Who earns commission in this case?

If a visitor clicked on the same affiliate ad on site A, and then on site B, but didn't buy anything from either click. The third time he went to the advertiser's site directly and bought something. Assuming the purchase happened within the advertiser's return day requirement for both sites, who makes the commission?

1. Site A, who referred the customer earlier than B;
2. Site B, who is the closest to the purchase;
3. Neither
4. Depending on advertiser TOS

 

My theory would be case 1) Where the cookie (if cookies are involved) for A would have come before the users second visit through Mr B and therefore a second cookie may not be present. Unless cookies and such are cleared previous to the 2nd visit.

 

My assumption, it would be the 2nd case. Why? because A cookies would be replaced by B cookies and if the sales were made, B got commission. That is generally because if the 1st case is corrected then most of us have to gained people to our site at first place and no need to worry because our cookies has been placed in the first place and would never been replaced by other cookies later. That is incorrect.

 

My opinion would be affilliate B - with clickbank at least it is the most recent affilliate who passed the customer to the site that gets the sale.

 

It depends on the network. Speaking about Clickbank the right answer will be 2 (B affiliate, the newer cookie). Click2Sell.EU has made it opposite - affiliate A will get reward. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages at the same time: in Clickbank case there could be cookies "thefts" (i mean they could be replaced by unfair merchants), in Click2Sell case affiliate A will get commissions, but it's bad for B affiliate who for example could made a better website and convince visitor to buy that product (but cookie stealing is impossible this way).. So I can't say what is better... Just different.. Anyway, if visitor cleans his cookies, affiliates will not get commissions.

 

I'd supposed for B way as it should be legit more. I understand reasons why click2sell.eu did that but it seems like unfair advantage for publishers overall. Latest cookies should be applied for tracking commission for latest publisher who sent targeted visitors to merchant. If not, I just force people to click on my banner in the first place and rest assured if visitor buy something I would get commissions as no matter about cookies replacement by next others publishers.

 

Thanks for the analysis and opinions. I'm just glad #3 isn't the answer, unless of course the visitor clears cookies first. Either A or B has a point, and is fine with me, because I'm sure it happens both ways