To Cookie or Not Cookie based tracking

[Crashem]

We moved our network from a cookie based tracking system (DirectTrack) to a non cookie based tracking system (HitPath). One of the reasons is we thought the tracking was more accurate. The problem, as we saw it, was that cookie based tracking systems tended to under report because people who have their cookies turned off (5%-15%) would not track.

As we bring on more PPC arb guys, a had a couple of them mention they wanted a cookie based tracking system. They could then get sales if people came in at later date. This got me thinking that we made a mistake, but I think I understand the issues now. So please let me know if this logic makes sense:

Cookie based tracking is better for tracking when the advertiser itself is the one doing the cookie tracking (like CJ/LinkShare/etc.). So for example, Dell puts a cookie on the web visitor that it came from affiliate xxx. If that user comes back before the cookie expiration and completes a sale, then the affiliate can get credit.

On the other hand, what typically happens with our offers is that they enter via our affiliate link with the advertiser. Cookie tracking by our system won't catch future sales from direct visits because the advertiser won't know to look for our cookie unless they go through our affiliate link. So even if our cookie hasn't expired when they reenter by any method but our affiliate link, they will not get credit.

CONCLUSIONS: For offers on our network, cookie based tracking doesn't help. On the other hand, for offers like Ebay or Dell or something like that, where the advertiser handles the tracking, cookies can be an aid if they have some kind of expiration lag.

That sound right to people?

 

[xxmwxx]

I actually prefer the best of both worlds (who doesn't? )
So if a user supports cookies, cookie tracking would be used.. If not, session/id based tracking would be used..

 

[smaxor]

I didn't realize HitPath didn't have cookies. You'd be AMAZED how many people come back to the site. Singlesnet is a great example. I have run a lot of Singlesnet traffic personally but have stopped recently as I haven't had a ton of time. But the sales keep coming in. I get 0 clicks 2-3 leads daily all based on cookies that have been set by my traffic. So I personally prefer to use a cookie based system for that reason. I really think cookies are a necessary evil as you will get a lot of delayed sales. but as xxmvxx said both would be the best.

 

[nickycakes]

I don't see why a combination would be out of the question. Track it with the non-cookie tracking, but also leave a cookie as a backup in case the non-cookie session isn't there it can check the cookie when the pixel is fired on the ty page.

 

[smaxor]

I agree 100% nicky

 

[Crashem]

I actually prefer the best of both worlds (who doesn't? )
So if a user supports cookies, cookie tracking would be used.. If not, session/id based tracking would be used..

Hmm. Is such a system technically feasible without the user's input? Feeling a bit brain dead at the moment.

As for cookie based systems, from what I can tell with our campaigns, cookies still wouldn't give credit for conversions later. The main reason is that the advertiser won't know to look for the campaign cookies unless it went through the affiliate link. If the advertiser is doing the tracking with cookies, it makes sense since they will always look for their cookies.

 

[xxmwxx]

Hmm. Is such a system technically feasible without the user's input? Feeling a bit brain dead at the moment.

As for cookie based systems, from what I can tell with our campaigns, cookies still wouldn't give credit for conversions later. The main reason is that the advertiser won't know to look for the campaign cookies unless it went through the affiliate link. If the advertiser is doing the tracking with cookies, it makes sense since they will always look for their cookies.

Yeah, for every request made to the server the browser sends whether it has support for cookies or not, so you can do something that checks if a user has cookies enabled and act accordingly..

 

[Spades]

Hmm. Is such a system technically feasible without the user's input? Feeling a bit brain dead at the moment.

As for cookie based systems, from what I can tell with our campaigns, cookies still wouldn't give credit for conversions later. The main reason is that the advertiser won't know to look for the campaign cookies unless it went through the affiliate link. If the advertiser is doing the tracking with cookies, it makes sense since they will always look for their cookies.

Relatively easy to check. I agree with Nicky too, why not take advantage of both technologies. It allows you to not only have more thorough tracking, but it's an awesome advantage for your affiliates. Less fear of losing out on cash.

<?
setcookie("cookies","yes",time() +"3600");
$cookies = 0;
if (isset($_COOKIE["cookies"])) {
echo "yum, cookies";
} ?>

 

[Crashem]

We don't own our tracking system, but I'll talk to the HitPath guys. But when I was referring to technical issues, I was more referring to the fact that the click id based trackng and cookie based tracking would disagree with each other. For example, someone comes through someone's link but don't convert and later comes in another way but does convert. Who gets the credit?

 

[nickycakes]

We don't own our tracking system, but I'll talk to the HitPath guys. But when I was referring to technical issues, I was more referring to the fact that the click id based trackng and cookie based tracking would disagree with each other. For example, someone comes through someone's link but don't convert and later comes in another way but does convert. Who gets the credit?

Last one in gets the commission, generally.

 

[xxmwxx]

We don't own our tracking system, but I'll talk to the HitPath guys. But when I was referring to technical issues, I was more referring to the fact that the click id based trackng and cookie based tracking would disagree with each other. For example, someone comes through someone's link but don't convert and later comes in another way but does convert. Who gets the credit?

In general the latter one... Cookies should be over-written each visit.
But what is the "other way" the buyer came in? another affiliate? if so the latter one rule applies... If the buyer just went directly to the merchants website then the latter one still applies... The cookies should be read and the affiliate should be credited because the buyer wouldn't have known about the merchant without the affiliates' help..

 

[Crashem]

In general the latter one... Cookies should be over-written each visit.
But what is the "other way" the buyer came in? another affiliate? if so the latter one rule applies... If the buyer just went directly to the merchants website then the latter one still applies... The cookies should be read and the affiliate should be credited because the buyer wouldn't have known about the merchant without the affiliates' help..

I definitely agree affiliates should get the credit. The problem I see with non advertiser tracking systems (ie affiliate network tracking systems) is that no one will get credit if the person comes in by themselves because the advertiser won't know to look for the affiliate network cookie. They only do so if it comes in via an affiliate network link. Stinks as a network because we don't get credit and neither does the affiliate.

 

[xxmwxx]

I definitely agree affiliates should get the credit. The problem I see with non advertiser tracking systems (ie affiliate network tracking systems) is that no one will get credit if the person comes in by themselves because the advertiser won't know to look for the affiliate network cookie. They only do so if it comes in via an affiliate network link. Stinks as a network because we don't get credit and neither does the affiliate.

Umm but the networks' pixel gets fired when someone completes an action on the advertisers website.. so your pixel code could be the one that searches for the cookie and grants commission...

 

[nickycakes]

I definitely agree affiliates should get the credit. The problem I see with non advertiser tracking systems (ie affiliate network tracking systems) is that no one will get credit if the person comes in by themselves because the advertiser won't know to look for the affiliate network cookie. They only do so if it comes in via an affiliate network link. Stinks as a network because we don't get credit and neither does the affiliate.

As far as I know, and I only have limited knowledge of tracking systems, they try to fire a pixel on any sales as theres no way for the sale page to know if someone came in on an affiliate link or not.

 

[kyleirwin]

I'm not going to read this whole thread, but cookies need to be enabled for server sessions to transfer from page to page, unless you're passing the sesid in the urls... which is so 90's.

 

[MaxSteve]

As far as I know, and I only have limited knowledge of tracking systems, they try to fire a pixel on any sales as theres no way for the sale page to know if someone came in on an affiliate link or not.

That's not always the case. If a merchant is dealing with several networks, they'll only show the pixel for the network from which the person came from who converted into a sale/lead. They do it this way so they only have to pay for the lead once. If they were showing all the pixels unconditionally, and the surfer came through more than one affiliate link before converting, they could wind up paying for the same lead 2, 3 or more times over. So if the surfer came back on their own, this is a situation where nobody would get paid.

While cookie tracking is old technology and does have it's flaws, it's the best thing available right now (in my opinion). You'd be amazed how many merchants have trouble placing a simple IMG tag based pixel, or even keeping it in place once it's there. Going with something even more complicated would certainly be screwed up repeatedly by these merchants.