Home > Tracking Campaigns > FunnelFlux

---

Drawbacks of direct linking to landing page? (18)

---

Can anyone tell me the drawbacks of direct linking to the landing page?

I'm wanting to advertise on Googe/FB but would rather send direct to my LP (also same domain as offer).

For example can I split test multiple landing pages even when direct linking?

---

Hey, you can find a great post from @dr_ngo about direct link vs landing pages here:

http://charlesngo.com/situations-whe...landing-pages/

---

That is a good article however I am referring to direct linking merely in terms of bypassing the tracking link - whether or not it links to my lp or straight to my offer.

---

You're basically asking about the tech setup of a particular tracking solution compared to another one, because in the end, the user lands on the LP or offer immediately in both cases - there is just one more redirect present with a traditional tracking link.

Some trackers need you to use a tracking link, some use a piece of code placed on the landing page. I don't think there is any direct advantage in either of them in terms of which one will make you more money - someone could argue one solutions is faster than the other one, but my personal tests didn't confirm that a minimal change in speed would affect the revenue.

But there are still differences, trackers that don't require the usage of a tracking link can be better for google/facebook as they don't really love redirects of any kind. Since you said that's where you plan to run, it might be a better idea for you to pick a tracker using the LP code.

---

Yes thanks. Now the only question is FunnelFlux or Thrive... Does anyone know if either will do both of these:

1. Still allow me to split test a landing page even when direct linking (i.e. Landing page pixel, no tracking link)

2. Accept postback conversions from Limelight CRM... http://prntscr.com/cd54je

---

1. I'm not 100% certain on this, but I don't think either of them will allow you to split-test with no tracking link.

However, there's a very simple workaround - just host a bit of PHP or JS which will randomly select a landing page and then display it, including tracking code.

There are loads of those "rotator" scripts still kicking around from the Prosper 202 days - here's one: http://prosper.tracking202.com/scrip...landing-pages/

2. That looks like a standard postback, so either option should accept it.

---

It's not possible to split test landers with this "directlink" setup without a custom mod as Caurmen suggested. Here is a quote from a post that Thrive guys made :

So even tho this option is a good one indeed, it's still not perfect.

Full article I quoted from : http://ipyxel.com/the-0ms-tracker-re...racking-pixel/

---

With Thrive, we are working on ability to also split test landing pages in this case, so I hope to have it available soon

---

Does anyone know the risk to a Google/FB account of using tracking link? My vertical is already on shaky ground (skin) so I wanna do everything possible to look like a legit vendor, and affiliate/tracking links I'm guessing won't help.

That said I'd really like the ability to split test my landers at a campaign level...

---

I'm using tracking links both on FB and Adwords in markets such as cellulite and make money online. I've done diabetes, weight loss, hair loss - the tracking link isn't the issue - the issue is when people don't adhere to the traffic sources terms of services and ad policies.

Eventhough we've added in FF the ability to send traffic directly to a lander, I never use that option myself.

---

Why is that? I'm trying to understand the drawbacks of not using a tracking link...

I'm also trying to guess how big a deal it is for me to send traffic direct to landing page url, which is same as offer url - i.e. signaling to Google/FB that I am not an affiliate.

---

Just because there is no real benefit to it (except a bit of speed) and you have more control when you use a tracking link.

For example, if you gave FB a direct link to your lander, then you wouldn't be able to change the flow of your funnel without editing the ad's URL (and wait for approval). A contrario, if you gave a tracking link, then you would have full control and could change whatever you wanted.

Tracking links do not equal affiliates - there are agencies using tracking links and there are affiliates not using them - and you will not be banned because you use a tracking link - it's not part of the banning equation.

---

Just wanted to expand on this.

If tracking links were a problem, Adwords for example would NOT have what they call themselves "tracking templates" which allow you to use 3rd party trackers, with domain names different than your final url.

They call this cross-domain redirects and all the details can be found in Google's Adwords support pages:

https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/6273460?hl=en

---

Thank you, good insights.

---

I'm sorry for posting here again, but this is just completely misguided, Vita.

Let's not point out the fact that FB and Adwords takes closer looks at affiliate tracking URLs vs. not and the fact that big time FB/Adwords affiliates use this avenue.

You're saying you'd rather use a single location server setup via FunnelFlux to run your global traffic, using a tracking link that must route through this single location.

That there is not much difference between that and a globally distributed cloud system that eliminates the redirect? Traffic running directly to landing pages served on a fast global CDN with a click tracking pixel that is served on a global cloud system is going to have a significant performance advantage.

If you disagree, we can do a global test of this.

There are a lot of campaigns out there that have done their split testing and are just sitting and running. There is no reason why certain campaigns that only need to run to a specific landing page wouldn't want to do this.

Particularly on FB but Adwords as well, if you'd like to reduce the risk of account bans for skin, it is highly recommended to do this. If you decide to split test landing pages and use a tracking link, it's not to say it's an automatic ban (depends on how you approach it and if the product has a FB relationship), but it certainly raises the risk of it.

---

Could I simply run with the landing page pixel, and then use Google Analytics experiement to A/B my landing pages?

Would those two things work together, or would it muck up the landing page pixel?

---

Don't be sorry, your posts are always welcome. Many of us value your opinion.

Personally, I don't know anyone working for Adwords and FB, I guess you don't either, so let's say that this is your opinion and my opinion differs. My opinion is based on my own experience running campaigns on Adwords and FB for many years, with one single account for each (while many affiliates need to create account after account).

I can't remember one single campaign where I didn't use a tracking link. And as I said above, Adwords themselves have a campaign parameter called "tracking templates" which, according to their own documentation, allows us to use cross-domain redirects for the sole purpose of tracking before the visitors are sent to the final url. I make use of these "tracking templates" all the time.

No, this is not what I'm saying. I even mentioned above that there is a speed difference. What I'm saying is that *I* do not use this option because (apart from the speed boost) there is absolutely no other benefit. Not a single one.

You mentioned this yourself when you introduced this feature in Thrive - when you said, rightly, that this option should be used AFTER you have found your winning lander and want to get a speed boost to increase your ROI. That's the only benefit - all the rest is drawbacks.

This -> I don't agree at all. On what basis do you say this? I fear it is only based on "I heard" kind of rumors. I remember last year, as I was part of an experiment ran by Tim Tetra, that he was surprised that his FB account got banned. I was not surprised at all, because several creatives he ran were clearly breaking some of FB's ad policies, like:

* Images that are scary, gory or sensational are not allowed as they may shock or evoke a negative response from viewers.
* Content that infringes upon or violates the rights of any third party, including copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity, or other personal or proprietary rights.
* Relevancy: All components of an ad, including any text, images, or other media, must be relevant and appropriate to the product or service being offered and the audience viewing the ad.
* Accuracy: Ads must clearly represent the company, product, service, or brand that is being advertised.

Yeah, I compiled that list at the time I saw the creatives he submitted. 4 deal-breaker issues in one single campaign.

I can't tell you how many times I heard affiliates complain they got banned while running whitehat bla bla bla... but every single time I got the chance to see their funnels, I could see that they were not that whitehat.

One FB policy that is the most problematic for affiliates, IMHO, is this one:

* Relevancy: All components of an ad, including any text, images, or other media, must be relevant and appropriate to the product or service being offered and the audience viewing the ad.

While crafting angles, it's SOooo easy to create an ad or target an audience that is not relevant to the product/service being offered. And this puts accounts at risk.

Tracking links, again according to my own experience and personal opinion (and evidence from Adwords documentation) are not part of the banning equation.

---

Yes, you could do this, they would work together.

---

Home > Tracking Campaigns > FunnelFlux