Corrupted "Cookies"

[ColsCreations]

#1) On 2/26
I ordered a product from another designer (Designer A), using a link with their RF# and tracking code (TC) "THANKYOU". That order was logged correctly on their end as a 15% referral, with the specified TC.

 * I placed that order using Opera which is my alternative browser of choice that I use when I don't want to mess up the cookies & cache etc of my every-day browser (Firefox). I have Opera set to clear everything (cookies, cache, browsing history, passwords, auto-fill data, etc..) on every exit. I also use the option, always twice in a row, to manually clear any/all such data before starting a new session, just to be certain I am starting anonymously.

#2) On 3/4
I ordered another product from Designer A, using a link with their RF# and TC of "THANKYOU_from_COL". That order was logged correctly on their end as a 15% referral, with specified TC.

 #3) On 3/8
I ordered a product from a different designer (Designer B), using a link with their RF# and TC "BenableTest". That order was logged correctly on their end as a 15% referral, with the specified TC.

 #4) On 3/11
I ordered another product from Designer B, but this time I used the link Benable auto-generates as their affiliate link. I don't have a screenshot of this, but this too was logged correctly on the designers end, as a 3rd Party Sale (so no referral). Since they did get a small commission from Benable on this sale, the assumption of course is that they were the 3rd party getting the referral.

#5) On 3/17
I ordered a product from another designer (Designer C) in the former Promoter Program. This time I used a "clean" link direct to their product so no RF# in it, but with TC "CC_PP2_TC_test".  This order was logged correctly on their end as a 35% referral, with the specified TC.

So that is 5 different orders over 20 days, to 3 different designers and 4 different Referrers, all unique links with appropriate RF & TC when applicable. And they all worked out as they are supposed to.

* Note that in between each of these orders (I used Opera in each case) all browser data was cleared many times over. And the same goes for below as well.

That brings us to 4/1, where things get really interesting and why I am writing this detailed post.

I wanted to order one of my newer cards to see how it prints out and being the first day of the new Ambassador program rules, I was just going to use a "clean" link direct to my own product. I ended up ordering & canceling four times ...

Order #1) I pasted my "clean" link direct to product directly into Opera, which I had just opened and not viewed any other page in yet. When the sale showed up on my end it was listed as 3rd Party. No way absolutely not was that possible so my immediate reaction was that Zazzle somehow assigned themselves as 3rd Party. I canceled that order.

Order #2) This time, I added the clean link to my own webpage, opened that page in Opera, and clicked the link to my item. That order came up as a 3rd Party sale again. So I canceled that one.

Order #3) This time, I added an RF# link to the product, with TC "RFtest", to my own webpage. Opened the page in Opera, and clicked the link to my item. That order came up as a 3rd Party sale again. So I canceled that one.

Order #4) Switched tactics here by choosing a different product and a different browser (Brave). Used an RF# link with TC "NewTestFromBrave". And you guessed it, showed up on my end as a 3rd Party sale. I Canceled.

I was feeling quite aggravated and honestly, pretty negative about Zazzle thinking they were claiming themselves as 3rd Party on these orders. Because what else would one think?

But ...

Turns out, Designer A was somehow getting picked up as a 3rd Party referrer on these orders, and with the same TC I had used back on 2/26! How is that possible?  This was absolutely not an issue on my end with browser cookies as I used two different browsers, and every time, was 100% certain in making sure I was starting clean, no cookies, cache, history, stored profiles, nothing ... and, as detailed above, there were 4 other orders with referrals logged correctly since I ordered from them on 2/26 with that specific TC. All I can think of is that in addition to whatever cookies are being stored locally on our (and customers') browsers which we can manage ourselves, there's also some sort of token being created/stored on Zazzle's end that we can't control, and in my case it's corrupted.  

In my situation yesterday I happened to be chatting offsite while trying to order my card and yes, griping about Zazzle assigning themselves as 3rd Party when there shouldn't have been one, which is how Designer A was able to realize that uhm, Col, looks like I am your 3rd Party. Makes me wonder how often the referral credits might get bugged like this with virtually no chance of the Designer or the person getting the referral credit ever being able to connect the dots from both ends.

Lots of details here but I wanted to make it very clear that this was not a case of me picking up someone else's cookie that then stuck with me for the designated period of time and I that just need to "clear my cookies".  It would be very enlightening to know how this happened, but also, can you fix it please? Nothing against Designer A, but you know, I'd like to be able to order without it showing up in their Referral History. 😉

[tiffjamaica]

That is very interesting and concerning.
I don't pretend to know anything about how any of this works, but I had an experience on 3/19. I wanted to order some of my own products.  I did what I've always done - copy links into a private browser using Chrome. But it didn't work. The sale came through as "NONE".  I cancelled. Tried again later - same thing.  
On 3/21 I tried again and it worked the first try and logged as self.  

I wrote to customer service about it.  Nothing they can do - the cookie cutter response.  But if that can happen once, it's certainly happening more often. 

[Anne]

Wow, Thank You SO much for all the work you put into this, @ColsCreations !!! Beyond awful what you found. But very good that you did not find Zazzle was the 3rd party!

[MOM]

Posting to follow conversation.

[8PawsStudio]

@MOM If  I understand the "follow" correctly, there's another way: There's an Options menu at the top right (same line as the breadcrumbs) from which you can subscribe.

[Connie]

Maybe Zazzle is now linking the cookie directly to your account? So there's no way to get rid of it?

[Cat]

Very interesting and puzzling. Here's what I'm wondering. In the Ambassador Agreement it says that referrals will last for 45 days and cannot be overwritten for the first 14 of those days.

3.4.2. Each Referral will be valid for forty-five (45) days. You will earn Referral Commissions for Referred Sales during this timeframe.

3.4.3. During the timeframe in which a Referral is valid, the referred User may be referred to the Site again. If this more recent Referral is made more than fourteen (14) days after the previous Referral, the most recent Referral will be attributed for any Referred Sales that result and earn applicable Referral Commissions accordingly.

I'm wondering how this jives with cookies and/or if these numbers apply to self-referrals as well as cross-referrals. When I first signed up for the Promoter 2.0 program I was incredulous as to how they could track a link with no parameters (a "clean link") so I asked and was told that if the referral cannot be credited to some other source it's automatically assigned to the creator. That never entirely made sense to me because if that's the case what's to differentiate between a self-referral and no referral?

Well anyhow, if a clean link just translates to a lack of cookies, then there would be no way for it to be valid for xyz period of time, so it could be overwritten by any other cookie. 

It's probably pointless to speculate about the technology because they're not gonna share their internal systems with us, but I would like to know if the clean link referrals somehow are good for the same 45 days/14 days as the rf variety.

[Zorinda]

“Well anyhow, if a clean link just translates to a lack of cookies, then there would be no way for it to be valid for xyz period of time, so it could be overwritten by any other cookie. “

If that’s true, and a clean link means a lack of cookies, Zazzle has every incentive to get in the way of a cancellation and reorder.  You bring in the traffic and if there’s an issue, instead of just fixing the issue like most online stores do without a cancellation, Zazzle cancels it, fixes the issue and creates a new order. The customer clicks a link from one of their helpful emails, that link gets a Zazzle cookie, and the person that brought in the original sale loses their deserved referral and more since the referral would go to Zazzle. I bet that happens a lot with clean links and may be why Zazzle sought to expand the program systemwide.  Why Zazzle cancels and creates a new order becomes clear.  More opportunity to step in front.   It feels like we’re sitting ducks with clean links. It feels icky.

[Laura]

Yes - "It would be very enlightening to know how this happened".

[ColsCreations]

I gave it a week, allowing consideration for "first-day bugs" to work out and:

April 7
Ordered from Designer D using a link with MY RF# and TC "TestApril7_FromBrave", pasted directly into Brave browser, all clean & clear as usual. And while it showed on their end as a 3rd Party sale, I did not get the referral. So who was the 3rd party here? I have to assume it was Zazzle.

April 9
Ordered from Designer C again. This time I used their own Self-Promotion link + TC of "Clean_SPlink_with_TC" which I had added to my own website and then opened with Opera all (clean & clear as usual.) And again, it's a 3rd Party sale on their end that we have no choice but to assume is Zazzle.

Even if the TC parameter is now somehow voiding Self-Promoter referrals, this should have then been a ref=None sale as there was noone else involved in this order. Who was the 3rd Party?

From the Ambassador FAQs pdf:

The last line supports the first since if there are no cookies, it shouldn't be a "maybe" it should be an absolutely not. Unless there are "other technologies" at play. Which we know now there are and it's getting it all wrong. People not getting properly credited with earning the extra Referral commission is one thing, but every time an imaginary 3rd Party is assigned, the Creator loses 35-50% of their Royalty income.

[klstock]

Very interesting.

When you say "Even if the TC parameter is now somehow voiding Self-Promoter referrals"... How would that happen? Is that something someone would have to intentionally code in there to void a TC parameter?

[ColsCreations]

This thread should explain what I meant -

FYI: Tip for Using PP2 "Clean" Links

[Laura]

Thank you Cols - Much appreciate your time and determination to understand, and share your continuing observations on this system so we all understand how it works! You truly are a gem!! ✨

[Laura]

Zazzle mods, please confirm you are looking into this - "The last line supports the first since if there are no cookies, it shouldn't be a "maybe" it should be an absolutely not. Unless there are "other technologies" at play. Which we know now there are and it's getting it all wrong. People not getting properly credited with earning the extra Referral commission is one thing, but every time an imaginary 3rd Party is assigned, the Creator loses 35-50% of their Royalty income."

(I used to know how to direct quote but couldn't find)

[tiffjamaica]

This is eye-opening.  I feel like this is a big mess-up on their part.  I noticed a huge uptick on sales coming in as third party since april 1.  78 sales since April 1, and only 4 have been none referred. And no self referrals. That is not at all how my sales normally go.  I'll be gathering up some past months data and writing customer service about it now for sure. UGH.

[klstock]

You said in your examples that you have no choice but to assume the 3rd Party is Zazzle, as in each case the designer you purchased from showed each order as 3rd party, yet you did not get the referral for them.

And then you said "but every time an imaginary 3rd Party is assigned, the Creator loses 35-50% of their royalty income".... 

So if Zazzle is being assigned as the 3rd Party, then the 35-50% royalty income that the designer loses, is going to Zazzle?  

---

---

[ColsCreations]

It has always been the case that referred sales entailed a "carve-out"  of 20% of the Creator's gross royalty.
If it was a Self-Referred sale, the Creator's referral commission (15 or 35% of order total) more than made up for that.
On 3rd Party sales though, whether Zazzle or other, the Creator simply lost 20%.

Now, the "carve-out" on any referred sale is 35-50% of the royalty, so if it's 3rd Party you're taking a sizable hit without making any of it back. If Zazzle is the 3rd Party, that means they are paying the Creator 35-50% less and also aren't having to pay-out a referrer 15-50% of the order total.

Before (as still now), we had no way to know if the 3rd Party was Zazzle themselves or another Creator/Affiliate. When I'd see a 3rd Party sale I'd just shrug it off as, eh, probably Z but no big deal. But as detailed here, something has gone quite wrong since the 1st and with the stakes being quite a bit higher, it seems imperative to know who the 3rd Parties are and why.

[klstock]

If Zazzle is the 3rd party, they are paying the designer 35 to 50% less, and also not having to pay out money to the referrer meaning that is a good chunk of money they are saving for Zazzle, and denying the designer and the actual referrer that money. Such as in your examples above where Zazzle claimed it a 3rd party sale but you did not get credited as the referrer. That is quite the err in Zazzles favor!

Many people are reporting that they have noticed that a much bigger percentage of their sales are now listed as 3rd party since the new changes went into effect on the 1st, so it makes me wonder if this is related to what happened in your above examples. 

[ColsCreations]

Many people are reporting that they have noticed that a much bigger percentage of their sales are now listed as 3rd party since the new changes went into effect on the 1st, so it makes me wonder if this is related to what happened in your above examples. .

Yes. And there are numerous comments scattered around various threads from people saying they can no longer get referrals on their own orders or that they had to try and cancel several times before it worked, or that they tried again a day or so later and then it worked, but It's not always clear whether it came up 3rd Party or None or which type link they were using, What is clear is that the referral system has gone of the rails since the 1st and it's not a matter of locally stored browser cookies.

[tiffjamaica]

I took a look back at sales of same time period each month for the last year and found I averaged 32% (with range of 22% to 42%) non referred sales and since April 1 it's only 5%.   Third party sales averaged 64% before the changes and now they are 95%. 
I really hope there's some transparency about why links aren't working as expected.

[klstock]

Maybe we need a different thread in the General category about the 3rd party issue with people doing their own tests and posting their results. It seems to be getting kinda lost in this category with not enough people seeing this. 

[klstock]

I placed 3 orders with two different people that I know.

Each time, before ordering, I cleared cookies (also cache and browsing history). I went directly to their store, and directly to the product that I purchased (did not do any searching via the marketplace). 

Neither person has ever participated in the Affiliate/Ambassador program nor have I ever promoted either (meaning there are none of my links associated with their products and I would not earn any 3rd party commission when I purchase their product).

April 7th

I ordered a card from Designer 1. On their end this shows as a 3rd party sale. I am not the 3rd party.

April 8th

I ordered another card from Designer 1. Again, on their end this shows as a 3rd party sale. I am not the 3rd party.

April 11th

I ordered a card from Designer 2. On their end this shows as a 3rd party sale. Again, I am not the 3rd party.

Each of these orders should have shown “None” in the “referred” column. But all of them were wrongly attributed to “3rd Party”. I am not the 3rd Party. All cookies, cache and history had been cleared before each order. I can only assume that Zazzle is claiming Zazzle as the 3rd Party, and as such, wrongly carving out fees from these two designers, reducing their already meager earnings.

How many of what show as "3rd Party" in each of our own royalty histories are actually carve outs wrongly taken by Zazzle?

Keyword - WRONGLY. I am not referring to when Zazzle actually is actively promoting a product and is the 3rd Party. I have no dispute with that. I am referring to cases where there is NO WAY they are the 3rd Party but are clearly taking carve outs wrongly. 

[klstock]

I did another test. 

April 12

I bought a t-shirt from Designer 1.

I watched Designer 1 clear their cookies/cache/history on their computer. They did this twice in a row to be absolutely sure.

They watched me clear my cookies on my own computer, which I did twice to be absolutely sure.

They then sent me a direct link via email to the shirt that I bought. This shirt, at the time I bought it, was not on public view. It is not something anyone would have been able to promote as a "3rd Party". I have never promoted it, they have not promoted it and nobody, including Zazzle would have been able to promote it to claim "3rd Party".

All that said, when Designer 1 checked their sales/royalty history, it sure enough was wrongly listed as a 3rd Party sale, when it should have shown as "None". A cutout was WRONGLY taken from this designer's royalty. 

[Zorinda]

This smells so bad. Zazzle has some ‘splainin to do. 

[Westerngirl2]

Not good. This is hitting us all pretty hard right now, so yeah, we deserve an explanation.

[Cat]

I see two possibilities.

1) Zazzle is using some system other than cookies to track referrals - something that cannot be cleared by clearing browser data (I'm not sure that would be a bad thing, as it could mean that there is more reliability in the system.)

2) The whole system is wonky and unreliable.

Without further transparency there is no way to know which is the answer.

But in terms of the product not being public, since 3rd party referrals follow the customer and not the product, it's sort of irrelevant that the product itself could not have been promoted by a 3rd party.

Which brings me to my current thought: IMHO, direct-only products ought to be exempt from third party referrals - since the customer can only access them through a link provided by the designer, they ought to be credited as self-referrals by default regardless of the cookie situation. (further thoughts here: Shouldn't Direct Only (private) Products All be Co... - Zazzle)

[Scott]

Apologies for the delay. We'll take a look.

[PopParrot]

Similar happening here. I ordered a test product of my own on the 1st with a clean link in opera. Went through as "none." All my organic sales since the 1st show as 3rd party. 

[Boki]

Earnings and sales: I know that sometimes there are no sales on a daily basis, but I did not expect this and I believe that something major is not working in the system that is currently being prepared. I read on the forum, that many people noticed that the sales dropped drastically, while I have NO AT ALL, from the balance at the beginning of the month, which is really strange because: I put a lot of effort into working in my stores and promoting. Also, for a certain long period, Linkover History jumped drastically, and the turnover in relation to those figures (while there were) is not adequate to those figures, and it should be incomparably higher and more significant earnings.
Those of us who are trying, and currently we are at a lower rank, judging by the current situation, as if we are blocked (I hope that this mistake will be corrected soon), we cannot progress either in the rank for the store (Z rank), nor in the rank (silver, gold, platinum,...), because unfortunately in the current system, I guess, we are invisible.
That's why I would ask someone who is responsible from the technical side to see what is happening as soon as possible, in order to sell products and designs as much as possible, because the current situation has a very bad effect on both us who design and you who sell (Zazzle), and in order to have mutual benefit, do not block (I hope it is a system error) those of us who are of a lower rank and emphasize more advanced ones, because we also contribute a lot to your earnings. Can you fix it as soon as possible, because every second counts for both you (Zazzle) and us who design (for profit)?
Thank you for reading this and I hope that everything will be resolved soon to our mutual satisfaction.

[Mariholly]

I feel the same way. Sales weren't good before the changes, but now they're even worse. I'm surprised when I read about other colleagues having xx sales — I've barely had any activity these days.

[LauraLee]

I just thought about this for a couple of days, doing some research on my own, and I also wanted to confirm it with someone before I wrote it down here.  When Zazzle changed the system April 1st, it made sense that they're trying to cut back in an economy environment that we have here in the USA.  Now I know that it was hard to get your own self-referrals before April 1st, but hear me out.  Don't you think Zazzle put an end to it?  The reason I say that is...

It truly is not a self-referral, if you are the purchaser and the referrer both as one, technically that is called a "double-referral", where the company rewards both the referring person and the purchaser.  A referral is defined as "an act of referring someone or something" to someone else, and it is intended to be that way in a referral market.  In other words, you refer your family, friends, and shared interests with people you may know.  Affiliate marketing is a little different, in that it does not have to know who purchases a product, just that you can share links on the company's product and earn a commission on the sale.  So you can understand why Zazzle is moving into a tighter grip on how it pays out the so-called "self referral", which in my mind for quite awhile has been affiliate marketing links.  

Referrals programs are formed to help generate higher income for the company, intended to produce faster because you, as an associate, are more intentional, and have motivation to share with others.  Affiliate programs offer more public programs where anyone can share a link and earn a commision, and both revolve around where the link is shared.  Referrals are more personal, affiliate links are not.

So ultimately, what I'm saying is that Zazzle has ended, what it seems like is, the "dual-sided/double-sided/2-sided" incentives where we can't be both purchaser and referrer anymore.  In other words, reward ourselves for purchasing a product (at a designer discount).  Sounds like they're moving more into Affiliate Marketing in order to actually see in real time how much is lost to them in doubled rewards given.  When you see if from Zazzle's accounting POV, it makes sense.  

[Cat]

I agree that there is something inherently "iffy" about getting a referral for buying your own product. But I think you bring up a much bigger issue. In my mind the idea of a "referral" is that you're rewarding someone for bringing in a NEW customer. But that's decidedly NOT how this program works. Instead, they've created this crazy cookie-based system that (from what I can tell) rewards the referrer fairly randomly based on a huge number of variables that are largely beyond our control and beyond our ability to track. 

I mean, the way modern web algorithms work, once you've searched for something, or clicked on something, it will follow you around on the web wherever you go. So I think that the likelihood is extremely high that by the time someone makes a purchase on Zazzle, they've been exposed to numerous ads, emails, social media posts, etc., and cycled through god-knows-how-many browser cookies... which means that it's really a game of Russian Roulette as to which cookie is going to be active at the time they make the purchase, and it is highly UN-likely that the reward will actually go to the entity that brought them there in the first place!

Just glancing through my royalty reports, around 75-80 percent of the sales are marked as 3rd party. Are all of those people who were actually brought to the site by a 3rd party, or are they simply regular Zazzle customers who happened to pick up a cookie somewhere because (since they are a Zazzle customer) Zazzle ads and social media posts follow them around wherever they go on the web!

My point here is that Zazzle seems to have gone "all in" on referrals over royalties. Seriously, I actually did get a "self" referral yesterday - I made $4.15 in royalties and $47.69 on the referral! That's nice in a way... but it's also sorta crazy because the reward is not at all correlated to any of the work that I've done. I'm not being rewarded for creating a good design, or creating good cover images, or answering customer questions, or helping them contact customer support, or any of the other things that I spend hours every day doing. Nope, as best I can figure, I'm being rewarded for the lucky and somewhat random fact that the customer happened to not have any cookies in their browser when they made the purchase! Is that because they happened to click on one of my links to get there? Maybe... but it seems just as likely that they have their browser set to clear their cookies on exit, or that they saw the product several weeks ago and bookmarked it, or that their friend sent them a link to one of my products or who knows...

I dunno. Maybe I'm way off base here, and maybe Zazzle has some super ultra-secret technology that is accurately tracking these referrals in a somewhat reliable way. But nothing I've read in this thread has given me much confidence that this is the case. And there's so little transparency here in terms of who the 3rd party is (Zazzle or independent "Ambassador") or how our "self-referrals" suddenly get overwritten and become 3rd party after a cancellation/reorder, that it really doesn't fill me with much confidence.

And all of the above was just fine with me before, because most of my income was coming from royalties. So I was fine with the random nature of referrals because I saw them as an "extra." But now our royalties have been slashed to the point that you really cannot make much income from royalties alone. I mean I haven't adjusted mine yet, perhaps that will come, but my point is that since this new system really doesn't reward sales, it puts us in a position of having to rely on luck for our income, and I just don't feel very good about that.

If the referral system was more transparent, more reliable, and more traceable I think I would feel differently about it, but at the moment it just feels like I'm expected to do an awful lot of work (designing, marketing, customer service, etc.) and then maybe if I'm lucky I'll get a big windfall now and then in the form of a self-referral... but it's all pretty much left up to chance. I dunno, I just don't feel very good about it.  

Sorry for the rant...

[Westerngirl2]

I'm pretty sure LauraLee is correct, and Zazzle discontinued giving us referrals when we purchase our own product. I did just that last evening, through my own website, cleared cookies. No referral. What is truly astonishing to me is that there's nothing in my royalty record, either. I have no idea if Z considered that sale to myself to be 3rd Party or None, or how much royalty. It's like it never happened, except on my Order page....there it is. Just that it is in process of "being made". So, because your royalty is deducted from the price, they evidently don't give record of it in your earnings, either. Seems like there should be some way of tracking that. I'm curious as to whether it was considered a 3rd Party sale, or None....for all the reasons we've talked about here. Just trying like crazy to figure all this out, and frankly, everything should be much more transparent to us. I'm hoping that happens with the new reporting...but really, that should have been in place WAY before this time.

And Cat, I fully agree with everything you stated here.

[Westerngirl2]

And oh yeah...kinda would've been nice for us all to have received a "heads up" on that change, too, don't you think?

If I had known, I'd probably waited until the item went on sale.