Should OzBargain Have a "Cash Back Representative" Tag?

• 

  nocure on 09/10/2018 - 14:53

  +5

  Clearly the store representative / associated / third party tags don't apply…

  Yes, they do.

• 

  Moderatorneil on 09/10/2018 - 15:06

  FYI, 3rd party site guidelines. If you click on a username it will show the company that the user reps for.

  So currently, Acme Cashback Co:

  • User is associated with company, post a deal for Acme Cashback Co, 5% cashback at Wiley Anvils. User is associated. Store Rep tag applies.
  • User posts a deal for Wiley Anvils for 10% off sitewide & also Acme Cashback Co is offering 5% cashback mentioned in description. Third Party tag applies.
  • User posts a deal for Wiley Anvils for 10% off sitewide. No tag applies.

  I believe you are referring to situation 3 which brings up complications. Simply, does this mean that any deal that I post would have a tag. I like to post good deals but as an employee of OzBargain I want to see OzBargain do well.

  Then there are influencers. Those who post good unrelated deals but also are a rep for a company. Then there are those who get tipped off by members in the know, who hear from stores. It starts to get complicated.

  • 

    Pantagonist on 09/10/2018 - 16:49

    Thanks for your reply neil.

    Simply, does this mean that any deal that I post would have a tag. I like to post good deals but as an employee of OzBargain I want to see OzBargain do well.

    I always thought that a tag appeared next to all mods / site admins but after clicking on your post history I can see that's not the case. I think the key is whether a formal financial or reciprocal arrangement is in place between the deal poster and the merchant. If you post a deal for a store and you have an direct arrangement with that store that benefits you financially then I'd expect some sort of disclosure.

    Those who post good unrelated deals but also are a rep for a company. Then there are those who get tipped off by members in the know, who hear from stores.

    Again, the question is whether that person posting the deal stands to benefit materially through a formal agreement with the merchant. That financial interest may be unrelated to the deal, but if there is an interest I think it'd be good for transparency for that arrangement to be disclosed. It's in the same vein as politicians having to submit a register of interests so that they don't end up becoming involved in making decisions that may benefit them financially, however indirect the link may be.

    It obviously relies on Acme Cashback self-disclosing these arrangements, but this happens for associated / third party / representative deals and any attempts to circumvent it are dealt with through the sockpuppeting policy. It's not perfect but it's certainly more transparent than not having the ability to disclose at all.

    • 

      Moderatorneil on 09/10/2018 - 17:08

      always thought that a tag appeared next to all mods / site admins but after clicking on your post history I can see that's not the case. I think the key is whether a formal financial or reciprocal arrangement is in place between the deal poster and the merchant. If you post a deal for a store and you have an direct arrangement with that store that benefits you financially then I'd expect some sort of disclosure.

      I get nothing from the stores for posting but just making the point that posting a deal has an added benefit. This would be a similar situation with cashback sites as while they are not getting paid by a retailer to post on OzBargain, they do as a side benefit would see a benefit of people using the cashback site for the deal. But that also throws traffic to competing cashback sites. Also, what if the retailer isn't on the cashback site? Do we need to flag each deal differently? If Acme Cashback posts a deal for Roadrunner Shoes which isn't on any cashback site, would the deal have a tag? It gets complicated.

      • 

        Pantagonist on 09/10/2018 - 17:36

        +1

        This would be a similar situation with cashback sites as while they are not getting paid by a retailer to post on OzBargain, they do as a side benefit would see a benefit of people using the cashback site for the deal. But that also throws traffic to competing cashback sites.

        If they post a deal with a merchant that they have a financial arrangement with then it should disclosed. It doesn't really if that merchant also has an arrangement with other cash back sites. If another cash back site representative posts a comment in the deal posted by Acme Cashback, it should also be marked as such. Implementation-wise I can't see it being more complicated than asking the cash back sites to tell you who they have arrangements with and adding those stores to their profiles with the appropriate tag applied (in much the same was as I think store reps etc. are dealt with?).

        Also, what if the retailer isn't on the cashback site? Do we need to flag each deal differently? If Acme Cashback posts a deal for Roadrunner Shoes which isn't on any cashback site, would the deal have a tag? It gets complicated.

        No financial arrangement so no need to disclose and no tag needed. Sorry if I'm missing some complexity here, but in my head it seems pretty black and white.

        The rules here state that you need to mark yourself as associated if you're a friend or family member of an employee. In my mind it's far less likely that a friend or family member of an employee is going to receive more significant benefits than someone who actually works for a cash back site and whose employment depends on establishing financial arrangements with merchants.

        • 

          Moderatorneil on 09/10/2018 - 17:47

          @Pantagonist:

          If they post a deal with a merchant that they have a financial arrangement with then it should disclosed. It doesn't really if that merchant also has an arrangement with other cash back sites.

          Cashback sites use affiliate networks for their cashback so the cashback sites will have the same retailers. So you want a disclosure in the description of posted deals where that cashback company lists the retailer in the description?

          If another cash back site representative posts a comment in the deal posted by Acme Cashback, it should also be marked as such.

          Store Rep Code of Conduct:

          Representatives are free to participate in other posts as long as they don't:

          vote on a competitor's deal.
          promote or link to their own store, website or products that they sell.
          solicit sales in any way (including asking users to contact them or drawing attention to products/services they offer).
          negatively comment about a competitor's company.

          So competitors including cashback sites shouldn't be promoting their sites.

          No financial arrangement so no need to disclose and no tag needed. Sorry if I'm missing some complexity here, but in my head it seems pretty black and white.

          The complexity is that it involves cashback sites associated with hundreds of stores. Marking association with a store puts the store and the poster under posting limits.

      • 

        Pantagonist on 09/10/2018 - 17:43

        Perhaps there's something about the cash back business model I'm not understanding, but I always assumed that they would receive either a percentage of each sale tracked through their sites, some sort of retainer payment or perhaps a combination of the two.

        So while they're not being "paid to post on OzBargain" directly by the merchants they have deals with, surely OzBargain is just being treated as another marketing stream as a way to get deals in front of consumers. The more eyes they get on the deals they post for the sites they have financial agreements with, the more sales are likely to be made, the more click-throughs they will get on their websites and the more money will be made.

        • 

          Moderatorneil on 09/10/2018 - 17:55

          @Pantagonist:

          Perhaps there's something about the cash back business model I'm not understanding, but I always assumed that they would receive either a percentage of each sale tracked through their sites, some sort of retainer payment or perhaps a combination of the two.

          It's a percentage for the sale (mostly). So the companies that are listed on cashback sites are managed by affiliate companies (there are a few). For example, Rakuten manages ASOS, Petbarn, etc. They offer x% to publishers who can be someone like a cashback site who then split the commission with the customer. They can also be publishers like OzBargain (affiliate links show to guest users/non-logged in) or Lifehacker who take the full commission.

          However, cashback sites also offer added services like featuring a merchant in their newsletter, homepage, marketing campaigns etc.

          The more eyes they get on the deals they post for the sites they have financial agreements with, the more sales are likely to be made, the more click-throughs they will get on their websites and the more money will be made.

          Well if they put a direct link to the cashback site then it will be marked as a 3rd party post. However without it, there would be no mention of the cashback site in the deal.

          I do see your point but I think cashback sites (about 4 sites post here) are a special circumstance that we can't associate with hundreds of stores.

          • 

            Pantagonist on 09/10/2018 - 21:02

            -1

            @neil:

            Marking association with a store puts the store and the poster under posting limits.

            No worries, I understand that trying to fit them in under the current structure would put needless restrictions on those cash back site employees and that's why I mentioned that they don't really sit neatly under any of the existing tags in my original post.

            Based on what you've said it seems that implementing something is restricted more by the way the OzBargain site is structured / configured rather than the situation itself being complicated. I'm no webmaster or IT guru so I don't know how practical this would be, but it seems that if the post restriction could be lifted or eliminated for the "Cash Back Representative" sub-set within those deemed "Associated" or if a whole separate category could be created outside of the "Associated" rule set for the "Cash Back Representative" tag then that could be a solution? If cash back sites already publish lists of the merchants that they are affiliated with then these lists could be used to create the rule sets for the "Cash Back Representative" tag.

            Well if they put a direct link to the cashback site then it will be marked as a 3rd party post. However without it, there would be no mention of the cashback site in the deal.

            True, but OzBargain very kindly provides cash back links under the deal thumbnail and "Go to Deal" link in deal descriptions so it does appear to be part of the deal posting even if the person posting hasn't specifically mentioned it. To me it gives the impression that those cash back sites are endorsed to some degree by OzBargain. There are a number of ways to obtain discounts through means other than public codes and cash back but those aren't publicized as part of deals. For example, there's no "you can use discount WISH eGift Cards" reminder for deals that they might be applicable to.

            I guess one possibility would be to set the display of cash back links to "off" by default for existing users and only make the links visible when people choose to "opt in" when they have an account with those cash back providers (in much the same way as you now have to opt in to receive notifications about replies to posts and comments that you make). It would remove the headache of having to set up new tags for those cash back representatives and there would be no perception of a conflict of interest as people would have already "opted in" to the cash back system, be aware of how it works and be interested in knowing what deals cash back applies to. The cash back sites would then not receive free advertising in every deal that they are applicable to and the only way that users would know about cash back options on OzBargain would be through posts that are marked as "Associated", "Store Representative" or "3rd Party" when those employees specifically post about "x% increase in cash back for y retailer". When people see those posts they can then investigate cash back sites and decide if they'd like to sign up and "opt in" to seeing links on OzBargain.

            • 

              Pantagonist on 16/10/2018 - 06:47

              -1

              @Pantagonist: Hi neil, just wondering if you have any comments about what I wrote above?

              • 

                Moderatorneil on 16/10/2018 - 09:47

                @Pantagonist: Sorry, been busy and haven't had a chance to respond. I'll try to get to it this week.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 09/10/2018 - 16:32

  +1

  I have been negged into oblivion for raising this very issue in the past. Very sensitive issue on ozbargain.

  • 

    tranter on 09/10/2018 - 18:21

    +1

    I brought up similar issue a while ago as well, but not as eloquently as OP.

    Transparency is a good thing, nobody should be afraid.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 09/10/2018 - 18:27

      +2

      I believe my inability to explain myself clearly resulted in the negs. The op has done a great job here.

      I have been made very aware that influencers like TA do not directly financially benefit from posting particular deals. My issue revolves around indirect benefits and privileged information.

      Edit: I also miss the days of some random ozbargain member coming across an ebay home page banner with the discount or members spending hours to work out codes that are not active yet. We don't often see "awesome first post" comments on ebay deals any more. Maybe I just need to move with the times.

• 

  EFC94 on 09/10/2018 - 17:08

  -1

  I personally don't see the issue? The poster clicks associated when they're posting the deal, every knows they're associated to the company running the deal. End of story.