How far are you willing to go to maximize revenue from your affiliate traffic?

[WagerX]

I am rebuilding some affiliate sites and have to readdress the issue of whether or not I should redirect this traffic from a geo-specific location. It seems like such a waste to have a player interested in playing "live poker" and clicking on a casino's FTD bonus link, that would normally direct them a casino that excludes that country. Ideally, the potential player should land on the casino they clicked on. In practice, I'm inclined to do the opposite.

How far would you guys go in manipulating the redirects of your traffic to optimize? Here are some options I am considering:

1. Bait and Switch: When players click an affiliate link, I'll blindly redirect them to another site that can convert them ( ie. redirect them to another casino that will take a deposit from them)
2. Give a warning and try to convert. If a player clicks an affiliate link, I'll throw a popup and let them know that they will not be able to play at that casino and give them options of others.
3. I let them click on an affiliate link that has no chance of converting the player.

The first one seems sleazy, especially using the "Bait and Switch" terminology. But, ask yourself if it's truly wrong to do that knowing that you are ultimately fulfilling the need of the player? Seems like there is a good argument there.

I've seen some sites do the second. It does seem like the ethical thing to do. However, I would be concerned about attrition.

[universal4]

It depends

Overall, if you have a review and a link that says, visit casino x the visitor is expecting to see casino x and sending them anywhere else may lose trust.

Using the popup method, and explaining they will not be able to play at casino x and they should visit casino w instead seems to be a much better method. (this is even more true for geo targeting).

One exception to the above is when an affiliate program closes a market or closes your account or otherwise has shown no way you will get paid for the traffic. Certainly sending them somewhere you do have a chance at converting the players IMO is better then sending them to a property you really don't want them going to now.

Not sure how others feel but at some point in the future adding the popup method to this might help if the popup were worded in such a way to show the visitor that YOU lost trust in the brand originally promoted and how it is better for them to visit your newly recommended property.

Rick
Universal4

[TheGooner]

I do the second.

I can detect country of origin and if the player cannot play there (country not accepted) I will pop-up a warning with a suggested alternative.

I then give two options as buttons :
1/ Go to my suggested alternative (in green)
2/ Go to their original choice (in red)

I've noticed that :

a/ at least 50% of the click traffic is probably bots as they choose neither option and stay on the page.
b/ around 30% goes to the original site anyway (possibly using a VPN or possibly determined to go)
c/ around 20% or the traffic follows the better option that will actually accept their deposit.

Is it worth the hassle? Maybe not.

But it was an intersting programming exercise anyway - and I feel better when I see some of the redirects working and sending players to bookies and casinos that they have a chance of playing at.

[WagerX]

It depends
Overall, if you have a review and a link that says, visit casino x the visitor is expecting to see casino x and sending them anywhere else may lose trust.
....

Thank you for the input. Yes, I've been thinking about this since I posted. I think you are right about the "trust" aspect. Keeping that mindset when creating content and features is the way to go. It's a good tenant to use. For me, I am going to do a pop up with alternatives IF the player can not be converted on that destination (excluded country) with 3 alternatives.

...It depends
One exception to the above is when an affiliate program closes a market or closes your account or otherwise has shown no way you will get paid for the traffic. Certainly sending them somewhere you do have a chance at converting the players IMO is better then sending them to a property you really don't want them going to now...

I guess a warning for those programs would be good. An indication to the player that you have lost faith in the program and continue at their own risk with assurance of doom. I think Gooner's strategy of measuring the clicks on the popup page to gauge performance would give metrics to determine which strategy is the best.

I do the second.

.......
a/ at least 50% of the click traffic is probably bots as they choose neither option and stay on the page.
b/ around 30% goes to the original site anyway (possibly using a VPN or possibly determined to go)
c/ around 20% or the traffic follows the better option that will actually accept their deposit.

Is it worth the hassle? Maybe not.

Thank you for sharing. That is very interesting. I think it's worth the hassle. At least you have the peace of mind knowing that you are delivering the best value to the player you can. That included the service of delivering on their expectations. I use geotargeting on delivering lists on specific pages. I like to serve lists that only include brands that can convert, giving priority to brands that excel in that demographic, and based on my rankings.

Great feedback guys. I've got more work to do on this.

I can't tell you how many times I've spent time developing features that have no impact on the bottom line.

[Sherlock]

Bait and switch.