<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why PPC restrictions don&#8217;t always make sense</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html</link>
	<description>UK affiliate marketing news, views and podcast interviews.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Fraser</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16205</link>
		<dc:creator>Fraser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16205</guid>
		<description>Hi - sorry for the delay in getting involved with the comments!

Anthony, thanks for posting and for being willing to change your terms.  I hope people will sign up with The Safe Shop and you can benefit from your willingness to communicate with affiliates.  I didn't want to be pick on The Safe Shop particularly but just to show that at the moment a lot of PPC guidelines are being thrown into place on all networks that may not benefit the merchant in the long term.

Thanks for your point of view James &#038; Vlad - you both make good points and it's great to have your experience here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi - sorry for the delay in getting involved with the comments!</p>
<p>Anthony, thanks for posting and for being willing to change your terms.  I hope people will sign up with The Safe Shop and you can benefit from your willingness to communicate with affiliates.  I didn&#8217;t want to be pick on The Safe Shop particularly but just to show that at the moment a lot of PPC guidelines are being thrown into place on all networks that may not benefit the merchant in the long term.</p>
<p>Thanks for your point of view James &#038; Vlad - you both make good points and it&#8217;s great to have your experience here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vlad</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16138</link>
		<dc:creator>Vlad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16138</guid>
		<description>10minutes+5days? Would that be the time of getting your ad OKed by Google?

In either event, I think it is good you take care of your affiliates. I think there is a bigger issue with online retailers who sell products (clothing, shoes and other items) and they do not hold the trademark themselves (exampple: addidas sportwear, micheal kors bedding- and so on). I acutally had an affiliate manager sending be what supposed to be a list of "best performing keywords/keyphrases majority of those keywords I could not use in my campaigns due to "trademark" issues and the affiliate manager could not do much about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>10minutes+5days? Would that be the time of getting your ad OKed by Google?</p>
<p>In either event, I think it is good you take care of your affiliates. I think there is a bigger issue with online retailers who sell products (clothing, shoes and other items) and they do not hold the trademark themselves (exampple: addidas sportwear, micheal kors bedding- and so on). I acutally had an affiliate manager sending be what supposed to be a list of &#8220;best performing keywords/keyphrases majority of those keywords I could not use in my campaigns due to &#8220;trademark&#8221; issues and the affiliate manager could not do much about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony - The Safe Shop</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16136</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony - The Safe Shop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:11:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16136</guid>
		<description>Fraser,

Having read your blog I have to say we may have been somewhat short-sighted with regards to the term "safe shop" and "safeshop". 

This course of action was my initiative and was originally based on the term "The Safe Shop". When we first launched 3 years ago our name had little relevance within our industry but over time we have gradually seen this change where we are now searched for on a name basis.

Our company name is first in the Google organic listings and as a result anyone searching for our name will automatically find us. We cannot allow someone to bid on our name and by being directly above (via PPC) possibly receive more clicks/sales than our organic listing. This does not make economic sense.

However as you mention "safe shop" and "safeshop" are entirely different and far more generic. If I had thought more about this before placing the block I would like to think I would have come to the same conclusion. We are removing any block preventing affiliates bidding on these more generic terms with immediate effect. 


Regards,
Anthony
www.thesafeshop.co.uk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fraser,</p>
<p>Having read your blog I have to say we may have been somewhat short-sighted with regards to the term &#8220;safe shop&#8221; and &#8220;safeshop&#8221;. </p>
<p>This course of action was my initiative and was originally based on the term &#8220;The Safe Shop&#8221;. When we first launched 3 years ago our name had little relevance within our industry but over time we have gradually seen this change where we are now searched for on a name basis.</p>
<p>Our company name is first in the Google organic listings and as a result anyone searching for our name will automatically find us. We cannot allow someone to bid on our name and by being directly above (via PPC) possibly receive more clicks/sales than our organic listing. This does not make economic sense.</p>
<p>However as you mention &#8220;safe shop&#8221; and &#8220;safeshop&#8221; are entirely different and far more generic. If I had thought more about this before placing the block I would like to think I would have come to the same conclusion. We are removing any block preventing affiliates bidding on these more generic terms with immediate effect. </p>
<p>Regards,<br />
Anthony<br />
<a href="http://www.thesafeshop.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.thesafeshop.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Dorans</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16131</link>
		<dc:creator>James Dorans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:42:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16131</guid>
		<description>@vlad

Actually I have 19 Affiliates that did it and 4 doing well with the campaigns.  

When I told them what they needed they sent it to me in 10 minutes, sometimes less.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@vlad</p>
<p>Actually I have 19 Affiliates that did it and 4 doing well with the campaigns.  </p>
<p>When I told them what they needed they sent it to me in 10 minutes, sometimes less.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vlad</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16130</link>
		<dc:creator>Vlad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16130</guid>
		<description>@James

"To do that the affiliate has to send me there google ad#. Then I send it to google, that takes up to 5 days."

Well at least this is one way to go aboout it. Unfortunately not many affiliates will be willing to do that. Specially those of us who do split testing and modify ads frequently. 5 days seems to be a long time to wait- this is only my opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@James</p>
<p>&#8220;To do that the affiliate has to send me there google ad#. Then I send it to google, that takes up to 5 days.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well at least this is one way to go aboout it. Unfortunately not many affiliates will be willing to do that. Specially those of us who do split testing and modify ads frequently. 5 days seems to be a long time to wait- this is only my opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Dorans</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16129</link>
		<dc:creator>James Dorans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:10:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16129</guid>
		<description>Well actually what we did is submit stuff to google including affiliates and other companies that have the rights to sell zirh on a white list.  To do that the affiliate has to send me there google ad#.  Then I send it to google, that takes up to 5 days.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well actually what we did is submit stuff to google including affiliates and other companies that have the rights to sell zirh on a white list.  To do that the affiliate has to send me there google ad#.  Then I send it to google, that takes up to 5 days.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vlad</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16068</link>
		<dc:creator>Vlad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:22:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16068</guid>
		<description>@James

It is reallygood to hear on the issue from an affiliate manager. I hope you still follow this post. I am jsut wondering to what extent do you go iforcing your policy on "restricted terms"? Do you submit the terms to Google? If so I find that the process of convincing Google that I have permission to bid on those terms is not always easy. I do not necesserily mean ZIRH, but I did have experience with other advertisers regarding this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@James</p>
<p>It is reallygood to hear on the issue from an affiliate manager. I hope you still follow this post. I am jsut wondering to what extent do you go iforcing your policy on &#8220;restricted terms&#8221;? Do you submit the terms to Google? If so I find that the process of convincing Google that I have permission to bid on those terms is not always easy. I do not necesserily mean ZIRH, but I did have experience with other advertisers regarding this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Dorans</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16066</link>
		<dc:creator>James Dorans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16066</guid>
		<description>I am the affiliate manager at ZIRH and we only really allow affiliates that communicate with use to use our traded brand term.  For 2 reasons first the misrepresenting issue, next would be just the average Joe could just buy our branded key term and grab revenue for advertising he had nothing to do with.  I also prefer that the affiliate makes it land on his page and then he tries to sell it from there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am the affiliate manager at ZIRH and we only really allow affiliates that communicate with use to use our traded brand term.  For 2 reasons first the misrepresenting issue, next would be just the average Joe could just buy our branded key term and grab revenue for advertising he had nothing to do with.  I also prefer that the affiliate makes it land on his page and then he tries to sell it from there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vlad</title>
		<link>http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16063</link>
		<dc:creator>Vlad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.affiliateblog.co.uk/why-ppc-restrictions-dont-always-make-sense.html#comment-16063</guid>
		<description>Fraser,
I think the restrictions genrally associated with some affiliates who tend to "missrepresent" products or services. If you have good relationship with the affiliate manager you may be able to get on ok to continue biddiing for on the restricted terms, with "Safe Shop" permission. Sometimes it is worth to go through the trboule of letting Google know you are allowed to bid on those terms  by merchant. I would try that, if of course "Safe Shop" is worth it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fraser,<br />
I think the restrictions genrally associated with some affiliates who tend to &#8220;missrepresent&#8221; products or services. If you have good relationship with the affiliate manager you may be able to get on ok to continue biddiing for on the restricted terms, with &#8220;Safe Shop&#8221; permission. Sometimes it is worth to go through the trboule of letting Google know you are allowed to bid on those terms  by merchant. I would try that, if of course &#8220;Safe Shop&#8221; is worth it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
