DISQUS

Sheryl · 2 years ago

While I did not download their software, I spent quite a bit of time looking through all of their merchants. Over 90% of their merchants are through Commission Junction. Several of their listed LinkShare merchants have already been terminated. While I agree that their software has little reach, it's amazing that the networks didn't even look at what they are doing.

As a member of CJ's Publisher Advisory Board, have you reported them to CJ?

Gary-AvantLink · 2 years ago

Thanks for such a thorough report on this. I saw a hint of the new FF add-on elsewhere, but it was nice to get more thorough info from you. This is one Affiliate that certainly won't be getting into our network...

Scott · 2 years ago

>> While I agree that their software has little reach, it’s amazing that the networks didn’t even look at what they are doing.

What's so amazing? Do you think they investigate every publisher that signs up for their network?

As I said towards the end, these guys probably haven't produced enough sales to appear on the radar yet.

Sheryl · 2 years ago

>>Do you think they investigate every publisher that signs up for their network.

Scott, don't tell me you're serious. Of course I do, especially when the publisher application asks specific questions about software and incentives and CashAddOn screams "Download CashAddOn Now!"

Scott · 2 years ago

Of course I'm serious. It's a matter of practicality, not only for the network but for publishers and merchants. Would you rather a big long wait for every publisher to get into an affiliate network? (pretend for a minute that you're not already in.) Or maybe not get in at all if you're not good enough to meet the scrutiny of a manual human review of every publisher application to join a network? You want networks to get MORE in the way? How frustrating would that be?

They don't HAVE to have checked that incentive software checkbox on the application.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

And realistically what harm has this affiliate caused with their non-performing (so far) model in a month? Probably none.

Beating up a network simply because a new affiliate signed up and started up a model that they shouldn't is unreasonable, in my opinion. Especially when every merchant has the opportunity to review an application.

If a publisher who behaves like this is allowed to grow unchecked, then beat them up.

Kellie · 2 years ago

Good recap of the issues Scott. I agree that they probably don't have a large install base yet. I think the bigger picture this brings up goes to exactly what the Networks views are on this types of applications. It's something I've been concerned about for more than a year now. I'm no longer convinced what you outlined as acceptable behavior by the some of the networks is necessarily true anymore. What you outlined as far as behavior with the older mainstream (and known) loyalty/incent applications still holds true. But it's not the behavior I've been seeing allowed with newer more recent applications. It has appeared for awhile now that as long as "consent" is gotten from the end user at least once (presumably with the installation), then automatic redirects, including those which are overwriting other affiliate links in first edition COC ways, is being allowed. The latest update to CJ's COC seems to back that up. It focuses on the affiliate getting an affirmative action from the end user (consent for the installation). Somewhere floating around on ABW from quite a while back there is a post by Todd where he very clearly states that the "affirmative" action is consent for the install, then automatic redirect can occur. And if you look at how SaveNDonate behaves, going to extreme of explaining to the end user about affiliate marketing, how aff links work and even by setting it to automatically credit them a savings it could take away another aff's commission, this seems to meet the standard of affirmative action. It would seen to be in violation for LS, though like many networks they seem to give a chance to fix the behavior. I'm not too sure about Peformics, though they are still using the last version of the COC which was joint with CJ and substantially different than being used by CJ now.

Overall, even outside of affiliate marketing directly, what I've been seeing for quite some time is a trend focusing on consumer consent as the end all for "legitimate" adware. This is irrespective of exactly how revenue is earned by the adware. I personally have problems with that and don't feel comfortable with consumers being given control over how and who gets paid. I think it's a slippery slope.

The other issue is that isn't the only such plugin by an affiliate being offered on Mozilla right now. I found several, most of them pretty recent additions. For me, outside of what really is being considered compliant by networks these days, is if monitoring for new software by the networks has become a bit slack as other concerns have taken precedent, such as 3rd party adware use. I know "technically" any affiliate using software is supposed to submit the software for evaluation before it's in use within the network. At least for CJ and LS. Again I'm just not sure with Performics. Of course, that doesn't the affiliate will. :) However, for me it does mean the Networks should have something in place to at least attempt to monitor for such. And maybe they do. But I did find 10 or so such plugins just being offered on FireFox itself. Because I know many merchants who see a download on an active affiliate's site assume that process has happened and the software is "compliant".

Often times it's easier to deal with wayward behavior before there is significant revenue being generated than once there is. Just a reality.

It might be fun to reminisce, but maybe it's necessary to reassess, especially with the barriers for having your own plugin or whatever are much lower now.

"Commission Junction has taken probably the strongest and have kicked at least one large affiliate out of the network for automatically overwriting affiliate clicks (ShopAtHome Select)."

I don't really want to get into which has the best or worse compliance efforts, because of course I'd like to see all of them doing things differently along those lines. :) But I don't think that's the best case to use to make your point. SAHS was out of CJ for only a year. They were let back in last year in time for Q4. Lots of CJ merchants with them currently. I've seen no significant changes in how their software behaves regarding overwrites from prior to being temporarily booted and now. Only major difference is they have a toolbar as well as the desktop portion now. CJ's public comments regarding the termination is it had to do with distribution methods of the software. I never heard anything about it being about overwrites.

Scott · 2 years ago

>> What you outlined as far as behavior with the older mainstream (and known) loyalty/incent applications still holds true. But it’s not the behavior I’ve been seeing allowed with newer more recent applications.

I'm the first to admit that my knowledge on this stuff is getting stale. But I didn't want to let that stop me from starting a conversation about it. Thanks much for commenting.

>> It might be fun to reminisce, but maybe it’s necessary to reassess, especially with the barriers for having your own plugin or whatever are much lower now.

That was sarchasm in the extreme. It's no fun at all. :)

>> But I don’t think that’s the best case to use to make your point.

Maybe not, and again maybe my memory is fuzzy.

In any case, you call it only a year, but a year is a lot of revenue. All while SAHS continued to operate in the other networks. It's always struck me that CJ continues to take the heat while the others mostly skate. Not that they don't deserve any heat, but they seem to take a disproportionate share, no?

Thanks again for the thorough comment, definitely improving on the information here.

Kellie · 2 years ago

"That was sarchasm in the extreme. It’s no fun at all."

Come on...you know you loved those late nights scouring over sniffer logs figuring out what in the heck IPInsight was doing and how. :D

"Not that they don’t deserve any heat, but they seem to take a disproportionate share, no?"

Have to agree they do get talked about more anyone else and on some things that are happening other places as well. I've always attributed some of that towards them being the largest. The biggest are always going to be talked about the most. But again, I think the issues are more global and not related to any one particular Network.

What I find frustrating is that I really do feel what you posted is much needed....after what something like 7 years?

Dan - DoubleClick Performics · 2 years ago

Scott,

Thanks for the write up on this one. Our Compliance team declined this publisher from our network after initially testing their software application, and declined them again when they tried opening up a second account days later. They then reapplied under a completely different name/contact information without disclosing their use of software (and were approved). They are now deactivated from our network and, to your point about not appearing "on the radar", they had only driven 152 clicks and generated one transaction in the past three months.

thanks,
Dan

Larry Adams · 2 years ago

Sheryl,

That is the account. The URL redirects because of a legacy business rule. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, it was decided that links for deactivated accounts should continue to pass traffic through to the merchant's site so as not to disrupt the consumer experience.

Because of situations like this one, we decided several months ago to reverse this decision. We're releasing a patch to our click servers in the next couple weeks that will prevent links owned by deactivated publishers (like the one from your comment) from redirecting; this is already the case for certain types of links, we're just making the change across the board now.

I do want to point out that _we_do_not_drop_a_cookie_ for deactivated publishers, so this publisher's toolbar cannot leech commissions from another affiliate regardless of whether their toolbar forces a click.

Larry Adams
Product Manager
DoubleClick Performics

Kellie · 2 years ago

Echo Scott...thanks Dan and Larry for posting. The status of implementation of the change on deactivated accounts is something I've been wondering about. Glad to see the change is close to being implemented. I've seen it in some instances, but glad to hear it's coming for across the board. There are certainly affiliates who will continue to run links once accounts have been terminated, sometimes for months, for whatever reasons.

Scott · 2 years ago

Yes, thanks to you too Larry. Good for you guys for speaking up.

Concerning these business rules on whether to click through or not on a deactivated publisher... I remember grappling with these same issues many years ago.

There's really no one-size-fits all solution here. I can see not wanting some deactivated publishers to be able to click through and instead show a deactivatd page. That's the case for, say, a site that has bad messaging on an offer. (like "free ringtones", or promoting "no credit ok!" when it isn't)

But in the case of a plugin that is adding their redirect in at the end, won't it look like the original publisher is the deactivated one?

Good publisher click -> deactivated publisher generated click -> network error page

The user doesn't know about the one in the middle. AND, even though you don't overwrite the cookie (nice) the user never gets where they were going in the first place.

Lesser of two evils?

Kellie · 2 years ago

There are definite pros and cons to both methods. And from the Networks perspective, it really is a decision that is often times grabbled with. There are so many different possible scenarios, all of which I'm sure Networks consider.

There are other situations which might support passing the traffic through. For example, when the originating traffic source is the Merchant's own PPCSE listings or direct type-ins. Undoubtably the merchant would like to still receive the traffic and not have the consumer end up on a splash page for the Network. The reasons for an account deactivation can be so varied.

OTOH, there are certainly advantages for it being obvious that an account showing up in questionable situations isn't an active account on a Network and tracking isn't happening.

While I've thought about the different pros and cons, I guess I haven't thought much about possible solutions. Maybe an intermediate page with whatever messaging the Network wants that then automatically redirects directly to the merchant?

Pat Grady · 2 years ago

Dan, other than afsrc=1, could you clarify for me how cashaddon's behavior is different than the behavior of UPromise or eBates or ShopAtHome/SAHS?

Larry Adams · 2 years ago

Scott,

We have taken a bit of a hard line on this one, here's why:

Most often when this kind of thing happens it is precisely because our client's ads/trademarks are appearing where they shouldn't (various types of apps usually). Most of these apps don't interrupt the normal flow of the consumer from affiliate site to merchant, they set their cookie in the background. This is true of CashAddOn, as well as most of the commonly cited spyware apps that pop a window over or (usually) under the main browser window. CashAddOn appears to be making the call to the server silently to the user based on my observation of the tool this morning.

As far as trying to create multiple types of deactivation, we also need to keep the business rules on our click servers extremely strict in order to minimize the time it takes to redirect a consumer to their final destination. I believe that faster redirects yield better conversion rates (I have anecdotal evidence from recent migrations to our network, although I don't think I'll ever prove conclusively). We use third party QOS tools to measure our click servers against those of other networks; we fare very favorably at the moment and I intend to keep it that way.

-larry

Online Coupons · 2 years ago

Hi Dan,
I have often wondered about those browser plug-ins. Many of the large coupon web sites are now using them. I sure hope CJ, LinkShare and Performics put a stop to it, because they can really hurt the little affiliates like me.

Matthew B. Howell · 2 years ago

Hello,

I am a user of the Cashaddon service, or was until recently, when I noticed that their service is temporarily disabled until 11/1. I was just reading your blog about what they have done to other affiliate marketing websites - while I don't quite understand all of the nuances of whether what Cashaddon is doing is, in fact, illegal what I do know is that I had obtained a bit of "cash back" from using the service and, as of now, I have no way of accessing that "cash back" until their service comes back up. I find it just a bit discouraging that the only way I found out about the disabling of their service was when I went to their website this morning - as of last night, their website was up and running. I hope they haven't taken my money and run off.

-Matthew