Affiliate Cookie Law Guide

[Admin]

Just published by Affiliate Future, their view of the new UK Cookie Law

click here

 

[Paullas]

Could this be the final nail in the affiliate coffin.

 

[Blossom]

Could this be the final nail in the affiliate coffin.

It applies to analytics cookies too, and I doubt anyone in their right mind would give those up.

Easier to comply until they realise it's a stupid law and ditch it.

 

[scooter]

These are good:
http://demos.dev.wolf-software.com/

One there for analytics too.





.

 

[iamrofe]

would love to see them enforce this, shit law.

 

[cc976a]

Am I missing something in my naivety.

People talk about it crushing affiliate sites, but aren't affiliates using an ID in a URL. Now I get the visitor may have to then agree to T&Cs on the retailer site, but (unless your site uses cookies to track users, adding items to basket before sending to retailer) are affiliates using 'cookies'?

Is the concern:

1. Can't track a user on the retailers site through an aff ID until user confirms acceptance at retailer - meaning loss of commissions for any user who don't

2. Affiliates now using cookies on their site, with no other way of passing through buyer to seller without having them present

?

Most stupidest damn law I've ever heard. Aff Window summed up well by saying average Joe don't know and don't care.

With the amount of crap we do get (intrusive sales calls and texts) and our data used in such a illegal or unethical way most of the time, to actually spend time and money affecting so many business users - without good reason and can affect profits of SME's - is absurd beyond belief. Serves no purpose.

Nothing worse than a clueless prat in a suit

 

[Admin]

I think the concern is that your introduction to the retailer (using your affiliate link that includes your id) is put into a cookie that lasts X days. During these X days, if that visitor makes a purchase you will get the credit and therefore the affiliate commission at X percent of the basket price.

If your user decides not to accept the cookies but use the site anyway, you as the introducer get no credit and therefore the system breaks down and your commissions will decrease significantly.

I think it's human nature to say no if someone says, do you mind if I track behind the scenes everything you do, yes or no?

Admin

 

[murph]

Surely surfers are either going to be concerned about privacy or not... No need for a per-site check, which will annoy users more than anything?!
It really needs to be done at the browser level, and be something the user has to switch off themselves (because cookies off will break so much site functionality).
Since this is already done... Surely the money should be spent on educating users about the choice and where/how to implement in their browser.
A ridiculous unenforceable law.

 

[seemly]

Interestingly, econsultancy have an "interesting" article about the average Joe and their understanding of cookies and the new EU legislation:

http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/981...he-eu-cookie-law-is-a-positive-step-but-is-it

89% of UK consumers think that the EU cookie law is a positive step, though 75% had not heard of the e-Privacy Directive before they were surveyed.

I wonder if the public who were surveyed were also told that the reason the internet has improved in such leaps and bounds in recent years with regards to usability, accessibility, user experience, etc, is because of analytical tools such as crazy egg, google analytics which obviously require the use of cookies.

These cookies should be deemed as essential.

With this only being an EU legislation, it also creates a very uncompetitive market and unfair playing field when an EU based website is damaging it's user experience and striking fear and uncertainty into it's users when compared to American based websites where this legislation is not compulsory, thus confidence in the customer and their privacy/security is not diminished due to the requirement of acceptance of cookies = better business and more sales.

 

[saberace]

nothing worse than a clueless prat in a suit

+ 1

Also, am probably being a bit naive here but AFAIK none of my aff sites actually issue cookies. The cookie is downloaded when the visitor clicks a link to an aff network or merchant, and its is they who issue the cookie. As it didn't come from my site, there is no way I can access it or any of the data. So the visitor would have to accept the cookie from the merchant site, which they're unlikely to decline as the cookie is needed for tracking their shopping basket and allowing them to actually purchase the goods.

Again, am probably being naive here but wondered what others opinions on this are.

 

[seemly]

As it didn't come from my site, there is no way I can access it or any of the data. So the visitor would have to accept the cookie from the merchant site, which they're unlikely to decline as the cookie is needed for tracking their shopping basket and allowing them to actually purchase the goods.

Again, am probably being naive here but wondered what others opinions on this are.

But when thinking about this legislation in Laymans terms, why would a general bod using the internet know that in order to save their basket, be forwarded to the product page or provide the previous website owner with their dues for sending them to the deal of the century that they have to accept cookies on the next website?

When my wife or kids are accessing the internet and they are posed with an alert box, etc, they are under the impression that they should never say 'yes' to anything like that due to the risk of viruses, malware, etc. They will not be the only people in the EU that think that way, so why will anyone treat these new opt-in boxes any differently, with the risk of downloading malicious content?

 

[seemly]

From the BBC:

Cookies: Majority of government sites to miss deadline

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18090118

 

[WealdDomains]

A very interesting article : it's good to see the topic gaining visibility with the public through mainstream sources like this. Besides the generic and government aspects, one particular phrase that leapt out at me was the refusal of a public body to provide a response to a major news organisation : "The ICO did not want to comment on the issue when contacted by the BBC."

David

 

[cc976a]

It is an interesting article.

Frustrating considering the main aim of the law is to stop advertisers using cookies to look at search habits / sites visited of people to target them with relevant ads - something affiliates are not trying to do, but become affected.

I think either no-one will bother or care, and things stay the same as they have - or a workaround is done so ICO (upon complaint) just target the sites they really want to affect.

Sounds like a lot of hoo-ha for nothing

 

[monaghan]

Still had no reply from my MP and his site it is still dropping Google analytics, FB & Twitter and addthis without asking for consent

 

[monaghan]

Just went to make a mug of tea and found a reply from my MP!

He simply quotes his privacy policy and states the regulations are still being discussed and suggests I tweak my browser settings

 

[GeekSlash]

I've got a site that has thousands of pages that would have to be edited manually to comply. I was thinking that it might even be cheaper to set up an offshore company for that site rather than comply with this law for it which would take possibly up to a week to implement just for one site. I can imagine other big affiliates will move their sites out of the UK in order to comply, taking money out of the UK tax system at the same time.

 

[cc976a]

Anyone else delaying the launch of any new projects to see how this pans out?

 

[iamrofe]

as long as you are seen to be making an effort to be compliant you should be fine

http://t.co/ITgWjl6

 

[AssetDomains]

Affiliate Window have just published there take on the directive.
Full guide
And
Summary Info