One thing I find interesting is merchant keyword and brand bidding megalomania but then that merchant goes on to bid on other merchants brand keywords and URL assets in their own pay per click activity, it’s a bit like having your cake and eating someone else’s too !
Take Next.co.uk for instance, the a4uforum.com Best New Merchant of 2007no less, they have a strong brand and are uber retentive about their brand assets and keywords being bid upon in any PPC listings 
yet imagine my surprise (hmm OK.. I didn’t quite stare open mouthed, it was more of a “ha ha ha the cheeky chimps”) when I found them showing on Marks and Spencer Keywords and sending that traffic directly to their own Next.co.uk index page.
OK stepping back for a moment before sharpening the knife, Next could be unaware this is happening, after all I’m sure their agency will be managing paid search for them so their involvement will be less than an in house managed account would be however I really can’t believe that the subject of competitor brand terms and their URLs would not have been covered in great detail and specific permission obtained for this activity before bidding on them started, it would be highly unprofessional and totally irresponsible for an agency to bid like this for a client without going over it in detail first and getting the client’s clearly worded permission to bid on competitor brand terms and URLs.
You may be thinking that all is fair in love, war and PPC but can restrictive merchants like Next genuinely be doing this and expect to maintain integrity in the eyes of affiliates ? OK being objective for a moment .. let’s be realistic about it, This is not the same as bidding on a merchant’s terms and sending direct to that merchant and reaping the benefits of easy brand money like a rogue PPC affiliate, it’s worse than that in affiliate eyes !
It’s seen as worse because it’s a merchant doing another merchant whilst making it clear they don’t even want to pay affiliates for their own brand traffic and by restricting activity on their own brand and related keywords they have visibly demonstrated that they know the value of their own brand and assets and in view of that they shouldn’t be actively bidding on other merchant’s brand assets especially if they strive to project the very professional squeaky clean corporate image that Next try to, as one can reasonably expect the brand keywords and URLs etc. to matter as much to their respective owners as Next’s own do to them !
The terms I spotted Next showing on are very tightly targeted terms and not some accidental broad or phrase match incident :
The active destination URL was http://clickserve.uk.dartsearch.net/link/click?lid=43000000024046628
Now of course we know many merchants bid on other merchant’s and website owners traffic terms, cross bidding is rife in many sectors but you’d think that the adage of people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones would spring to mind but for Next.co.uk it clearly hasn’t, they appear happy to not only brand bid but to specifcally target Marks and Spencer’s URL traffic.
On a separate “ways others exploit your brand” point you’ll notice the Ask.com advert showing on M&S terms too, I did blog about them a while back, they seem to be hitting the low hanging fruit and bidding on brands and URLs where they can and send traffic back to their page of Google listings where they hit a keyword at a higher cost than the keyword they just bought in, it’s just basic search arbitrage, and that’s to be expected of them, after all Ask.com is nothing more than an MFA (Made For Adsense) site now from what I can see of it. But you’d think a brand as restrictive as Next wouldn’t be doing cross brand bidding but then again it’s 2008, traffic isn’t easy to get as cheaply and some merchants are becoming less fussy than any rogue affiliate in an effort to get and/or keep traffic and sales so maybe we’ll see more of this merchant cross brand bidding ahead.
Can those restrictive merchants who are cross brand bidding on other merchant’s restricted brand terms really wave the big stick to affiliates and keep a straight face whilst telling them it’s unacceptable to bid on restricted brand terms and expect affiliates to respect this request ?
A few religious quotes seem appropriate for those that dwell in a house of glass :
Christian “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matthew 7.12)
Hindu : “Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” (Mahabharata 5.1517)
Jewish : “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a; Tobit 4:15)
Do you think it’s acceptable for a restrictive merchant to bid on other merchant’s brands and URLs ? in fact is any cross brand bidding acceptable and just where would you draw the line at ?
February 12th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Firstly I am surprised to fine that you actually rattle off a few relgious sayings so easily my friend!
OK so back to the questions…
- Is it acceptable for a merchant (restrictive or not) to bid on anothers brand and URL?
Personally I don’t think its right for Next (Best New Merchant of 2007) to bid on M&S terms, espcially when many merchants stipulate this in their T&Cs. Admittedly, neither M&S nor Next ask us affiliates to ensure we do not appear for competitors URLs or brands.
- Is any cross brand bidding acceptable and just where would you draw the line at?
- I would like to see a rule or gentlemans agreement, whereby merchants don’t bid on their competitors URLs or Trademarks. I would also like to see affiliates stop bidding on their competitors URLs too, but we know this will never happen.
As you say, their agency are the culprits and Next may not even be aware. I wonder if this was part of the sales pitch when all the changes took place to new agencies/networks?
February 13th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I think your argument really lacks foundation. The two are different situations, simply because they both involve brand terms doesn’t mean they are comparable.
It’s not ‘restrictive’ for a merchant to not want to pay affiliates a % share on sales through their brand term when they could pay per click for them and pay a far lower cost per sale. This is the reason they restrict brand, not because of some mystical view about the sanctity of brand terms in general.
Bidding on a competitor’s brand term, whilst it isn’t particuarly sporting, is not at all the same as BNB on a merchant’s affiliate program.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:09 am
leaving aside the morality/ethics of this (and I agree with Kier that the 2 issues have nothing to do with each other), I am very surprised to see this happening for a different reason: it’s either that M&S have not trademarked terms or that google is actually not enforcing the trademark. I would think that the former is not very plausible, whereas the latter is. I had a merchant whose affiliates were coming up in broad match for searches on a trademarked competitor name and the affiliates were categorical that they were not using the keyword.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Kier & Hero thanks for you comments,
I wasn’t so much making an argument for this or that but more asking if people think it’s acceptable that a merchant can have their cake and eat someone else’s too.
Yes there are two distinct issues, well pointed out, those being :
1) The restriction of affiliate activity on Next’s own brand
2) Next brand bidding on a competitor merchant’s brand terms
However they are linked to a degree worth notice and comment from an affiliate point of view as they are both restrictive affiliate merchants with clearly defined PPC T&C’s for affiliates yet Next are happy to bid on someone else’s brand terms whilst telling their own affiliates to keep out of their brand space.
The point being they are fully aware of their own value of brand and demand affiliates do not bid on them yet they are hitting someone else’s restricted terms despite the fact they have demonstrated awareness of brand value by issuing the T&C’s they have in regard to their own brand and expect affiliates to be moral and upstanding and behave in relation to that when Next themselves are happy to behave in a less than sporting manner.
If it is unacceptable to Next.co.uk and Marks And Spencer for an affiliate to bid on those restricted terms then do we as affiliates think it’s fine for a merchant such as Next with a restrictive policy in place to do it too, the point being Next understand the value to them of restricting activity on their brand yet are happy to do it to Marks And Spencer’s brand assets.
Is this not displaying a level of double standards ? for them to essentially say “no affiliates can do brand biding on our brand but we’ll brand bid on other merchants brand terms” !? let’s not forget the actual keywords here too, it’s url targeting more than generic brand so is no accident, it’s a deliberate action with a view to acquiring M&S traffic
My own view is that if you are a merchant and cross brand bidding then you are probably asking for trouble at some point from your competition and you should be expecting to have it done back to you at the very least and certainly can’t cry when it does happen.
It does illustrate a merchant and agency view of the pay per click and affiliate space, they are happy to dictate rigid T&C’s to affiliates yet have little regard about their own actions when it comes to other merchant’s restricted terms.
I wouldn’t have the same level if suprise if it were a merchant with an open brand policy as they may be not aware to the same degree the value which some merchants place on their brands and so could be forgiven easier for their unsporting behaviour but Next have a firm policy in regard to their brand traffic and are trying to take advantage of M&S’s restricted brand terms and as an affiliate that’s not acceptable behaviour from Next if they seek affiliate respect.
In my blog post I didn’t say it’s the same as a BNB (Brand Name Bidding) on a merchant’s program, I said think it’s worse than that, and I do think that is the case when a merchant has said no affiliate can bid on their terms yet they themselves are bidding on terms that another merchant has restricted their affiliates from bidding on.
It’s not only unsporting it’s double standards to say the least isn’t it ?
February 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I think what Shane is also highlighting is that for several years there has been too much Blue on Blue finger pointing with affiliates being blamed as the only culprits with one broad brush. When perhaps that attention should be deflected elsewhere, where it is happening to a considerably higher degree, with some agencies mis-representing clients who may knowingly or unknowingly realise what is going on. Networks have a duty here to highlight these cases to their clients, so that the client can take an even handed action against the offending competitor and not only the affiliate.
It also illustrates how some agencies are bad eggs / bad to the bone, not only in their handling of the affiliate program but also other aspects including their paid search ethics or agencies they employ to conduct paid search on their behalf.
We all know how some merchants can be mis-guided.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I agree with the issues you raise surrounding agencies but this is not an example of a double standard. The aim of Next, like any company, is to make money by minimising costs and maximising revenues. Not allowing affiliates to bid on your brand in many cases minimises your own costs and bidding on competitor’s brands helps you maximise your revenue. Brand restrictions are in place for sound financial reasons, not due to an abstract morality about bidding on brand terms. Equally merchants do not expect you to obey restrictions for abstract moral reasons, they expect you to do so as you agreed to them when signing up to the program.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
So in essence based on “bidding on competitor’s brands helps you maximise your revenue” that could advocate an affiliate to leave a program & bid on that left programs brand terms to seek more fruitious rewards, culminating in an open season for all.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
How do you mean? By arbitraging the brand in a way not connected to the merchant’s program? Of course it’s possible.
Note that I’m not saying I endorse them bidding on competitor’s brand terms, I don’t think it’s a very good practice. I’m simply saying that I don’t think there is really a contradiction in the merchant’s approach in this example.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Glad to see you don’t endorse merchants bidding on other merchants brands Kier. After all as I mentioned earlier, some merchants specifically request affiliates don’t go about their PPC campaigns in this manner either.
Maybe we should all start advertising on Next.co.uk as many of have/will be dropping them in coming days? Send our clicks to M&S instead? Personally I think when it gets to this low level of maximising profits, it does the industry no good what so ever.
I think it will only be a matter of time until it is stopped, if it hasn’t already. Would be interesting to know how it came about. Whether Next were aware of it and if so, whether the plan to target other merchants in the meantime. However, doubt we will ever get to find out.
Good work Inspector Robo!
February 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
In my opinion the merchant has a right to do what they want with this. We choose to promote them and also (in the case of next) choose not to. It’s aggressive marketing in a competitive and struggling sector. I’m not saying I back them though!
If the brand isn’t trademarked then they can bid on it. They won’t get great conversions and they may do collateral damage such as sour relations with other retailers and marketing channels, and leave themselves open to ethics debates such as this.
Getting back to the main issue in your post, I think we as affiliates tend to demand a lot from merchants and actually forget how unfair the world of real work is. Dubious values are part and parcel of everyday working life and the coroporate environment.
Anyway, a lot of things sort themselves out in the affiliate world - mainly due to the highlighting of these issues and the subsequent debate.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Hi Chris,
Yes I would say if Next restricted affiliates from bidding on other merchant’s brands and did it themselves that would be iffy. I think it’s bad practice, the main reason I posted was I object to the idea that there are double standards in place because a merchant restricts BNB on their own program.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Kier - you’re spot on.
Next & M&S are competitors. What Next did isn’t good, I don’t like to see it, but they run the risk of getting their asses sued!
However, as affiliates we are supposed to be PARTNERS of the merchants/brands we promote. If I ran a company and someone paid an affiliate £5 an order for brand term orders when I could have bid for them myself at £1 an order I’d sack that person immediately. Where does the affiliate add value in this case? Where is the business benefit?
Chris says…
Maybe we should all start advertising on Next.co.uk as many of have/will be dropping them in coming days? Send our clicks to M&S instead? Personally I think when it gets to this low level of maximising profits, it does the industry no good what so ever.
Why Chris? Why should we do this? What POSSIBLE reason is there for doing this? Sorry - I just don’t understand the reasoning behind this idea!
February 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
[...] misbehaved enough already with their Wiping The Slate Clean comments, the drop in commissions, brand bidding on competitors trademarks they have managed to go even [...]
February 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
But their commissions / comments have nothing to do with Next bidding on a competitor’s brand term - they are entirely seperate issues! As I said, they’ll probably get sued by the people who’se brand term they’ve bid on.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
[...] Next bid on trademarks of their competitors (see here) [...]
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Dave
Why Chris? Why should we do this? What POSSIBLE reason is there for doing this? Sorry - I just don’t understand the reasoning behind this idea!
Dave, if you don’t see the reasoning behind my idea thats fine, as it only means one less person bidding against my Adwords
Seriously, if Next think that they attract the same customers who would shop at M&S, then surely it may work the other way around?
March 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I would like to point affiliates reading this blog to the following post.
http://www.affiliates4u.com/forums/affiliate-marketing-lounge/75050-next-affiliate-program-facts.html#post380497
We hope that this will clear up any inaccuracies published about the program. However if you do have any further queries we will be happy to address them at nextaffiliates@i-level.com.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
[...] Cross Brand Bidding - Next.co.uk Tut-Tut ! [...]