For BFSI brands, branded keywords should be the cheapest conversions in the funnel. Instead, they’re becoming the most expensive.
Across banking, insurance, and lending, direct selling agents are aggressively bidding on brand terms, redirecting ready-to-convert users through affiliate links, and claiming payouts for demand the brand already created.
Wondering how it shows in your data?
In the form of higher acquisition costs, misattributed performance, and zero incremental value. In this blog, we breakdown how direct selling agents are using brand bidding technique to hijack organic traffic and how financial institutions can identify and take action against it.
The Problem: What is Brand Bidding by Direct Selling Agents?
Simply put, brand bidding by direct selling agents is when an agent or a partner runs paid search ads using:
- A brand’s name or related search terms
- Brand keywords and product keywords
- Close variants or misspellings of a brand
- Using brand name in ad copy or display URL
- Cloaked ads shown only to search engines
This is essentially done to hijack the organic high-intent traffic; people already searching for your brand. As a result, instead of directing the users to the brand’s official website or app, these ads often lead to agent-owned landing pages or alternative conversion paths.
On the surface, these ads seem relevant. Click-through rates are high, and conversions might as well look strong. But the cost is that BFSI brands end up paying for traffic that might have anyway come to them organically.
Why Brand Bidding by Direct Selling Agents is Accelerating in BFSI Industry?
Direct selling agents are compensated based on outcomes like approved leads or disbursals. When that’s the case, any efficient-looking tactic that brings traffic and conversions, including brand bidding violations, becomes tempting.
Outcome-Based DSA Compensation Model
How the traffic is sourced often becomes less visible than the final outcome. This way, brand keywords become an efficient way for partners to meet performance targets, even if the demand already exists.
Limited Real-Time Oversight Across Large DSA Networks
Most BFSI brands work with large, distributed partner ecosystems. Monitoring every keyword, ad creative, and landing page manually across this network impossible. As a result, brand bidding activity is often detected only after performance anomalies or cost leakage becomes visible.
Localized and Intermittent Campaign Execution by Agents
Many campaigns are often limited to specific cities or regions, run in regional languages, or activated only during short time windows. This narrowed and fragmented approach rarely shows up in central dashboards or routine audits. As a result, brand bidding continues quietly without triggering immediate red flags, even though it directly impacts brand search performance and control.
The Impact of Brand Bidding by Direct Selling Agents
Brand bidding impacts more than just media budgets for any brand:
You End Up Paying For The Demand You Already Created
When someone searches for your brand, that intent is usually the result of your marketing, your brand presence, or prior engagement. When a direct selling agent bids on that search keyword and routes the user through their own journey, brands often end up paying twice – once for the brand click and again through partner commissions. The conversion still happens, but no incremental demand is created. The existing demand becomes more expensive.
Performance Metrics Become Misleading
Agent-led brand traffic often shows strong click-through rates and quick conversions, which can make CPAs and ROI appear stable. But these metrics don’t always reflect true acquisition performance. In many cases, they indicate branded intent being captured outside the brand’s owned funnel, making it harder to distinguish real growth from demand.
Attribution And Visibility Become Questionable
When brand traffic flows through agent-controlled landing pages, brands lose direct visibility into how users are being handled. Messaging, form design, and data capture move outside central oversight. This fragments attribution and makes it increasingly difficult to understand which channels and partners are genuinely contributing to growth.
Compliance And Brand Risks Also Increase
In BFSI, control over messaging and data handling is extremely critical. Direct selling agents may often use unapproved claims, miss required disclosures, or collect user data in ways that don’t fully align with regulatory expectations. Even when this happens unintentionally, the responsibility ultimately rests with the brand.
Internal Competition Replaces Incremental Growth
Brand keyword abuse by partners competes directly with organic brand search, brand-owned paid campaigns, app or direct traffic. Instead of expanding reach, multiple channels end up chasing the same user. The outcome is higher costs, blurred ownership, and little to no incremental gain.
Know why standard marketing and analytics tools fail to detect brand bidding violations.
How BFSI Brands Can Prevent Brand Bidding Violations by Direct Selling Agents?
Solving brand keyword abuse doesn’t require restricting partners. Brands can protect their search presence and with a structured approach using brand bidding detection software and by proactively governing brand keyword usage.
Start By Defining Brand Search As A Protected Channel
Clearly specify what qualifies as brand search (including variants and combinations), who is authorized to bid onx these terms, and what actions constitute a violation. Clear policies create a shared understanding across internal teams and partner networks.
Closely Monitor Brand Keywords Usage Across Geographies And Beyond Own Campaigns
Standard campaign reporting won’t show you ads running outside your own accounts. Continuously monitor third-party ads using brand terms, ad creatives and display URLs, final landing destinations, geographies, devices, and language variations to ensure visibility beyond your own campaigns.
Shift From Reactive Audits To Proactive Monitoring Using Brand Bidding Detection Software
Periodic audits and manual keyword checks are not enough. Brand bidding by direct selling agents tends to be periodic, localised, and low visibility, which means it often goes unnoticed until after impact occurs. A more effective approach is continuous, independent, and advanced monitoring of brand search activity across markets.
Here’s How mFilterIt’s Brand Bidding Detection Software Helps
Solutions like mFilterIt introduce structure and consistency into how brand keyword misuse is identified and addressed:
Comprehensive Brand Keyword Coverage
Monitors brand names, product combinations, misspellings, and close variants across search environments.
End-to-End Ad Journey Visibility
Captures live ads, analysing ad copy, and tracing redirect chains to identify the final landing destination with evidence.
Geo, Device, and Language-Level Detection
Identifies brand bidding activity that appears only in specific regions, languages, or mobile environments.
Partner-Level Risk Identification
Maps brand bidding violations back to specific direct selling agents or partners to support evidence-based corrective action.
Conclusion
When direct selling agents bid on your brand keywords, they aren’t adding value; they’re monetizing your intent. Unchecked brand keyword bidding leads to inefficiencies, unclear measurement, and avoidable risk. By establishing clear policies, improving visibility, and adopting continuous monitoring, BFSI brands can protect their search performance without disrupting partner relationships, and continue investing confidently in growth.
Want to understand your brand keyword exposure beyond ad accounts?
Get in touch with our experts today.
Commonly Asked Questions
What is brand bidding?
Brand bidding is when a third party (affiliates, direct selling agents, or competitors) runs paid search ads using a brand’s name, product terms, or close variants. In the BFSI context, this often means direct selling agents bidding on brand keywords and redirecting users to agent-owned landing pages instead of the brand’s official website or app, allowing them to claim conversions on demand the brand has already created.
How does brand bidding by agents increase acquisition costs for BFSI brands?
When agents bid on brand keywords, BFSI brands often end up paying twice for the same user, once for the brand search click and again through agent commissions. Since the user was already searching for the brand, this does not create incremental demand and increases overall cost per acquisition.
Why is brand bidding by direct selling agents difficult to detect?
Brand bidding by agents is often executed in a fragmented way — limited to specific geographies, regional languages, mobile devices, or short time windows. These campaigns usually run outside the brand’s own ad accounts, making them hard to spot through standard dashboards or periodic audits.
Is brand bidding considered unethical or against advertising policies?
Brand bidding itself is not inherently unethical or against advertising policies. However, it can become problematic when it violates partner agreements, misleads users, inflates costs, or captures demand the brand already created. Whether it is acceptable depends on platform rules, contractual terms, and brand governance standards.
What are the common signs of brand keyword abuse?
Common signs include unexpected increases in brand keyword costs, unfamiliar ads appearing for brand searches, redirects to third-party landing pages, duplicate commissions for the same conversions, and inconsistent attribution across channels. These patterns often indicate that brand demand is being intercepted rather than newly generated.
