Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Unless you've been hiding under a substantially sized rock recently, you'll have heard that Quidco in a roundabout way announced it was leaving Affiliate Window (AW). It's a bizarre case of twists and turns.
From what I understood, Quidco's SureShop agreement was the primary reason why they were leaving as AW didn't sign up to it. But it turned out not to be that simple.
Here's my comments on some of the more important allegations that were revealed in the last week.
The original email that started off everything was:
Dear Colin,Jason's written a great commentary called Dropping Network Links Was Never This Exciting! which gives a good idea of what went on.
We are contacting you to inform you that as of September 1st 2008, Quidco will no longer be operating on the Affiliate Window platform.
We have worked with Affiliate Window since our launch in May 2005 and have enjoyed working closely with them over the last three years. We believe the Affiliate Window team are a great asset to the affiliate community and are strongly committed to raising the profile of the industry.
The rapid growth of Quidco along with the announced entry of Microsoft and Yahoo! into the UK cashback market (through Live Search and Kelkoo respectively) once again indicates that the cashback incentive channel is set to be a major part of any online media strategy.
The increasing mainstream use of cashback has brought greater pressure on the service we offer including the technical integration of Quidco with our network partners. As part of our effort to deeply integrate with network merchants and create bespoke solutions for their needs we have made the decision to reduce the number of our network partners. Unfortunately this means that we will be unable to promote you on the Affiliate Window platform as of September 1st 2008.
one of the statements from the network is that Quidco members will simply use an alternative cashback site for the merchants that will become unavailable on Quidco. There is no doubt in our mind that members will prefer to support merchants who are investing time and effort into providing premium customer service through SureShop.Quidco is the most popular cashback site I know about but I strongly doubt that it's users are completely loyal. There are many other 100% cashback networks out there. Also, if I want to make a purchase through Dixons, I'm not going to make it through Bob's Electronics simply because they are a SureShop member. Cashback users are frugal else they wouldn't bother with cashback. This means they compare prices first and foremost. Cashback just helps make things cheaper, even though it generally isn't guarenteed. If Dixons are the cheapest for product XYZ, users will go wherever Dixons cashback is offered.
Quidco have for a long time operated on the basis of member sign up fees, a struggle for a company offering a supposed 100% cashback to their members. However at present we believe that Quidco have agreements with a number of networks to share override revenue generated from member purchases through the merchants they manage.The first point to highlight is that what originally seemed like a SureShop disagreement turned out to be more about Quidco's finances allegedly. Essentially, it is implied that only claiming £5 annual fee from each member apparently isn't commercially viable.
Out of genuine curiosity, if Quidco offers 100% cashback, why is your cashback lower than a competitors?Now from day one Quidco has been trumpeted as 100% cashback so it's a bit of a surprise to learn it is allegedly isn't. Quidco publicly denied this issue claiming:
We pay out 100% of the commission we are paid for a transaction.Kayleigh75 asked:
why for example does JackpotJoy pay £10 on Quidco but Wepromiseto pays £20 PLUS WPT says they only pay out 50% on this retailer as "This retailer does not permit us to pay 100% cashback for commercial reasons. The excess will be added to the honest pot." and there are many many more like this.The comments thereafter are a mixed bag of loyal users and those that have deferred to rivals.
To date, we have not engaged any parties in discussion of speculation or factual inaccuracies and will continue to remove any comments here which are intended to formulate an Affiliate Window smear campaign against us.However, Curryswillbegone supplied a link to Martin Lewis's Money Saving Expert's site which claims to have all the deleted comments.
You may also be interested in reading:
Comments are manually approved and hence can a while to appear. Questions, informative posts, and feedback comments are gladly accepted. Spam is deleted. Spam-type comments have their links removed (Comment Policy)
In the interests of legal protection, comments have been disabled. It is reminded that most of this post is comprised of allegations by third parties which are clearly marked as such.
If you would like to comment on this debate, please visit:
Quidco - http://www.quidco.com/blog/...
Affiliate Window - http://blog.affiliatewindow...
A4U Post - http://www.affiliates4u.com...
Written on Tuesday 29 July 2008 at 14:41:58 GMT (Permalink)
Thank you to all previous commenters.
Comments are now prohibited for this post.
This could be for a number of reasons but is most likely due to prevent the discussion from digressing.