- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I know a few, but I am loathed to say as I prefer it that way
Well, actually, I don’t mind either way to be honest but I like the fact that I send them, if they go away (or bookmark the site), and then come back in via the bookmark or by type-in (not forgetting it will be in their IE history which autofills domains as you type) I retain the credit.There’s another advantage in that once you send them in via the homepage, you can deeplink without having to worry about the cookie, which I’ve found quite handy before now (ie: poker school, terms & conditions etc). That said, in this case, 32Red allow deep-linking with aff tags anyway…wish everyone did.
So I’m not gonna tell you ‘cos you’ll campaign against it :tongue:
So I’m not gonna tell you ‘cos you’ll campaign against it :tongue:
LOL — the nerve…. :roflmao:
Here’s my point of view, pasted from the 32Red poll thread:
Whoever “closes the deal” should get the credit.
Say there is a player out there who knows “of” several different casinos, one of which is 32Red. They’ve been to the site once (by going there directly, without going through an affiliate link), and they’ve visited the other casino sites as well. But they are still undecided about which casino to choose. So, they search around for some info via Google.
They find a casino review website run by an affiliate.
They read a review of ABC Casino. They read a review of XYZ casino. They read a review of 32Red Casino. The review of 32Red is more favorable than the others, so the player clicks the affiliate link and goes back to 32Red, signs up, and deposits £1,000.
Now — as it stands, you give NOTHING to the affiliate who closed the deal for you.
I don’t think that is fair at all.
IMO, simply “making someone aware” that something exists isn’t enough. If you aren’t the one to actually seal the deal, you shouldn’t receive anything.
Also, there is another issue to consider: cookie stuffing. I’m sure some webmasters have set up their sites so that when a visitor arrives, a hidden i-frame loads up a bunch of different casino sites (and thus, the tracking cookies, too). Then the player is tagged to that webmaster permanently, and it doesn’t matter if they eventually go to the site by typing the URL directly into the address bar or if they click another affiliate’s link.
I’d be curious to know how many webmasters are using the hidden i-frame technique. I suppose it could be very profitable………………… :cappy:
Simmo! wrote:I like the fact that I send them, if they go away (or bookmark the site), and then come back in via the bookmark or by type-in (not forgetting it will be in their IE history which autofills domains as you type) I retain the credit.There’s another advantage in that once you send them in via the homepage, you can deeplink without having to worry about the cookie, which I’ve found quite handy before now (ie: poker school, terms & conditions etc). That said, in this case, 32Red allow deep-linking with aff tags anyway…wish everyone did.Yes, but I am pretty sure this works the same way with all cookied affiliate programs. With 32Red (and the unknown others), the cookie is simply not overwritable. With other programs, the cookie can be overwritten with the affiliate tag of the last affiliate to refer the player there. The player can come back days later if they want, and you’ll still get credit for the referral — assuming they haven’t clicked another affiliate’s link the meantime.
That’s my understanding, anyway. :hattip:
One good thing about fire fox is you can examine the cookie data.
tools > options > privacy
@Engineer 168234 wrote:
The player can come back days later if they want, and you’ll still get credit for the referral — assuming they haven’t clicked another affiliate’s link the meantime.
I could be wrong, but I assumed if they did a type-in or a bookmark that would act as a new “direct” cookie if it was latest cookie counts.
There was a huuuuuge affiliate uproar years ago which caused most programs to honor the last referrer only.
Cookie stuffing by some very large affiliates of the day made the market almost non existant for the rest of us.
Affiliates fought long and hard to get the industry to honor the last referral only. The only allowed exception was cross promotions by the casinos themselves, and systems that left the tracker with the affiliate who sent the player to that particular group in the first place, even if the player went from casino to casino within the group.
You are right Simmo, a lot of affiliates will vigorously resist that type of accounting. It encourages blackhats and cookie spammers of all persuasions. It is bad for the industry.
hummm,
thanks Dave,,,,let me think about this….
I agree, whoever makes the sale should get credit.
Now…if someone sends a visitor to a casino…and that visitor later returns to the casino as a type-in….then yes it’s nice the affiliate that sent the visitor a few days prior to get credit…but…
If I send the visitor to the casino and they can’t make up their mind…but 2 days later Engineer sends them and they download and sign up…then Engineer deserves the signup not me…cause he “closed the sale”….
This is my opinion…and yes the wars with the cookies not being over-writeable years ago were nasty….
Rick
Universal4I missed that war…damn
So lets restart it. Cookie Wars II. Just kidding.I can see the beneifit of who closes the sale gets it. In fact it is the right way to do it so long as type-ins and Bookmarks returning to the site following the last referral do not overwrite the afiliate cookie.
Also there is a scenario where the opposite is useful. A while back I had a comparison site where you could compare (example) the T&C’s of one against another side by side in frames. Because a number of casinos didn’t allow deep-linking, I loaded up the homepage first, then redirected to the T&C’s.
But I can see this is open to abuse.
In my opinion the whole cookie thing could use a rethink. One possible scenario would be for casino cookies to pick up the referring URL (domain name) and match it against the affiliates sites, dispensing with aff ids. An affiliate would register the sites with each program. This could have several advantages: firstly you could just send players to the casino straight (ie: http://www.allslots.com) without needing to go get link code. Secondly, You could deep link. Thirdly it would make email spam harder and also allow affiliate programs to more easily identify spammers. Fourthly you wouldn’t need different campaigns per site as the referring URL does that for you effectively and for multiple site owners make it easier to get stats by site. Finally, to the naked eye (ie: player) they just see the casino URL and not an affiliate URL.
Engineer;168234 wrote:Also, there is another issue to consider: cookie stuffing. I’m sure some webmasters have set up their sites so that when a visitor arrives, a hidden i-frame loads up a bunch of different casino sites (and thus, the tracking cookies, too). Then the player is tagged to that webmaster permanently, and it doesn’t matter if they eventually go to the site by typing the URL directly into the address bar or if they click another affiliate’s link.Hi Engineer,
I don’t profess to be any kind of IT wizard, but I am sure that this is no longer possible. New security features in browsers will not accept any cookie for a domain, unless it’s that domain that is setting it. E.g. if someone wanted to set a 32Red.com cookie, the iframe would need to be coming from 32Red – not something that we would do.
As I say, I might be wrong on this, but if there are any cookie ‘monsters’ out there who understand this more, please correct me.
Mark
@Mark_32Red 168266 wrote:
Hi Engineer,
I don’t profess to be any kind of IT wizard, but I am sure that this is no longer possible. New security features in browsers will not accept any cookie for a domain, unless it’s that domain that is setting it. E.g. if someone wanted to set a 32Red.com cookie, the iframe would need to be coming from 32Red – not something that we would do.
As I say, I might be wrong on this, but if there are any cookie ‘monsters’ out there who understand this more, please correct me.
Mark
It would be coming from 32Red Mark. What Engineer means is that the iFrame calls the src=”http://www.32red.com/?banaff=00000″ which would set the cookie.
Ahh, interesting.
I am still convinced that this will be blocked, let me have a play around and report back.
Mark
Edit: Yep Simmo, you are right – very interesting!
@Mark_32Red 168269 wrote:
Yep Simmo, you are right
I’m always right Mark
Oh…except once back in 1987 when I told a girl I had stamina. Clearly our definitions of the word were different.
@Simmo! 168265 wrote:
One possible scenario would be for casino cookies to pick up the referring URL (domain name) and match it against the affiliates sites, dispensing with aff ids. An affiliate would register the sites with each program. This could have several advantages: firstly you could just send players to the casino straight (ie: http://www.allslots.com) without needing to go get link code. Secondly, You could deep link. Thirdly it would make email spam harder and also allow affiliate programs to more easily identify spammers. Fourthly you wouldn’t need different campaigns per site as the referring URL does that for you effectively and for multiple site owners make it easier to get stats by site. Finally, to the naked eye (ie: player) they just see the casino URL and not an affiliate URL.
Ding Ding! Round 2 begins… (LOL) :tongue:
It is an interesting idea, but I wouldn’t work with a program that relied on that alone. There are a few programs that show you the referring URLs in the stats, and in my experience, 50% of the time, there is no referring URL at all. For some reason, the URL just isn’t passed through. (I am referring to Revenue Giants and WagerShare specifically.)
The URLs that are shown are useful and interesting, but still — it’s only half of the picture. The rest are “undefined” or “unknown.” That is potentially half of my earnings there in the “unknown” pile. The additional tracking (cookies in the case of RG, and sessions in the case of WS) is quite helpful. (Which makes me wonder why WagerShare hasn’t gotten rid of it yet… I digress.)
So — based on my 50% figure, I think that using the referring URL for tracking purposes wouldn’t be received that well. I’m sure a few programs would love this, since it would reduce affiliate earnings significantly. But shortly after the change, affiliates would migrate to the more profitable programs — i.e. the ones with long tracking cookies. Affiliates will promote the programs that are most profitable to them, and smart affiliate programs know this. That is why there are so many cookied programs out there, and that is why we don’t see many programs offering insulting commission rates of 20% anymore.
Also, as you said, tracking by referring URL only would require you to register every site that you own, or each specific URL, if you promote via Blogspot or a similar site not owned by you. I (for one) wouldn’t want to register my sites. I’d rather just grab one link and use it wherever I want, be it on my sites, in email messages, etc.
The technique might reduce email spam, but it would also hinder legitimate email campaigns. Instead of linking directly to a casino within an email, I would have to first send people to a landing page that I own, and then they’d have to click out from there. And then only 50% of those would be tracked…
Additionally, I think that some shady webmasters would attempt to claim sites that don’t really belong to them. I would be rather annoyed if someone claimed Jackpot Graphs, for instance, and started profiting from it! :Cry: I know there are ways to verify ownership (Google Analytics has a way), but it would be yet another hoop to jump through…..
Simmo! wrote:Oh…except once back in 1987 when I told a girl I had stamina. Clearly our definitions of the word were different.Ha ha! :roflmao:You make some good points there Engineer
Maybe it’s as straightforward as I thought. Although, it would be nice to have that as an “option” maybe as there are scenarios where it would be useful.
