Forum Moderators: open
Most affiliates do not fit the criteria to get into Froogle. So, Froogle becomes a big retailer only club. I have a feeling that this will be an economic disaster for both companies that rely on affiliates to sell products and for small business sites that sell these products. Some companies that offer affiliate programs have upward of 10,000 affiliates. That's 10,000 small businesses!
What experience does the end user want? I've looked through Froogle. It's pretty cool if you know what you want. If not, it's page after page of mind numbing pictures and prices. It seems users would like to go to a site and peruse the products, descriptions and prices.
I don't know... I hope Google does.
Bernie:
Your "hole in the wall" scenario is a bit over simplified. Perhaps if capital isn't an issue this scenario works. To simply change from one business model to another (drills to lasers) is not a cheap process. For those of us not making a "Jaguar" a month, the thought of having to carry inventory does not sit well. Setting up drop shipping may work, but then who handles customer service issues such as returns, customer questions and bad debt?
Affiliate sites are one of the last bastions of the low cost business. A domain name can be registered, a host set up and links to affiliates created, for under $50.00. The affiliate deals with all service issues. In a few month's, with luck, some skills and a little help from the people on Webmasterworld, you can start making a little scratch. That profit rolls into new sites and bingo! You've got a decent little business going. Affiliate sites are the business equalizer. Even a very little fish can swim in this pond.
The affiliate game, from my perspective, is about traffic. This we get from many sources, but Google is chief among them. So, if Google plans to make moves that will do away with affiliate sites, it would be a bad thing for many affiliate site webmasters. Would it kill all affiliate sites? No. Will it hurt real bad? Yes. Especially the smaller sites who don't have the cash, time or experience to setup a completely different business model.
Again, if it happens, it'll cause a monumental upheaval among legions of merchants who have robust affiliate programs. If Google wants to take them on, good luck.
The smarter affiliate merchants are already making adjustments. I run an editorial site devoted to European travel, and I receive a steady stream of sales pitches from affiliate vendors (mainly hotel-booking outfits) that want placement on my site even though my conversion rate is obviously lower than the conversion rate of a pure booking site.
Many affiliates are also looking ahead. Booking sites, for example, are starting to build new sites with content. (I know this because I'm constantly getting URL submissions from booking sites whose owners think a few dozen pages of tourist information gleaned from Lonely Planet or Frommer's is enough to turn an affiliate site into a "content site.")
Change is a fact of life, and the window of opportunity for pure affiliate sites is closing. The same thing happened with answering services, secretarial services, word-processing businesses, desktop publishing, and--more recently--with low-end Web design. Answering services were replaced by answering machines and voicemail; secretarial services and word-processing businesses were replaced by PCs with word-processing software; DTP and Web design have become integrated with mainstream publishing, advertising, and corporate communications. The same thing will happen with affiliate marketing. That doesn't mean mom-and-pop businesses won't be able to profit from affiliate programs; it just means they'll need to evolve beyond the "buy a domain and find a cheap Web host to display a bunch of product pages" type of business if they want to survive. And, as affiliate marketing matures, people who honed their marketing and SEO skills with affiliate sites may find new opportunities as consultants and employees of mainstream businesses.
Your "hole in the wall" scenario is a bit over simplified.
as an allegory it certainly is simple, in order to make poeple understand :)
i understand your point if you want to make really fast business and focus on seo but i would personally not work the way you described it - nomatter affiliate marketing exists or not. it is already more than setting up an optimized site and putting some affiliate-links...
capital?...how much does an e-shop cost nowadays? you have even ISP-solutions hence no risk of investment.(just a little point here: many of the top results on froogle come from yahoo-shops!)
customer who won't pay? outsource your billing.
customer care? outsource it to a call center.
logistics? we have already complete logistic services that offer even the stock.
what i wanted to say: affiliate marketing income is based on a commission you get from a merchant because you brought him a customer..right? the merchant has a profit margin that is much bigger than the affiliate commission. with the difference he covers all the expenses related to the problems like billing, stock, logistics, you name it. and at the end gets his own profit out of the game.
if you just turn the system around: you become your own merchant outsourcing every service related to your shop you will give away most of your profit margin but still make at least the same money as in old affiliate times...
I grant you that merchants will lead the way to doing things differently. And, I further grant that cookie cutter pages and lame content are beginning to pass from the affiliate scene. But, the affiliate model, IMO, will be strengthening, not weakening, because of the very changes that should be implemented.
For some time, I've had an affiliation with a merchant that handles overstock and closeout merchandise (no, not who you think). Its not quite the sort of affiliate program we're familiar with. They set a price, and I'm at liberty to establish a markup. However, they provide the entire backend, shopping cart, card processing, customer relations, shipping, etc.
They pay me the difference between their price and the price I set. What I do is link to framed pages I've set up about which I'm unconcerned in terms of acheiving SE ranking. That way, I don't have to use affiliate links, although many of my framed pages do rank very well using noframe tags.
That kind of model, may, or may not survive what I believe to be an improbable nuclear war by Google against affiliate sites. Its simply an indication that other approaches are possible.
Lastly, become a consultant or employee to mainstream businesses? I'm about to go off and retch at the very thought.
It took the WW Web revolution and about 7 years to smack low end web design, until then all my college buddies made their first million.
You're probably trying to tell us Google is THAT big a revolution to kill off millions of dollars in affiliate business right?
WRONG.
The days of Google are counted, we'll see Google go before affiliates do if they keep this attitude up.
Google is worth about 100 to 300 million dollars - there's more than that PER QUARTER on the online affiliate business YOU are connected with(Travel).
You think Google is at the same level of the Web revolution that changed the world, the PC revolution that made Bill Gates, the revolution that made the Web the lifestyle of millions of self made businessmen and entrepeneurs?
Don't think so chuck, you're miscalculating Google - they're only a geek packed search engine, not a revolution of any kind.
Ah, by the way. I have a book right here on my shelf, covered in dust, from around 1998 or 99. I can't read the title, it's being used to hold a stack of DVD's in place - It's called "The Altavista Search Revolution".
The days of Google are counted, we'll see Google go before affiliates do if they keep this attitude up.
Why? And how? Do you seriously think users care about what Google does or doesn't do to affiliate sites?
Much less the constant fear of having one's income penalized by a bunch of geeks wearing pizza greasy half inch thick glasses.
Google would have to arrive at a decision that its in everyone's best interests to stick it to the merchants by seeking to destroy part, or in a few cases all, of their business. If Google were a public company no such decision would ever be made. As a private company? Well, possibly. But I doubt it. I'll go so far as to say that IMO its not the kind of decision a Bill Gates would make, and, isn't he a head geek of sorts?
The days of Google are counted, we'll see Google go before affiliates do if they keep this attitude up.
In the far off distance? Maybe. But I think that all depends on how far Microsoft invades into the home environment and what they use for shopping systems.
I stand by what others have stated here. This is all brand new and too many people are freaking out just because this is a shopping service created by Google.
People are always going to be shopping for the best bargains/specific products and Google will not always be able to keep up with indexing the sites that offer them.
And like someone else mentioned earlier, there are a number of people out there who believe that you can only get SE traffic these days by paying for it. That includes Google in their eyes!
Google doesn't care one way or the other if your site is an affiliate for their main search. They do not hate you, they just want what is best for their users.
The vast majority of users will never use froogle. They will use whatever search box that they have learned to use. AOL, MSN, Yahoo, etc. Why should they click on a tab in google to get to froogle, as long as the main google search produces the results they want.
Google will not remove shopping results from froogle for the above reason.
Most users will not even click on the spelling corrections offered by google if they get ANY results with their misspelled search terms.
A large number of affiliate sales are made while people are researching a product, not while they are shopping for a product. If a site has sufficient information to convince me to buy an item, and I do not save any money by going to another site, or going direct, I will buy through the affiliate.
Google is worth about 100 to 300 million dollars
Does that number look low to anyone else? Yaho paied 235,000,000 for Ink and Google has a lot more traffic than that. And $$$ too, b/c I'd guess there's a lot more $$$ for adwords than ink ppi.
Chiyo:
I don't see a trend toward eliminating the "middleman" on any other SE.
Do you believe if all "middlemen" went away, that as much business would be conducted by the OEM or retailer? How many "middlemen" do you suppose there are? How much money do suppose these "middlemen" contribute to the Web economy?
I think these "middlemen" are simply salespeople for the companies they choose to represent. I believe they are necessary to the function of web commerce and do not fill a "gap". Without them many companies would see drastic reductions in income.
I think these "middlemen" are simply salespeople for the companies they choose to represent.
IMHO if the affiliates are only salespeople, then I would gladly see them disappear. It is the affiliate that adds true value that I am willing to give my money to, and it is a rare salesman that adds value to my shopping.
For some yes it will cause problems. If Google can show retailers that they can sell just as well or better in ROI with Froogle then there will be no fight.
It also depends on the retailer. A mature internet company like Amazon needs it's Associates less now, because it is established as a household name. But a small company starting out might find that operating an affiliate program to be a very cost effective way of getting prime advertising on numerous websites.
So things are bound to change in retail affiliate landscapes - some companies will phase out affiliates and others will move in to fill the vacuum.
In that case, if affiliates = middlemen then yes some companies will move to marketing directly and cut the affiliate out of the loop if they have the opportunity.
c1bernaught, I agree with most of what you've been writing in this thread. I also agree with what the others said that the big affiliates will adjust and keep earning big bucks. So the guys who are left without a chair when Google stops playing their music are independent informational sites that use affiliate programs for funding. IMHO, there's quite a lot of those on the web, and they don't have a chance to adjust because they are not fulltime sales-people. Cutting this chunk out of their income will make a huge diffence, and I do believe that the conqequences will be felt on the web.
Froogle is only good for one thing though, and that is if you know the exact model number of the product you want to buy. Then you narrow the price using the price filter.
So, what does this tell you? First the internet killed high street retailers of commodities. People would go to the shop to touch and feel it, and then they would go home and buy it on line because it was cheaper.
Now Froogle will kill the affiliate site. People will use the affiliate sites (or Google proper) to comparisson shop, and once they know the model they want, they will go to Froogle to find the best price. Not everyone at first, but when there's money involved, people learn fast.
Game over if you affiliate for a commodity (books, diet pills sold in fixed quantities, consumer electronics). Perhaps not if your product cannot have a single price on it (baskets of goods for a single price, diet pills sold in variable quanitities etc, consumer electronics with extras thrown in for free) . Froogle can't handle variations in products unless they have a model number.
Still, it doesn't look rosey. The real nail in the coffin for the affiliates would be if the Froogle tab appeared next to commercial Google search results. This would put shoppers only a click away from the best price.
I also agree with what the others said that the big affiliates will adjust and keep earning big bucks. So the guys who are left without a chair when Google stops playing their music are independent informational sites that use affiliate programs for funding. IMHO, there's quite a lot of those on the web, and they don't have a chance to adjust because they are not fulltime sales-people. Cutting this chunk out of their income will make a huge diffence, and I do believe that the conqequences will be felt on the web.
I think you've got it backwards. If Google devalues anything, it won't be the information site that earns income with affiliate links--it will be the pure affiliate site. That's why many owners of pure affiliate sites are scrambling to add "content."
SlyOldDog, thanks for the insight, as a first step affiliates should put the heat on the retailers to give them longer cookie durations. :)
Even if you've got an affiliate corner attached to an informational site, it'll be optimized to it can be found directly via Google, not just accidentially stumbled upon by a few stray visitors...
"Affiliate corners" (i.e., affiliate sites within information sites) might well suffer if Google became less friendly to pure affiliate pages. But affiliate links on information pages shouldn't be affected. And don't forget that an affiliate page on an information site is likely to have incoming links (with an accompanying gift of PageRank) from information pages.
Talk about hyperballs filters or hypernuts filter... what was it again?
OH MY GOD YOU FREAKING CAPITALISTS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE MONEY IF YOU DON'T BUY ADWORDS, GO CRANK SOME CONTENT RIGHT NOW WHILE YOU BUY ADWORDS YOU SNEAKY BUNCH!
The only allowed PR 9 or 10 or 11 is Microsoft and Yahoo and special peeples like that. You gotta have NO hidden layers and NO hidden links, only Microsoft is allowed to do that. And if you think of crosslinking like a freaking brain surgeon go think again you can't link your sites everywhere coz then you get a NO-ADWORDS-AND-STILL-MAKING-MONEY Pee'R ZERO award.
We just can't leave you 5 minutes alone and you try to sneak up on the world's largest charity, Google - they're so nice and give us so much and still these people try to sneak into their free listings, imagine they're so giving they even take MY content and display it for me on their CACHE and we don't even have to sue for copyright coz they have a nice guy that comes here and gets FREE suggestions on how to improve his money search engine more!
I have the darndest time understanding philosophically why affiliates ought to be viewed as public enemies in the world of the internet. I say public enemies, because no matter how you slice it, there's a large element in the internet community that appears to be hoping that Google has the weaponry and fervent zeal to bring about their extinction.
What these folks are really talking about is the pain of having to compete in the internet marketplace. Anything that can be done to make it less competitive and more favorable to your interests you contend ought to be done.
Your merchant, or informational site that finds itself ranking lower in the SERPs than an affiliate site is obviously less competitive. But, and this is a huge but, the COMPETITION IS NOT WITH THE AFFILIATE. Instead, you are in competion with a merchant that has an affiliate program.
So, what you really want is for the Search Engines to squelch an aspect of economic competition that has existed in one form or another since capitalism walked on the scene. Simply have the SEs take away your rival merchant's ability to compete on the web through using agents.
The answer ought to be, IMO, that you need to do a better job of presenting your site/pages on the internet so that you can outrank affiliate sites. I think you have to assume that if an affiliate site outranks you, then it complies with the SEs TOS and accepted practices unless you can prove otherwise.
And more power to the merchant which gained a competitive edge by developing an affiliate program that spawned an affiliate who enthralled the visitor and snagged the sale.
As you can see, I'm all for a more expansive web and incresaed competition. Putting the Kybosh on affiliate sites is anti-competitive and much more likely to favor the few.
Search engines core business are in returning information to their users that users want. If you can buy a certain item at the same cost from the manufacturer, it is best to send people there. That makes absolute business sense, and now search engines CAN do it better, they are.. In cases where sites offer info for people who are looking for reviews, comparative info, discussion and community, buying tips and related articles, even though they may have affiliate links, I cant see any evidence that these sites are being penalized.
EuropeforVisitors posts as the most frequent poster on this thread have been objective and not emotive. I agree very much with him. There is no campaign of targeting of sites that contain affiliate links, but as search engines improve they have to provide the most direct link for what the consumer is looking for. In short, SE's are more obviously targeting affiliate and non-affilate sites that provide more than just ordering info and a shopping cart (such as info sites, review sites, personal sites, special interest sites) for better exposure in their indicies, and sites affiliate and non-affiliate sites that add no value added or duplicate info for downgrading.
This has much less to do with "affiliate vs non-affiliate sites" than it has to so with "original/useful sites vs. duplicate info/middleman sites".
IId say it again. I see no reason why sites with affiliate links that are well targeted, know their audience, and provide well thought out editorial and original articles are at a disadvantage at all. Even ODP in their latest editorial guidelines on affiliate sites, stress that the real emphasis is on original content, not on whether affiliate links are present or not.
Comments on political theory, communists, capitalists, American free market values, and "...how my strategy in past years looks like it wont work next year and I think it is unfair...", offers far less substance to this debate than how we can make original sites that offer major value-added to the consumer decision and help our customers - whether they have affiliate links or not.
We may not be able to buy a Jaguar every month any more.. that is a window of opportunity that has now past as the Web matured. Maybe a VW. But as a pro rather than con, we may get a less cluttered web.
Should affiliates be held to a higher standard? When you're trying to sell mill run widgets, there's only so much that can be said. Personally, I believe that I can get a B+ or an A- without tiring this old brain muscle in the least. But, its a struggle for many. So, lets be practical. Any affiliate that can get a C- should have a crack at the brass ring.
Now, assuming that I can say things about those dreary mill run widgets in a way that makes them come alive, even though I've said nothing that hasn't been said before, ought to get me over the duplicate info/middleman hurdle, shouldn't it? After all, this isn't a literary competition.
Or, am I likely to have a competitor complain to Google that what I've said is a duplicate, and my page should be human reviewed. Boy, I can just sense a stirring at the Googleplex to get at all those pages to see if a rewrite is actually duplicate content.
As for a little emoting over this stuff, good grief, that makes it interesting. Glad, however, Chiyo that we're in agreement that the long era of hostility toward affiliates should close. Hope Google feels that way.
Chiyo:
I don't believe there is a conspiracy of evil against affiliates. I do believe that a SE's job is to deliver the best, most relevent information to the end user. Here I think we agree. However, if Froogle goes well and commerce sites are dumped from Google (my speculation), does the exclusion of affiliate sites make the search experience any better for the end user? I don't think it does. I think it helps the big retailers and hurts the small business man/women, not to mention all those that sell products, as affiliates, for either.
I like how you added the "pro" of a less cluttered web. People like JP Morgan and Bill Gates would be proud. After all, less cluttered is less competitive, and who needs all that nasty competition?
BigDave:
Hate to tell you this, but salespeople make wealth. The top 1% of millionaires made their money in sales. Everybody sells, it's how things get bought and sold. Eliminate salespeople and you eliminate commerce.
Go60Guy:
I agree with your last post.
I also believe that only good, content rich and informative sites stand a chance at survival. This is as it should be, survival of the fittest. Competition should be the driver that kills the one page web site, be it affiliate or not. Poorly designed sites will fall to the sites that are easier to navigate, better looking, faster loading, etc, etc..
I hope that wasn't too emotional....
commerce sites are dumped from Google (my speculation)
What you are objecting to is not that froogle exists, you are objecting to improbable future events.
IMO froogle will never come close to google's usage. I think it will be more popular than google's other tabs, but it will still be in the single digit percentage points compared to google searches. And that isn't counting all the searches from search boxes on yahoo and aol. Froogle complicates things for people who do not want things complicated.
The reason everyone switched to google from the other SEs, was because they did not work. It was not that google was better, but that the others were garbage. As long as a normal google search still works while shopping, then they are not likely to even notice that the froogle/shopping/whatever tab is even there.
Google will never poison their results by removing the commercial pages from the regular SE for the reasons stated above. It will make google appear to be bad, and they definitely do not want that. They may eventually make an information only search, but that will not be the standard engine, it will be something else, more like froogle.
And please do not make up your own statistics and definitions for words. "Salesperson - a person employed to sell merchandise (as to customers in a store or to customers that are visited)". Just because you make money through sales, soes not make you a salesperson.
You stated that the top 1% of wealthy people are salespersons. that is one of the most blatantly false things I've read on the web, and I've read a lot. Bill Gates owns a company that sells software, but he is not a salesman. The british royal famly is not working the sales counter at Sears. Warren Buffet makes his money when he sells stock, but that does not make him a salesman. What about musicians, football players, actors, lawyers, money managers or even the old wealth families. You may have a different definition of what a salesperson is, but I prefer to stick with the commonly accepted one.
