Digital marketers actively implement coupon-based mechanics in their strategies, as third-party cookies are phasing out. More than 90 % of U.S. households redeemed at least one coupon in the past 12 months, while 26% of US adults used more coupons in 2024 “because of the state of the economy.”
The trend stretches beyond the Northern hemisphere. In the MENA region, the number of coupons ordered increased by 11% in the first half of 2024, compared to a global increase of 17%. According to the Coupon Culture Report, 28.6% of shoppers search for a discount code almost every time they make an online purchase.
For sellers, this appetite for bargains is both a growth opportunity and a worry that coupon sites might simply trim profit from sales they would have made anyway, which they have called “traffic cannibalisation”.
What’s Traffic Cannibalization
Traffic cannibalisation presumably occurs when two internal channels (or a brand’s channel and an affiliate’s) compete for the same conversion. Instead of adding a new buyer, the secondary touch-point intercepts a shopper and then claims credit for the sale.
This article tests the cannibalisation worry by reviewing academic research, industry statistics, and programme‑level data. In coupon marketing, the term “cannibalisation” is used when third‑party coupon publishers monetise search traffic from shoppers who were already favourably disposed toward the brand, collecting a commission that seems to shave revenue the merchant had effectively secured.
Nearly 45.7 % of Google searches are branded, which is a lot, yet there’s still more than half of the searches not controlled by brands. So if the rivals and affiliates make use of these more than 50% of other words, the playing field is competitive, not fraudulent. Against that backdrop, the analysis asks: Do coupon clicks truly siphon off margin, or can they broaden the funnel, save abandoned carts, and lift order value? The evidence shows that – when governed properly – coupon‑affiliate partnerships expand reach, raise basket sizes and cut abandonment, while the real scale of cannibalisation is far smaller than many assume.
The Cannibalisation Concern: Where It Comes From
Picture a consumer who has filled a cart at full price, notices a promo‑code field at checkout, and jumps to search “brand + coupon.” If the shopper lands on a coupon site, applies a code, and completes the order, the site captures attribution and earns a commission. It looks like you just paid twice for the same customer – once to acquire them, and again in a discount plus affiliate fee. Is it really so?
The evidence is not entirely in favor of the cannibalisation argument:
- Issuing digital coupons raised demand during the promotion and remained positive, though smaller, after the discount ended, “Do Coupons Expand or Cannibalize Revenue? Evidence from an e-Market” study suggests. Average profits rose, confirming the campaigns attracted new or higher‑spending customers rather than merely discounting existing ones.
- Across North America, affiliate marketing drives roughly 16 % of all e‑commerce transactions, placing it among the four largest traffic sources for online retail. Coupon publishers form the single biggest segment of that channel.
- Traffic analyses show that the majority of coupon portals’ visits are driven by direct visits, email alerts, push notifications, and cash‑back programmes. In other words, coupon sites bring their own shoppers to the table.
- A common critique that coupons train customers to wait for deals, turning them into habitual deal‑seekers who delay purchases until a code appears, is contradicted by practice when coupon redeemers are paying full price on subsequent orders, indicating loyalty, not dependency.
One of the major concerns, though, is that some affiliates are auto‑injecting codes that overwrite the last click, stealing credit from the seller and effectively hijacking attribution. This possibility can indeed be misused by affiliates not acting in good faith. It requires a policy response – e.g., encouraging major networks to ban such extensions and brands to block offenders via link‑signature validation and fraud filters.
From Fear to Framework: Smarter Coupon Partnerships
Coupon affiliates respond to a genuine customer’s need, not merely jumping on the bandwagon of the retailers’ anyway-to-be-made profit. Retailers’ needs are met too, as coupon affiliates can bring new audiences. While there certainly may be actors who are acting more hostile and less transparent than others, the answer should be not to seek to eliminate the affiliates from the sale but to craft better agreements at the outset. Coupon affiliates add more revenue, provided brands set guardrails around attribution and payouts. In an era when an increasing number of shoppers won’t check out without a deal, partnering with coupon sites on clear, data‑driven terms is less a concession than a competitive necessity.
Conclusion
The guardrails above work best when they stay in the background – clear rules, accurate attribution, and tech solutions that identify fake coupon codes without interrupting shoppers. At CATCH, we interact daily with both advertisers and coupon partners, so we understand the challenges on each side. Our marketing analytics show where coupon traffic truly brings in new sales and where it simply cuts into margin, helping businesses decide on fair commissions, coupon timing, and basic compliance filters. With these insights, one can protect profit while still giving customers the deals they expect.
