Critical findingsWhat the audit found
Each finding carries the observation, why it mattered commercially, and the recommended correction. This is the format every AME audit uses.
Finding 01
Every affiliate on a flat 5% while the programme advertised up to 25%
Critical
- Observation
- The default commission rate sat at 5% for every partner in the programme, while the public-facing proposition promised rates of up to 25%. No tier had ever been renegotiated.
- Why it matters
- The highest-volume partners had no commercial reason to lean in, and prospective content partners compared the real rate against the advertised one and declined. The single largest partner had dropped more than 90% in one month and nobody had picked up the phone.
- Recommendation
- Renegotiate the top tier first, then rebuild commission by publisher type and basket value so the rate a partner sees matches the rate they earn.
Finding 02
Conversion tag missing at checkout and commission matching broken
Critical
- Observation
- The conversion tag was absent from the checkout and commission matching was misconfigured. The dashboard looked healthy; the routing did not.
- Why it matters
- 38% of monthly revenue was being mis-attributed. Commission was leaving the programme for partners that had not driven the sale, while the partners who had were under-credited and disengaging.
- Recommendation
- Reinstall the conversion tag, repair commission matching, then re-baseline every partner report before any commercial decision is taken on the numbers.
Finding 03
79% of revenue dependent on three publishers
Critical
- Observation
- Three accounts carried 79% of programme revenue. The remainder was spread thinly across a base that was largely dormant.
- Why it matters
- This is not a programme, it is a dependency. One of those three had already collapsed more than 90% in a single month, and the channel had no capacity to absorb a second.
- Recommendation
- Revive the dormant base, recruit content publishers on fee-free commission-only terms, and layer creators underneath them until no single partner is structurally load-bearing.
Finding 04
158,000-product feed mapped to the wrong category
Critical
- Observation
- The product feed was categorised as Fashion rather than Jewellery, and had been for the life of the programme.
- Why it matters
- Every shopping publisher and comparison site in the programme had been receiving the wrong category data since launch, silently suppressing discovery and relevance.
- Recommendation
- Remap the feed to the correct vertical, refresh all category mappings and resubmit an enhanced feed for shopping partners.
Finding 05
43 affiliates running expired or unauthorised discount codes
High
- Observation
- Forty-three affiliates were found circulating codes that were either expired or had never been authorised.
- Why it matters
- Unauthorised codes leak margin and appear in search results the brand does not control, undercutting both full-price sales and the partners who honour the agreed offer terms.
- Recommendation
- Withdraw every unauthorised code, publish a governed offer calendar, and put a check in place before a code reaches a partner.
Finding 06
Around 111 nominally active partners producing nothing
High
- Observation
- A large share of the base registered as active while sending clicks that converted at effectively zero.
- Why it matters
- Activation, not recruitment, decides whether a programme works. A base that looks large and produces nothing hides the real size of the channel and wastes management attention.
- Recommendation
- Score the base on production, revive what can be revived with a briefed offer, and retire the rest so reporting reflects reality.