An instance where there's basically a zero day cookie...

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

My stats are not secret so here they are from 01.01.2009 up until today:

1:3431 Butch Dixon
1:19069.4 UK naked Men

( I do have 4 times as much galleries in my archive for UKNM, so that’s why the number of clicks is higher for the site)

Why so much clicks you might ask (and assume that it’s just crappy TGP traffic)?

Not because I send bad TGP traffic (which converts very well for me thank you), but because of the following URLs that I send traffic to:

ccbill code&HTML=mysite.com/butchdixon gallery/

so it is acting like a FHG, so every click to gallery is counted, not just visit to Butch Dixon.

I assumed you knew that.,

And this was the whole point of my reply, without trying to attack you Michael, just stating fact:

Obviously with these two sites this sort of URL encoding is useless as that 30 day ccbill cookie that is saved on surfers computer does not get used if the surfer doesn’t buy within the same time frame that he is sent to these two sites, or bookmarks the /tour/ section.

Doesn’t ccbill offer cascade billing?

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

When I tested this yesterday the referral does indeed carry from the bookmark when you use the CCBill code provided in their forum.

If you are using something different like: ccbill code&HTML=mysite.com/butchdixon gallery/ then I can hardly be held accountable for that.

I’m sorry, you have me at a disadvantage, I’m not a technical guy, so I can’t really offer much explanation about all the machinations of referral codes, PHP, and all the things we do as webmasters. Perhaps CCBill can help on this issue.

[QUOTE=milivanili;43211]
Doesn’t ccbill offer cascade billing?[/QUOTE]

Yes, they do. And as I already mentioned in one of these threads, we will be looking at it shortly. We didn’t consider it when we opened the site because there were enough things to take care of at the time. We opened the site with only four Butch Dixon videos and four UK Naked Men videos slipped in as filler. Our goal has been to pound out as much content as possible to grow the site.

I believe that low conversion rates have more to do with the design of our tour than with this whole separate tour issue. I will give you a for instance: We mistakenly thought that it was better to simply keep putting updates on the homepage — any update — to show the surfers that the site is updating and there’s always something new on the site.

This has resulted in a higher proportion of photo to video updates, which I’m guessing now has been giving surfers the impression that we’re a photo site and not a video site. It’s not always easy to stand back and look at your site objectively. It wasn’t until rawtop actually said something to me in private that the light bulb went off in my head.

So we’re rejigging the tour to account for this and early results are encouraging. However, they’re not staggering, which is probably more a result of the lovely warm weather and national holidays in Britain, Canada, and the US. But I’m hopeful when the holiday is over, we’ll get a better picture of the effectiveness of the new tour.

Cheers
Michael

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

[QUOTE=dzinerbear;43214]If you are using something different like: ccbill code&HTML=mysite.com/butchdixon gallery/ then I can hardly be held accountable for that.

I’m sorry, you have me at a disadvantage, I’m not a technical guy, so I can’t really offer much explanation about all the machinations of referral codes, PHP, and all the things we do as webmasters. Perhaps CCBill can help on this issue.[/quote]

What he’s trying to say is you can’t compare his stats to anyone else’s because he’s inflating his traffic numbers by sending traffic that never actually gets to Butch Dixon through CCBill in order to get the cookie set. If they even look at one of HIS Butch Dixon galleries it’s counted as a visit to Butch Dixon. That explains a lot of why some TGPs can have such horrible conversion ratios…

It’s an interesting trick - I need to think about whether it’s ever appropriate for a blog since if TGPs are routinely doing that it puts blogs at a disadvantage since TGPs set the cookie on visitors computers without actually getting the person to the site, where blogs don’t. That means they’re banking on a certain percentage going to the site through other ways and still having their cookie there to get credit for the sale. [GayStoryMan is going to have a field day with that one… 666 ]

Actually, I think I just figured out how to do it on a blog, but the point is, it completely throws off stats since the denominator is now much bigger making the stats look worse. But because people do go to the site through other mechanisms during the duration of the cookie, the bottom line is more sales for the affiliate - EXCEPT on sites like yours which don’t recognize the cookie the TGP affiliate set if they come back any way than though the tour.

I’m looking forward to the improvements! :slight_smile:

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

I see. So a webmaster is employing a trick to gain sales and then gets angry that a site has a closed tour set up that just happens to screw up his attempts.

I’ve got it now. Thanks for explaining it.

The whole point of an affiliate getting paid is that they make a sale, not set a cookie and hope someone else sells the site for them.

Or maybe I’ve got a skewed view of the world.

Cheers
Michael

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

[QUOTE=dzinerbear;43216]I see. So a webmaster is employing a trick to gain sales and then gets angry that a site has a closed tour set up that just happens to screw up his attempts.

I’ve got it now. Thanks for explaining it.

The whole point of an affiliate getting paid is that they make a sale, not set a cookie and hope someone else sells the site for them.[/QUOTE]

I think some sponsor FHGs work the same way. If a visitor looked at the FHG the cookie would get set. Apparently some TGP owners equate their galleries with sponsor FHGs and set the cookie when their gallery is viewed so they’re not at a competitive disadvantage with TGPs that send traffic to sponsor FHGs.

Of course, that would lead to bloggers not wanting to be at a disadvantage and them doing it as well… It’s a bit of a vicious cycle and can really screw up the stats…

But don’t get me wrong - I COMPLETELY understand the point of people like you who feel the affiliate should only get credit for the sale if they get the person to buy. Thing is, that’s not how most programs are set up, so affiliates can and do play a game getting cookies set earlier than people like you would like.

Question… Are CCBill and Epoch programs more popular with TGP owners because they can do the trick of setting the cookie and then bringing the visitor back to their site? You can’t really do that with NATS…

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

Michael it’s not a trick, not a scam or antything as such…

If you offered FHG’s for your site, all your affiliates would use the same URLs as I’ve described above… again, I tought you knew that or seen with other ccbill hosted sites (hmmm… collegedudes24/7 comes to mind!, their hosted galleries or fratmens are coded same, so that’s no trick)

And another thing is nobody is angry in this whole thread. I don’t hold a grudge or hate anybody, It was an open discussion that’s all.

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

[QUOTE=Gaystoryman;43196]and in all that, you didn’t answer the question at all.

If a customer types in Butch Dixon, they go to a non affiliate coded page, and if they buy, you don’t get credit, and that is somehow a huge problem for some affiliates? HOW?

You are assuming that they typed it in because of your post, as an affiliate, but again, HOW DO YOU KNOW?

What I am reading into all this ‘cookie’ nonsense, is you (affiliates) are wanting the type in traffic, that frankly, you more than likely did not earn.

So instead of all the pontificating, and dancing around the issue, be nice to have a real answer. You want the type in traffic, without KNOWING that it is from you. Right or Wrong?[/QUOTE]

Coming from mainstream, and still basing most of my income there, let me tell you rawtop is doing nothing but reflecting the industry standard in affiliate marketing.

Yes, as an affiliate, I expect to get credit for sales made during the duration of the cookie. That is the whole point of the cookie. In mainstream programs, anything under 30 days is ridiculous, actually.

Assuming a program builds its traffic solely relying on affiliates, than any type-in or search traffic is there because affiliates helped brand the name. So, the general idea is, that affiliates keep getting the credit even when the surfer buys on repeat visits to the site, not necessarily on the first visit.

It’s a give and take game, and ideally should be a win-win situation. Look at it from the other side - a program/website/product is getting free advertising from me as an affiliate. I run their banners, with their logo and URL, and this builds confidence in the surfers and ultimately leads to sales.

Programs have the option not to run an affiliate program and advertise via PPC or banners or SEO. Up to them, of course. If they do go the affiliate route, then, yes, by all means, affiliates should be compensated for the branding services, IMO. As I said, it’s pretty much industry standard. Just go to www.abestweb.com and do some reading.

And Michael, please don’t feel like anyone is crucifying you or your program. If anything, as an affiliate the message I got from this thread is that you’re a great program to work with and attentive to your affiliates. IMO, Rawtop brought up a legitimate issue, and I’m glad to see that you’re addressing it. You don’t have to change anything now or at all - but if you do manage to fix the issue somehow, it should affect most affiliates (in the end, making people promote your sites more). And btw, I find that epoch converts better myself, so if you ever start am affiliate program through epoch, let me know :wink:

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

You know, until you put it so bluntly I was sorta ambivalent and saw both sides of the coin, but you’re right, for most small programs the sites have a name and a reputation largely because of the work of affiliates.

Guess I was hanging out with Lloyd too much listening to his branding woes. The big names are a completely different situation - they spent a ton of money every month in promotions the small sites can only dream about. Then they have affiliates that come along and just put up AdWords redirect pages and make money off their name without contributing to the brand at all.

BTW, speaking of mainstream did you know ShareASale loses the commission on all Firefox sales (at least Mac ones - not sure about PC)? I was testing it for a client and couldn’t get it to work then they asked me to try Safari and it worked. The weird thing is ShareASale didn’t see it as a problem that needed to be fixed. They tried to blame Firefox. To me, Michael’s issue is tiny compared to losing all the sales from people using Firefox…

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

[QUOTE=rawTOP;43225]
BTW, speaking of mainstream did you know ShareASale loses the commission on all Firefox sales (at least Mac ones - not sure about PC)? I was testing it for a client and couldn’t get it to work then they asked me to try Safari and it worked. The weird thing is ShareASale didn’t see it as a problem that needed to be fixed. They tried to blame Firefox. To me, Michael’s issue is tiny compared to losing all the sales from people using Firefox…[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm sounds odd. I really think you should join abestweb and post about it there. I don’t have any big programs on SAS, so really not an expert on their cookies. I know they have a good reputation though, for working with affiliates, so it does sound strange.

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

You bet I am going to have a field day with this. :grrr:

So from all the blathering going on, the affiliate now assumes that they are the one’s who make the sponsor money, not the hard earned attention to detail, to providing a quality of product, just the affiliate who may, or may not, use adwords, and other tactics to push their customer’s to buying the product.

So retail stores sure do make out like bandits don’t they? After all I go in, a salesmen tells me all about the new washing machine, and I go home think about it, come back 3 weeks later, buy it from someone else, and the poor salesmen who did the selling job, well he’s out the commission, the store gets its money. OH and not to mention that the ad on the television from the manufacture helped convince me 3 weeks later either, so maybe the store should send them the profits on the washing machine?

If a customer comes to my site, is intriqued about my sales pitch to Butch Dixon or anywhere else, and click thru, I get credit. If he just browses and comes back from his bookmark, I get credit. ON the other hand, he wasn’t thrilled by my sales pitch, and didn’t click thru, but, the way you all are talking, you want a cookie set, so that at anytime in that month, if he comes to Butch I’ll get credit. Sweet.

However, he drops by after a week, again isn’t impressed, but then he sees this guy walking down the street. It reminds him of a model at Butch, he gets a stiff one, so he types in Butch and buys a membership, but the way you all want it, I should get the credit for the sale, because a guy walking down the street hit the right buttons in the customer, to make him buy. Sweet.

As for Industry Standards. When was the convention held where all of us voted on those standards, or appointed a board to provide us with them? There wasn’t any I heard of, and yeah, maybe some mainstream or even adult do things one way. That may be ‘accepted practice’ but it isn’t a standard.

I have done retail sales for 40 odd years, and I find that only in this Internet, do people come up with this balderdash. An affiliate is an independent contractor, they do not get wages, they do not get benefits, they have no responsibility for the expenses, or management of a sponsor program. They simply opt in to sell the business product. Small or large, is irrelevant.

Here’s another example. I put my house up for sale, hire Joe Reality to sell it. He does all the ads, the open house stuff, and even puts up pictures on his web site. Lists it with MLS (multiple listings sales). He’s got 30 days to sell it. Harry wants a new house, goes to Bill Reality, who shows him the big listing book, and Harry like’s my house, comes back to Bill next week and buys it. Bill splits the money with Joe off the sale, however let’s say Harry has a good memory. He isn’t thrilled about the house from Bill’s sales pitch, and keeps looking.

Couple of weeks later, he’s driving by, sees the house I am selling, and well he decides to stop, take a closer look. The picture didn’t do the place justice, plus it didn’t include the nice garden. He walks in, see’s JOe’s sign, calls him, and buys the house. Bill didn’t make the sale, the house did, and Bill ain’t getting a slice of the pie honey.

Now you all have fun with that, I got to get to work, plus we’re having a bargeque, so gotta make sure the wife cleaned the grill, in between doing laundry and vacuum.

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

[QUOTE=Gaystoryman;43228]You bet I am going to have a field day with this. :grrr:

So from all the blathering going on, the affiliate now assumes that they are the one’s who make the sponsor money, not the hard earned attention to detail, to providing a quality of product, just the affiliate who may, or may not, use adwords, and other tactics to push their customer’s to buying the product.[/QUOTE]

Ultimately affiliate programs exist and they’re structured they way they are because they work for sponsors. Sponsors can set whatever rules they want to set.

You can’t compare brick and mortar businesses that have salaried sales staff to a small porn site with one or two owners. Brick and mortar businesses have a physical location that gives them foot traffic, and drive by traffic. If a web site isn’t promoted, it won’t sell. You can’t be randomly found on the web.

On top of that, porn is a publishing business where there’s close to 100% profit after you’ve sold enough units to cover the initial cost. Publishing businesses use every tactic to get additional sales because of the potential profit. It’s why affiliates are paid so much to sell electronic products. We’re not talking about washing machines or homes. The business model is different for electronic publishing for a reason.

Your example of a sales person who convinces the person to buy, but doesn’t make the sale 'cause the customer buys later from another sales person is EXACTLY like affiliate programs where the last affiliate to touch the customer gets the sale even if they did almost nothing to deserve it. Usually it all averages out…

A perfect affiliate system is impossible to achieve. I’ll never get every sale I deserve and I’ll get some I don’t deserve. It’s a balancing act where you try to make sure that people get a cut of the sales that is fair and sufficient to motivate them to sell more.

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

[QUOTE=Gaystoryman;43228]You bet I am going to have a field day with this. :grrr:
[/QUOTE]

I really don’t know why all the anger…

It’s nothing personal. It’s the way things work in affiliate marketing. As I said, it should be a win-win situation, or else something isn’t working properly.

Right now, the standard in online affiliate marketing are cookies that last at least 30 days (I think average would be more like 180 days). Go to linkashare, commission junction, shareasale, or any other large affiliate marketing network and check for yourself.

So, yes, these are industry standards, and no, people don’t vote on them. They just evolve as they provide the best outcome for both sides. No one is forcing any affiliate or any merchant to do this - it’s set up the way it is because it’s mutually beneficial.

I don’t like it when people try to paint sponsors/merchants as greedy entities trying to squeeze everything out of their affiliates. Neither do I appreciate it when people try to display affiliates as greedy useless webmasters who are trying to take away from the “working” program. It has to be a win-win, or don’t get into the game.

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

One more thing.

I am not saying that adult sponsors should switch to long duration cookies (or saying that they shouldn’t). It may be that in this market shorter termed cookies provide a better balance. I don’t know - just saying that I did not post about the mainstream ones to imply that a change is needed in adult.

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

[quote=rawTOP;43229]Ultimately affiliate programs exist and they’re structured they way they are because they work for sponsors. Sponsors can set whatever rules they want to set.

You can’t compare brick and mortar businesses that have salaried sales staff to a small porn site with one or two owners. Brick and mortar businesses have a physical location that gives them foot traffic, and drive by traffic. If a web site isn’t promoted, it won’t sell. You can’t be randomly found on the web.[/quote]

Does Google or Yahoo ring a bell?

So, you can’t be found on the web randomly? So I suppose all those search engine bots, get directed to your site? Come on, let’s be realistic here, you most certainly do get found randomly, and while it is extremely difficult at times, it isn’t impossible.

Thousands will walk past any brick & mortar and never go inside, it is up to the store to attract them, to make them want to come inside, which really is no different than optimizing a site’s text for the SE bots, so they will find you, and add you to their lists. They become the big banner or the radio ads, or whatever.

On top of that, porn is a publishing business where there’s close to 100% profit after you’ve sold enough units to cover the initial cost. Publishing businesses use every tactic to get additional sales because of the potential profit. It’s why affiliates are paid so much to sell electronic products. We’re not talking about washing machines or homes. The business model is different for electronic publishing for a reason.

Hardly, because while the cost of production is recouped, the cost to sell still remains high. After all, every affiliate sale is what, 50% on the average? So never even close to a 100% return.

The cost of business, in electronic publishing, as you call it, is never diminished to where your profit is nearly 100%. Like any business, you need to spend cash, to make it. Sure, publish a video, and once the sales have generated enough cash to cover those expenses, there are still the other ‘expenses’ that have to be met, and they are on going. So my analogy works, it is the same. Business is business, and as long as your doors are open, you have expenses to meet, which is why you need to add new products, why a company keeps on making new models of cars, or washing machines. Why sites like Butch Dixon keep on generating new videos, why writers write new books.

Your example of a sales person who convinces the person to buy, but doesn’t make the sale 'cause the customer buys later from another sales person is EXACTLY like affiliate programs where the last affiliate to touch the customer gets the sale even if they did almost nothing to deserve it. Usually it all averages out…

Then why the fuss about type in traffic?

A perfect affiliate system is impossible to achieve. I’ll never get every sale I deserve and I’ll get some I don’t deserve. It’s a balancing act where you try to make sure that people get a cut of the sales that is fair and sufficient to motivate them to sell more.

Agreed, there is no such thing as a perfect situation, but again, just how much is lost due to type in traffic, that really, there is NO WAY to know if it was from your sales pitch or someone else’s. I’d just think, it would make more sense to spend the energy on refining the sales pitch, than if the type in traffic was mine or not.

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

Was referring to the comment by Rawtop, should have used the devil one :smiley:

It’s nothing personal. It’s the way things work in affiliate marketing. As I said, it should be a win-win situation, or else something isn’t working properly.

Right now, the standard in online affiliate marketing are cookies that last at least 30 days (I think average would be more like 180 days). Go to linkashare, commission junction, shareasale, or any other large affiliate marketing network and check for yourself.

So, yes, these are industry standards, and no, people don’t vote on them. They just evolve as they provide the best outcome for both sides. No one is forcing any affiliate or any merchant to do this - it’s set up the way it is because it’s mutually beneficial.

We simply have a different meaning for ‘standard’. To me a standard is something decided upon. An accepted practice is where one’s ethics and the market place determine the course of action. Just like using words like ‘new’ or ‘improved’ have no standard when applied to a product. They are standard practices for denoting simply a changed product.

I don’t like it when people try to paint sponsors/merchants as greedy entities trying to squeeze everything out of their affiliates. Neither do I appreciate it when people try to display affiliates as greedy useless webmasters who are trying to take away from the “working” program. It has to be a win-win, or don’t get into the game.

Agreed, however unfortunately we are dealing with people, and nothing is ever just black & white. It appears, that the affiliate/sponsor relationship is a love/hate one.

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

[QUOTE=Gaystoryman;43239]Hardly, because while the cost of production is recouped, the cost to sell still remains high. After all, every affiliate sale is what, 50% on the average? So never even close to a 100% return.

The cost of business, in electronic publishing, as you call it, is never diminished to where your profit is nearly 100%. Like any business, you need to spend cash, to make it. Sure, publish a video, and once the sales have generated enough cash to cover those expenses, there are still the other ‘expenses’ that have to be met, and they are on going. So my analogy works, it is the same. Business is business, and as long as your doors are open, you have expenses to meet, which is why you need to add new products, why a company keeps on making new models of cars, or washing machines. Why sites like Butch Dixon keep on generating new videos, why writers write new books.[/QUOTE]

When I say 100% profit, I mean without considering the cost of sales. In electronic publishing, once you’ve covered your production costs nearly everything is profit which means you can pour money into sales like crazy. If your house sales can cover production costs, an incredibly safe way to make “free” money is revenue share with affiliates - it’s a fixed cost of sales and you can never really lose money on it except when fraud is an issue.

Re: An instance where there’s basically a zero day cookie…

the most successful programs i know send over 50% of their own traffic and don’t rely on affiliates.

are we talking about gallery hits or hits to the site or a mix? gallery hits always convert much worse than hits to the site since only 5% or less of the hits ever see the site.