poor communication and consultation), are some networks perhaps harming their own business?
Ultimately, a network is an intermediary. It not only needs happy clients but content providers (affilates) too. I would estimate that, in the instance of the TT programme prelaunch, that there are not too many “happy” affiliates.
Bottom line: better relationships with affiliates = more revenue for networks and agencies. This is known. Unfortunately, the execution of this sometimes leaves a lot to be desired based on our experience with some networks over the years.
Rather than trying to defend what is clearly controversial and unpopular with affiliates, perhaps it’s time to admit the errors in judgement, apologise and move forward with some suggestions that work for everyone. The alternative is to keep “flogging the dead horse” and chucking fuel on the fire of this debate.
I’m sure that there will be more defensive comments from agencies and networks and I look forward to reading these.
On a general (affiliate marketing) note, I find it fascinating as this thread unfolds. It paints an interesting picture of various affilate networks/agencies at the moment. Thanks again to Kieron for setting up this blog. I suspect that this discussion is touching on areas that he never imagined:) Viva La Blog! (and the opportunity to publically express opinions).
Rowland O’Connor,
Editor, Broadband-help.com
+44 (0)203 3936237
Interestingly, we received a phone call this morning from another affiliate network asking if we would be interested in promoting TalkTalk.
When asked if the credit check requirements were still in place, the network in question confirmed that they are. We therefore politely declined to join the programme and explained the reasons.
We currently rank #3 in Google for search term “TalkTalk” (immediately below the official TalkTalk sites). With almost unanimous poor service reviews on our site, we’ve historically found it difficult to convert affiliate sales on TalkTalk. For the time being, we’ll stick with the many other affiliate programmes that provide better return and less hassle than TalkTalk.
We believe in providing the truth about broadband service standards and showing alternative options when a provider can’t deliver a satisfactory service. With this in mind, it’s probably a good thing for our visitors that we are not on the TalkTalk programme.
Let’s see how things look in another couple of months.
Hahaha good luck with getting any customers this way. Even if the rates were incredible (which I doubt the will) it’s still wa too much hussle just to start working for them.