serial tracking

[justbookies]

I don't think it's universal - http://www.affiliateguarddog.com/for...html#post36996 - and AFG seems to feel that the majority of sign-ups are instantanious.

I have taken a look at two other programs we promote that use NetRefer and they do, reassuringly, seem ok:
- Blue Square's cookie that tracks this (called conveniently "AFF_ID") lasts one calendar month.
- Betfair's cookies last around 40 days (they have two cookies that look to track the affiliate link called "PI" & "Tracking Tags")

So it is Boylesports & Paddy Power that require instantaneous sign-up.

In the absence of solid stats, I don't agree that most people sign up immediately. Even if they do and you are losing just 20%-30% of sign-ups, that is mammoth. Remember, they only have to close the browser to be a lost referral. It is a horrible precedent for sites to set.

In defence of one of the two named firms, the AM there was unaware of this situation and we kind of discovered it together. So the decision may have been made by a predecessor or even by the 'technical' dept.

[universal4]

No matter what "spin" they want to put on it now....this was a conscious effort on someone's part since a decision as to the time frame of the cookie, or whether one was set or not, had to be decided by SOMEONE!

My guess is that when Netrefer sells/licenses their package to a group and the initial setup is done, this is either explained in detail, or is covered in a guide of some sort.

Rick
Universal4

[slotplayer]

I believe Fortune Aff uses a session cookie also.

[iGamingWriter]

In defence of one of the two named firms, the AM there was unaware of this situation and we kind of discovered it together. So the decision may have been made by a predecessor or even by the 'technical' dept.

I'd guess that's Boyle who have always been very very responsive to me.

[iGamingWriter]

No matter what "spin" they want to put on it now....this was a conscious effort on someone's part since a decision as to the time frame of the cookie, or whether one was set or not, had to be decided by SOMEONE!

I would agree with that, but would add that that 'SOMEONE' may well have been making a decision they didn't fully understand or hadn't reasearched and quiet possibly were making a decision for an entire company that they may not have been authorised to make.

[universal4]

I see your point, but that would mean that the netrefer people did not explain how the affiliate part of their software works.

Rick
Universal4

[iGamingWriter]

Not necessarily - it simply means that the person they explained it to either failed to understand or did not know what the industry standard for such things were so simply went with what seemed like the best for the business. As pointed out above the AM who was consulted regarding this matter wasn't sure as to the answer themselves. Without having run an affiliate site yourself this is one of these issues where the devil lies in the detail and you're unlikely to have the context to make the 'right' decision.

[universal4]

Yea another good pint.

I am an unknowing decision maker and I am setting up an affiliate program. My 1st question is, how does it work?

Rick
Universal4

[iGamingWriter]

Yeh, this is the problem with putting people in charge of things they don't yet understand.

I've worked several managerial level jobs since leaving school, and as much as i'd love to say i got it right first time round every time i didn't. These sort of details often seem inconsequential so you make them quickly without too much thought - you've got a lot of things your dealing with right now, this doesn't seem like a top priority - that is until someone who really understands the impact of your mistake spells it out for you.

I'm not trying to defend this policy and i'm guessing at what might have happened - to an extent i'm playing devil's advocate, it's just as likely they did know what they were doing when they set this in place. However, i do think that now that it's been brought to light the programs involved should seriously consider their stance if they want to remain competitive within the market.

[universal4]

I believe some people knew what they were doing when they made the decision, but we may likely be told they didn't understand the consequences....

Rick
Universal4

[justbookies]

I have checked out the cookie lengths for the sports betting links for the firms I promote most. This is what I found (only boyle and PP are session cookies):

Boylesports: Cookies expires as soon as browser closes
Paddy Power: Cookies expires as soon as browser closes
William Hill: Expires after 3 days
Ladbrokes: 14 days
Unibet: 14 days (despite what their terms say)
BetVictor: one month
Coral: one month
Blue Square: one month
SkyBet: one month
Betfair: 40'ish days
Betfred: 45 days
Bet365: 45 days
Stan James: 3 months (double checked this but am I reading the wrong cookie?)

I can't guarantee accuracy but I would stand by it with exception of SJ (seems odd) and BetVictor (data in cookie seemed a bit different to rest).

[Anthony]

Thank you, we are checking them and asking the programs.

[justbookies]

Thank you, we are checking them and asking the programs.

I would only ask the two that have session cookies. Would let sleeping dogs lie with the others, especially unibet as terms state far worse than actuality.