Revenue share deals are appealing for their simplicity as well as the sense they provide of protecting the advertiser’s bottom line. As long as the commission rates make sense financially, it seems the advertiser can’t lose money.

However, the fact that some sales are cannibalized from other channels can change the economics significantly if the degree of cannibalism is material.

The reason for this is simple: while the pay-out percentages and discounts may make sense on the incremental sales driven by the channel, the fact that they’re also applied to cannibalized sales the advertiser would have gotten anyway make the true costs of the program higher and somewhat harder to see.

Let’s take a look at how this works:

Say an advertiser has 50 points of margin on an average order through a particular channel. Suppose that on top of that standard percentage, perhaps a 10% off coupon has been applied on the average order. If we add another 9% variable cost for pick/pack/ship, and some type of revenue sharing commission, the P&L for this program starts to take shape.

Let’s say last-touch credit tracking assigns $100K in sales to this program.

On the surface, the numbers look pretty good.

The last touch perspective:

gm-last-touch-view

However, when we recognize that some of these sales likely would have happened without that last marketing channel, and that those sales came at lower margins and higher costs because of that last touch, the numbers change.

The incremental sales perspective:

gm-incremental-view

Here we “tax” the marketing program for the incremental cost of sales (COGs, variable costs, commissions and discounts), and for the costs associated with giving discounts and paying commissions on sales that weren’t incremental.

Note that as the incremental percentage drops those other costs pretty quickly swamp the program.

The implications of this for traditional rev share relationships that involve a fair amount of sales cannibalization (affiliates and email) are pretty obvious, but for those who pay their paid search agency on commission the implications are pretty serious as well, particularly for advertisers that do a great deal of offline marketing and hence generate tremendous sales volume on their brand.

Let’s take a look at how that model might be structured:

gm-paid-search-rev-share

The revenue sharing agreement above is structured such that the agency covers the media costs as part of the revenue share. The incremental percentage torpedoes this program because the revenue share pays the agency for sales on the advertiser’s trademark. Obviously, most of those sales would happen through the advertiser’s organic brand ads if no sponsored link was present.

Indeed, we’ve seen too many cases of agencies generating 70 to 80% of their fees off the first five minutes of work on the account in setting up the advertiser’s brand campaign. It doesn’t create much incentive to do the hard work necessary to build a competitive search program, and that absence of incentive to work on the most valuable piece of the program is usually evident when we look under the hood.

Cannibalism can make any revenue sharing arrangement far more costly than it seems. This makes it imperative that parties agree on how sales will be attributed so that dashboards and scorecards remain in sync and that the rev-share percentages makes financial sense all around. That attribution management system must be more sophisticated than simply last-touch gets all the credit because too many orders that end with a search on “acme” or “acme coupon” would have happened without that final touch.

There are other problems associated with revenue sharing, but as more and more marketing programs offer “cost per action” pricing, the problem of cross-cannibalization will get worse.

What seems like a sure-fire pricing model guaranteed to protect the advertiser’s interest turns out to be far less attractive once you look under the hood.

If you’re interested in playing with the numbers in a spreadsheet, that toy model is available at the RKG Blog.

Opinions expressed in the article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land.

Related Topics: Channel: SEM | Paid Search Column

Sponsored


About The Author: is Co-Founder and Chief Marketing Scientist of RKG, a technology and service leader in paid search, SEO, performance display, social media, and the science of online marketing. He also writes for the RKG Blog. Follow him on Twitter at @georgemichie1.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+



SearchCap:

Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • http://www.researchandcompare.com amurphy59

    Great subject to write on. A few thoughts …

    1. You increase the commission payout from 15% to 25%, is there a reason why?
    2. 15% is an astronomically high commission to pay. If anyone is paying anything remotely close to that they should renegotiate their deal. Simple math on this one would be if you think that 40% of the sales are going to be organic or from other channels, then take the 15% down by 40% to 9%. I think it should be even lower, but start there.
    3. Rather than a flat %, consider a % with a min floor up to some level like $2k then single digit payouts that go down as the revenue goes up.

    As George points out, other marketing channels and your brand influence sales through search. Make sure that you are getting credit for that and use it in your negotiation.

  • http://www.rimmkaufman.com George Michie

    Thanks for your kind words and fine suggestions.

    Rev. share models come in many forms and some of those variations demand different commission rates. Notably: when the media costs are borne by the service provider, the commission needs to cover both the advertising costs and the management fees. That’s the model I outlined in the second piece, which becomes particularly troublesome when brand sales are commissioned.

    Commission rates would be much lower if the advertiser paid for the media.

    I’m hearing some pretty eye-popping figures for affiliate commissions these days, hence the 15% cited.

    I have a toy spreadsheet available to play with at RKGBlog. Feel free to play with the numbers!

 

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!

 


 

Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide