There was a time when affiliate tracking was relatively simple and based on a network cookie — and a pixel on the confirmation page. The industry has moved on and tracking technologies have evolved to accommodate several further functions other than just registering and matching clicks and sales.
This growth in complexity has meant that many in the industry aren't fully aware of the different tracking types or how tracking works. Advertisers' affiliate programs are commonly set up using JavaScript tags and server-to-server methods. In many cases there is also the older technology of third-party tracking still being in place.
First Party Tracking Methods
The common first-party tracking methods currently utilised are:
- On-page JavaScript setting the first-party cookie - A JavaScript tag called from the network to set a first-party cookie - A first-party cookie being set from the advertiser's server
A crucial difference of the server-side tracking versus the JavaScript methods is the server side method is undertaken by code residing on an advertiser's server (usually within a data centre) whereas the JavaScript is client-side code that is within the website (in the page displayed on the user's device).
Both have the same end result of setting a cookie on the user's device. We consider an advertiser with a well-implemented solution of one of the methods above to have a good first-party implementation for their browser-based users.
There are different flavours of server tracking (sometimes called postback tracking) depending on precisely when it is initiated in the handover redirect chain and also whether it is "passed" a network identifier or it "makes a call" for it to be generated.
Methods Without First-Party Cookies
There are of course other methods used in affiliate tracking including:
- Third-party tracking - Deterministic/Probabilistic tracking - Voucher code tracking - Advertiser's own implementations
The third party option has been discussed greatly recently due to the deprecation of third party cookies on Chrome. This aligns Chrome with the situation on Safari (following the 2019 introduction of ITP) and Firefox.
We often refer to it as "Fallback third party tracking" as it is the tracking method that most commonly records the sale in circumstances where first party tracking is absent or compromised.
The Tracking Hierarchy
These tracking methods can be arranged — actually or conceptually — into a tracking hierarchy. Networks don't want to enter the same sale into their database twice so they'll usually follow such a hierarchy for identifying, receiving and deduping communication to them of any sale from the checkout.
An example hierarchy:
1. First party tracking, either server to server or JavaScript 2. Third party tracking 3. Voucher code tracking 4. Deterministic tracking
More important than any hierarchy is ensuring the process is capturing all the clicks and transactions that are reasonably to be expected to be relevant to the commercial relationship between publisher and advertiser.
Other Considerations
Some methods and/or implementations may identify transactions back to the click reference more reliably than others. The preferred first party methods are better. Tracking and attribution rules may also be referenced during the process of recording a transaction at the network.
All rules have three main considerations:
- Are they fair (it helps the program work if they are equitable) - Are they communicated correctly - Are they technically implemented in accord with each party's intentions
GA4, Adobe and Affiliate Tracking
The implications of measurement of the same activity by two measurement approaches (affiliate tracking and analytics) are important to understand. In such situations, all of the above rules and considerations need to be reflected in the analytics handling for such analytics and affiliate measurement to align.
A strongly configured affiliate program is likely to be a better "source of truth" for affiliate channel performance than a compromised company-wide implementation. It is completely understandable that an advertiser would like to review all its online marketing in one place.
User Consent
Advertisers need to have a clear understanding of how consent is desired to be controlling the different measurement methods, and how consent actually controls the different measurement methods. Moonpull does see issues with consent platforms being poorly implemented and inadvertently breaking first party tracking.
As James Breckenridge, Moonpull CTO, explains: "The big difference between the tracking implementations for me is down to whether or not there is an expectation that the attribution window listed for the advertiser will be respected or not. If there is an expectation that a Publisher will get rewarded outside of the session then, whatever tracking methodology is implemented by the advertiser, a cookie (or local storage) will need to be used by the Network/Advertiser to store the tracking information."
Summary
This is far from an exhaustive analysis but will give affiliate marketers more of an understanding of the processes involved in devising and providing tracking technologies. We would encourage all affiliate marketers to appreciate their implementations better to be well placed for the journey ahead and building strong relationships with their partners within the channel.
If you would like to see more of how Moonpull can benefit your business, we'd love to hear from you. Please get in touch via our [contact page](/contact).