When you ask some folks what does “cannibalisation” mean to them, most of the replies (I hear) make reference to PPC, example : trigger Chris Sanderson, yet Chris Sanderson comes up in natural search, possibly first page of google and end user clicks on the google ad. The term seems to mean different things to different people. Also some people don’t have the ability (through lack of knowledge, time or resources) to be able to de-dupe. So whilst its the norm for you it’s a learning curve for a lot of people. Most merchants/advertisers (small to medium) just want to get on with the job of running their business and whilst we all know how important metrics are, we need to factor in the percentage that don’t understand or can’t separate.

So take you and I out of the equation for a moment, should networks be providing the technology/reporting for this? as a fyi…Affiliatewindow.com are about to launch a little widget to assist merchants to help with better transparency on where sales are coming from (nice)

Again, I agree re Brand… but this term also lends itself to meaning different things to different people. Classic example when Mr/Msnooneissearchingforme.com imposes brand bidding restrictions or imposes brand bidding restrictions on some of the “other” brands that they may stock. Its a hard thing to hear for some merchants that they are in fact, not a brand but are in the process of building a brand but you know all this anyway, so education is still the best way to keep the message clear.

See you in Vegas Summit?

Js

One also shouldn’t over look (though it almost always is) the fact that affiliate marketing boosts brand awareness and therefore aids with other channels conversion rates. The more touch points you can provide for a client the more chance they will eventually convert. To assume that one sale belongs to just “one channel” is a very simplistic view.