Can both sides see what the publisher added?
The merchant doubts the commission. The publisher says they earned it. Benson gives both sides one merchant-owned record to argue from.
We'll agree the question and the merchant's involvement first.
- Merchant-owned records
- No shopper identities shared
- Rates shown with every estimate
Publisher brings shopper
They arrived through a publisher's link.
Shopper reaches cart
The session continues toward an order.
Extension appears / credit changes
The later touch sits beside the earlier source.
Check this sequence against the network record.
Two sides, one sale, two stories.
A shopper arrives from search and fills a basket. A coupon extension appears, and the credit moves to a publisher. The merchant calls it theft. The publisher calls it a conversion.
You're in the middle, holding a report both sides already distrust.
You could side with the merchant. Cut the publisher's terms on a hunch and you may lose real demand, and a partner, with it.
You could side with the publisher. Keep paying, and the merchant starts wondering what else in your reports is padded.
Or you could put the same record in both hands.
With the merchant's permission, Benson shows where the shopper arrived from, where the credit changed and the commission at stake. If it's still disputed, the merchant blocks the pop-up for most shoppers with a holdout, and everyone reads the same result.
The same sale, seen two ways.
01 · The problem
“That sale was already ours.”
Last-click can't show whether a late touch added demand or moved the credit.
The fix
Line the path up in order.
Arrival source, the stage it changed at, and the extension nearby.
02 · The problem
Commission mistaken for contribution.
A checkout-stage touch and a real referral look identical in the report.
The fix
Put a number on the credit that moved.
An estimate at the merchant's configured rate, with the rate shown.
03 · The problem
Every dispute becomes a data fight.
Different reports, different sampling. Nobody gets to the terms.
The fix
Settle it with one block and a holdout.
The merchant blocks the pop-up for most shoppers; both sides read the same result.
A nearby actor is a match, not proof of cause or fraud. Estimates exclude uncounted orders. Illustrations use sample data.
Pick one merchant and one publisher to start.
We'll agree the question and the merchant's involvement first.
What happens to the partnership.
Something's off
Block the late touch.
It costs the merchant margin. They block it, with a holdout, before terms change.
It's helping
Keep and refine.
The test backs the publisher. Agree allowed codes for the next review.
Too early
Keep watching.
No clear overwrite or too little traffic. Not a reason to change terms.
Start with one merchant.
Find a merchant who opts in.
Agree the publisher, codes, period and question up front.
Compare the path.
Arrival source against the late touch, with counted orders.
Write terms from one record.
Hand both sides the same report and its sampling notes.
Questions
No. Benson records a source change and the actor nearby. That's a match, not proof, and never an accusation of fraud.
Give both sides the same record.
We'll agree the question and the merchant's involvement first.