Agencies, partnerships and the affiliate scheme that failed

Hello. Hi. Hello Barış. For a moment I thought the internet had gone down. Oh, I was about to call, honestly. There's still no call from WhatsApp, but... but... that's not working either. good morning, Barış. What are you doing? How's it going? That's great! We're together again in another episode. I have a different background, though. Not as cool as yours, but oh well. I hope we will find the right and true home.

Around episode 15 or so. We'll find a way, I mean, it's like we can't meet without these webinars anyway . We meet in single webinars. Absolutely, that's right. We get to meet and talk during the webinar. So, the topic we'll be discussing this week is, how do we, in general at Hardal, approach partnerships, the partner system? So, why is the first step we take after achieving product-market balance, a sales phase or making sales, rather than growth, bringing partners in or, understanding the expectations of partners and creating a joint project in return for the services we offer, and so on?

Actually, there's something Hardal does that's very independent of other startups or other product , marketing products . Now we'll talk about it this week. Okay, maybe I can start by asking you this way, if you'd like. Why does Hardal place so much importance on such partnership systems? Brother, I think this is a very critical question. You can approach it from two different angles. It's a sales strategy aspect of the job.

Well, if Fırat were here now, he would have entered from there immediately, for example. But I also think we've been focusing on Fırat for the last two episodes . Let's buy that tart someday. Let's take a section of it. Let's get him to talk too . Okay, let him vent his anger too, man. And I think there's also a bit of a company perspective aspect to this whole thing.

I think both you and I—we're both— in favor of growing up in this kind of warrior-peaceful, uh-universal, structure. What does this mean? Actually, our initial goal here, our initial purpose in building this farm, was to create a product for ourselves. We then launched it to the market, and we still believe that the product will benefit many people in many jobs, both in agencies and other technological fields .

So, beyond the concept of "let's grow together" or "let's pass someone on to us," I think this is at the very core of the matter. "Look, we've created a product, and we think it can make your life easier," is essentially our sales strategy . We believe that marketing agencies and technology companies operating in similar fields are best positioned to understand this . That's partly why, from day one, whenever we meet someone, whenever we get to know someone who has a client, or if we're selling a product to an agency, we say, "Come on, let's do something together."

Because there is most likely a way for us to benefit you . And I think this is one of the most critical points of this whole thing. Because we are lagging far behind. Because we're in a position where we don't exactly intersect with anyone, where we're not face-to-face, or providing the same service, we're in a very suitable place to partner with others and develop things together .

I think we also want to turn this into leverage, putting aside the financial and commercial aspects of it. So, what do you say? Actually, when we first started, before we got so involved with this partnership system, we were trying to create an affiliate system. Actually, this is somewhat similar to the system used by other startups, or other products. So, it's like, "Bring your customer, bring your friend, and get a X percent discount."

But this system just didn't work properly. From where? For people to become affiliates, they need to be using something already, and then they can refer it to a friend . We realized that there weren't many people already using it who understood the concept . Then we turned the focus a bit towards training . So we implemented a strategy focused on educating people. But then we saw this.

Within this training program, if we provide these trainings to our partners, and as you said, if we minimize the efforts of the partners in their current workload, then we explained to them that we actually need to be involved there. More than training. huh. He worked at some agencies . Especially in marketing agencies in Türkiye. now, let's not mention names, let's not make that happen. Well, some agencies didn't accept this situation.

So, consequently, we've actually drawn the structure here in this way . Yes. I think one of the most critical points there is this... So, when we were passing this on to agencies, or rather, explaining it to brands, we realized something. People working for brands, especially in the Turkish market, seem to wear many different hats. So, the person responsible for, say, e-commerce is also going back and checking product stock .

He's responsible for both website development and, you know, the marketing budget goes through him. This man, or rather this person, has surrounded himself with a few different kinds of people in particular, given the specific circumstances . Either they trust their technology partner very much, or they are very close to their agency and want their agency to constantly provide them with information on this subject, for example. He says something called "consent mode" has emerged.

Come on agency, tell me what this is for? Something called "First Part" has come out. It's heading towards a point where it's like, "Okay agency, tell me about it ." But from what I've seen, people in agencies, especially due to their workload, sometimes don't have the time to sit down and keep up with new developments . And this time, it's failing to properly support the brand. And the topic we're working on is in such a middle ground .

Even though Jans' employee is an expert in the field, there are scenarios they can't understand with 100% accuracy . That's why this model made so much sense to us at this point. We need to provide the right information to the agencies, we need to explain things to them correctly. They should also tell the story of their brands accurately. This way, it will sink in for their brand to be clear so that when we meet with them in the future, they don't come completely clueless.

I think this kind of approach is probably the first step in creating such an ecosystem . I think we definitely did that. So, the agencies that were trying to reject us, saying things like, "If we do this internally instead of partnering with Hardal, we'll benefit so much," ultimately couldn't do it. They started hearing about these systems from us, and therefore, they heard about them from us and thought, "We can do it too."

So there's an opportunity here. Those who said "uh..." usually couldn't turn those opportunities to their advantage and ended up being left in limbo. Because, as you mentioned, internally, due to the agency's structure, there's so much competition involved, I mean, should the guy even bother with GTM? Should Adam be dealing with Nutset's mistakes in GF? Should they respond to the customer's requests? Should Mailee come back? Should he conduct new research?

Now, because the agency, within its dynamics, does n't have the environment to conduct this research, people can't come together and produce something in these kinds of new systems . And because they can't produce them, not many value-added projects emerge. these are the marketing technology awards, or some other awards and so on. So, these awards were chosen simply because the submitted projects included videos and were more polished and embellished.

Nobody looks at each other and says, "Oh, BigQer uses this modeling technique" or " They use this function, so they've done better retargeting ." So, what we want is for partners within the ecosystem to dedicate effort to this R&D area, saying, "We've already been working on this for 2.5 to 3 years ." Let us take over this entire task from you, and you can handle the activation and reporting aspects.

That's the area where you're most successful. When we tell people to focus on those areas, they start saying, "Oh, we can do that too," and try to create a bit of a competitive environment. This is a bit... well, the reason it's not a fancy diet is, I think, definitely because of this . Yes. I think the point there is... I think... something like that. There are initial times.

And then there's the point we've reached today . The beginning was a bit... well... like that. Well, for us, sometimes, well, humiliating or perhaps a more accurate term would be discouraging. It was discouraging. Because we were constantly explaining, with such enthusiasm and desire, "Look, you do it this way, there's a system like this, there's a concept called server-side." Server-side services weren't very well-known back then. That's how it works on the server side.

There was a time when we used to explain to everyone we met how this differed from the client site, and so on. Berkay, I cracked up too, by the way. Here I am, here I am. I'm listening, but I think... the camera... it's not working because of the internet . I just turned the camera on. Well, as you know, we have internet. Yes. So, let's be thankful that we're visiting this site at times like these .

So this is what I was saying. Well, that's how we explain it to people. Then, do you remember, someone, without mentioning names again, came along and presented the concepts we had described as if they were doing them themselves at an event? One, yes. A top woman from an agency. And we were so shocked, and it ghosted us. After that, we had this nice conversation, like, " Congratulations, it seems you're interested in similar topics," and we went there with an olive branch, but then we were ghosted.

So, it's still just one of the 50 companies we're in contact with . When did I think that wall came down? That time period has collapsed. Some people have started to become familiar with the concept. Right now, we're even sitting down and discussing collaborations with people from agencies who once disapproved of us on LinkedIn. Because they understood this. Ha Hardal is not a threat. Hardal is n't coming here to take our bread, that's why.

Hardal... won't be a reporting tool . Hardal will not cause segmentation. Hardal isn't going to send a popup. It won't let any birds out. So, once companies understood this, they said, "Okay, these guys are really okay with being involved in the ugliest and most tedious part of the job. Collecting and combining the data, etc. So this really isn't a risk," and that's when they tried to understand the product.

I think there were a few more risk factors on that side at first. That's why a survival instinct kicked in. Do you remember, there was one manager at a company we're currently working well with, a partner, who said something like this? If we sell you to brands, how will we make money? We provide installation services to... brands, he said. And that meeting, for example, was a turning point.

Because we had already explained what we were doing afterwards. All the previous meetings, discussions, emails, etc., were apparently all for nothing . So, the guy just blocked us because he still thinks we're after their livelihood . Until we said it openly, and we explained it, and then all those walls came down and it was good. So definitely not. So, the point you made about the matter is very good.

We already deal with the most tedious parts of the job and we dedicate effort to it. We took the most tedious and manual parts of the process and transformed them into an automated, instrumental concept. It's not really something that's very noticeable in this world either . We transformed a long project that constantly required human involvement into a concept of "we're just being blunt and silent." So that's what we're trying to explain.

But when we simplify things to a concept that the other side can understand, especially in partnerships, it always tends to lead to misunderstandings. Whenever we talked about Hardal, from day one they would always come up with the argument that "then we don't need to use Google Analytics." No, there is, but it allows you to use it better . Because, in terms of background, an agency does n't need to be this technical when serving its clients.

We definitely accept that. But we also believe that they have an obligation to explain the need for it or the benefits it would bring . So, in order to be knowledgeable about the information he's going to share, he needs to do the necessary research. And we come back to the same point again. He doesn't have time to do that research . The guy says either you haven't included Google Ads conversions in the performance section from GTM, or that the data isn't coming from GF.

He keeps opening them and looking at them. Between working on GTM and other things, when does he find the time to do research, when does he find the time to put in any effort ? This is somewhat... well, I think it's related to the agency dynamics in Türkiye. And it's the same abroad, by the way . So, even abroad, things progress partly based on hearsay. But... there's an advantage to being abroad.

And then there are the regulatory aspects, like GDPR. And on the more technical side, people can examine this aspect. Because, for example, if brand XB is working with an agency abroad, it doesn't directly give such a brief to the agency. On the contrary, the agency goes to the brand with such a brief . It says something like, "This law was passed on this date, and you have to configure GFOR settings according to this law ."

But in our case, it's the opposite; the brand is showing a warning on the panel. He sends a screenshot of this and asks the agency. He's sending it to me via WhatsApp. Because I saw such a mistake . So it's completely normal for those people to be scared and to be hesitant about new information . Because they operate with this fear, we are taking action to minimize that fear and to ensure that no one, neither the brand nor the agency, has to deal with such technical aspects.

But despite this, some potential partners might perceive it as if they're somehow interfering with the work or project they're going to do, but they've seen that's not the case. Yes. And we also say this, don't we? We say this because some agencies package and sell features that the brand could easily implement themselves – features as simple as clicking an "open" button in Google Analytics – in such a way that some agencies call it a 35-hour setup.

So, the point is, if there's an agency listening to this, it'll be out. I promise, I promise, it's out of LinkedIn, it's out of LinkedIn. and instead of packaging this and selling it , okay, fine, I understand. That's a commercial approach there, again. We say, "Come, Ardal has an incredibly large data pool that it offers you. You can do 35 different projects with this data pool and create much more significant added value for the brand by giving it meaning.

When you do this, you will both differentiate yourself a little more from other companies ( there are agencies doing this right now) and you will create more added value ." I think that's valuable, you know, beneficial. It also breaks the routine. We both worked in agencies. I think the worst part of an agency is that after a few years, it's the same routine: "Did you do the setup in the same period?

Yes. Did you launch ads? Yes." Ardal actually offers a way out of that for agencies. If it can be utilized. That's great. Yes. I said it very well. That's exactly what we aim for. Our goal is not to generate sales revenue from clients brought to us by partners . We already offer a high return rate, etc. We do planning together. We really work on it. While Taylor-based financial gain is the main thing in this business, we never make it the main issue.

We don't see it as just about money. We want agencies in Türkiye, within this ecosystem, this measurement, this e-analytics world, to reach the same level of know-how as us and be able to present great projects to brands together. I think that in an environment where this can be perceived as a competition, the same stories wouldn't be shared. That's why we've prepared a blacklist . The blacklist contains a list of brands or partners we will never meet with again.

You might want to access this list . We're leaving the link in the description . Yes, that list was somewhat necessary, even though we sometimes have to add to it with regret . Because we approach technology partners similarly. We say to a technology partner, " Look, you're in this business too. Look, you offer an analytics service, for example. Great. Or you offer another service . We approach partners with preliminary research, saying, ' These are the benefits Hardal can offer you.'"

Some of those partners are very receptive. We're happy about that. Some ghost us. We can understand that too. Because the priority might not be the first step at that moment. Some, inevitably, start competing in the opposite direction. In such cases, we have a list where we say, "Yes, it would be better if we didn't meet with this agency or this partner again ." That's probably the nature of the job.

And finally, I really agree with what you said. The routine dynamic in agencies doesn't necessarily have to be a breakthrough . But projects that can't be created because research isn't done are always a breakthrough from this routine. Two years ago, it was a CNP, a cookie management platform . Before that, it was then AI. Then there were projects about predicting the next user journey . So, in the end, agencies understand us better as they realize this: While the routine was "did you open GTM, did you open the campaign, did you close it?", this routine turned into "this project came out, this AI project came out, this is what happened ."

Today, Google... Look at all the CASes (Case Management) that they created, especially with the agencies they published, particularly the agencies in Türkiye, and with their partners . We even examined all of them. They all revolved around three main sections . All the percentages, all the things are the same, the topics are the same. So, we say there are things that can be done better . There are more exciting topics.

And in these exciting topics, we need people who will share this story with us . Otherwise, we're not imposing a rule that you have to be a partner. I'll add my comments later. It's related to the topic. I think it was a clean closing . I don't have anything else to say besides that . So, since we've poured out our gossip, our rumors, and our hearts about the partners, it's like therapy, and we've relieved ourselves by pouring out our hearts that we'll publish on LinkedIn, right ?

I feel relieved. I think it was very good Because I don't know, the part I enjoy the most is working with partners. Because they are the ones who challenge us the most. They push us . Yes. mostly, when there's disappointment, some partners reflect it onto others. By the way, I looked at something else . The total number of companies we're currently in contact with , partnering with, or having potential partner meetings with, is 68.

That's 68 different teams. Does that include overseas ? Or just Turkey? This is just Turkey, not overseas. Wow, that's a lot. Exactly. It's a bit more complicated because we're dividing it by country, so I only looked at Türkiye. That's how it is in Türkiye. So yes, everyone can react differently, but I think it's a very enjoyable and sweet aspect of it for us too, I like it.

So sighing felt good. I think the point we've reached is that we can understand this. Leading things in that ecosystem, or guiding, directing, guiding the system, is a nice feeling. At least, because they made us experience this feeling, we also say hello to the partners who ghosted us. Because thanks to their ghosting, we also helped people who weren't familiar with these things... we've taken you under our wing and we're creating wonderful stories together.

We can move on to the closing without exceeding our time limit. Thank you. thank you very much. Have a good day. Well said. I'm glad we met. It was good. it really was like that. We can meet again in about a week if you want. Okay, I'll be here then. See you next week. Take care. Bye bye . Bye bye.