[SSanf]

I think this topic should be moved to Midnight Cafe so it is not in anyone's "territory" and so members who do not use "new post" search will also see it.

A lot of people may never visit Linkshare's forum.

[smesser]

Todd,

Glad you choose to participate, I am not sure if you really want this out in the public but now that you have asked let me start the lesson.

Lets start at the beginning of a tracked transaction: The initial click and sale, is as everyone knows and can read in their own stats is where the vast majority of transactions take place (with unique merchants sometimes an exception). I have seen third party stats that show the number exceeds 90%, and our numbers suggest that it may even be higher.

So why don't we just start here and then continue to other scenarios. Lets not confuse everyone Todd by trying to take separate events and try to tie them together. In this, the most likely scenario, if you or any user where to shut off their cookies and click on a CJ (read any cookie based technology) and make a purchase. CJ would not track any of the sales. Read that as a loss factor of 100%. If that same user where to click on a LinkShare link with their cookies shut off, then every sale would be captured.

So lets take a basic math assumption:
1,000 shoppers
10% with cookies shut off
$100 avg sale
10% commission paid by merchant in example

Total sales through CJ link would be $100,000 and the commission earned should have been $10,000 but because 100 users had cookies shut off the affiliate was left $1,000 shall we say light in the wallet.

Under the exact same scenario using LinkShare technology, the affiliate would have earned the full $10,000 and not the $9,000 dollars.

Now imagine that over the last few years and over all these affiliates.

Todd, if this inaccurate so far. Please enlighten me and anyone else who knows technology on this portion of the tracking. Perhaps in Santa Barbara technology works differently then everywhere else. Once you have agreed, which technically unless you are misleading people here you have to do, I will continue to lay out all the other scenarios. I will continue even though this alone proves I am right and that the failure, in my opinion, costs non LinkShare affiliates a huge amount of money. I look forward to your response.

Steve

[smesser]

Todd,

I also noted that you have completely forgotten to invite posters who lurk in the CJ area to this discussion. I know you may not want this to become public, but I clearly posted that if you wanted to hash this out in our forum, you had to let your forum know about it. If you are having trouble and need more time to bend time to fit your universe, I would be happy to post a note on your board. I just tend not to enter someone else’s board unless invited to do so. I just think that is good netiquette.

Best regards,
Stephen

[ToddCrawford]

Two quick points before I run into a meeting.

90% of conversions do not occur within the session (on average). Yes, some advertisers do convert the majority of their sales within the session but there are still sales that occur after the session. With your example, LS would miss 10% of the sales if they only tracked during the session.

Second, if cookies are turned off the shopping cart will most likely not function correctly and the sale will not occur in the first place.

Lastly, this is like Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling. The Internet is "stateless" and the only reliable way of creating a state is through cookies. That is why browser cookies were invented in the first place.

[ToddCrawford]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I also noted that you have completely forgotten to invite posters who lurk in the CJ area to this discussion. I know you may not want this to become public, but I clearly posted that if you wanted to hash this out in our forum, you had to let your forum know about it. If you are having trouble and need more time to bend time to fit your universe, I would be happy to post a note on your board. I just tend not to enter someone else’s board unless invited to do so. I just think that is good netiquette. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure this thread is getting passed around (600 view already). I am making a point of giving out this thread. If it makes you feel better, I'll reference it so you can sleep better.

BTW, neither of us ever invited the other to post in our respective forums.

[smesser]

Ok let me get your answer clear, you are not denying my facts just claiming some new one that you think mitigate your losses?

Please be clear with a simple yes or no. Is my above statement correct?

Yes or no Todd, please try to stop making up additional facts and just answer the question.

Steve

[ToddCrawford]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you are having trouble and need more time to bend time to fit your universe... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you losing your mind? What kind of statement is that?

[MichaelColey]

Stephen,<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MichaelColey:
I've had many merchants that moved from Linkshare to BeFree and vice versa. I've never noted a significant difference in conversion ratios. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If other networks "lose" 10% of sales, why don't I see a change in conversion ratios when merchants switch back and forth from Linkshare to other providers? Either the 10% number is way exaggerated, or Linkshare loses an equivalent amount of sales in other ways.

Your condescending attitude ("let me start the lesson", "basic math", "Perhaps in Santa Barbara technology works differently than everywhere else", "bend time to fit your universe", etc.) certainly doesn't add anything to the argument. Have you ever noticed that when people don't have a solid argument, they have to resort to insults and character assassination?

[smesser]

Todd,

In a CJ forum regarding CJ’s inability to track sales you first said:

“Look on your own computer for a cookie called "linksynergy". LinkShare most definately uses cookies to track sales and leads. The only time they could not use a cookie is if the sales or lead occured during the initial session. So any advertiser that doesn't use cookies would only pay on commissions during the intital session. Very few do this because most affiliates do not want to join programs with session bases referral periods”

So clearly you are commenting on our technology which you clearly do not understand. (I left the misspellings so as not to modify your post in anyway).

You then followed it up by saying that what is fact was just propaganda.

“The cookie quote from LinkShare is just their propaganda. They are always stating this information as a reason to use them over other solutions. The truth is, they do use cookies to track and any advertiser that intends to run a good program will use cookies to track their return days.”

(This kind of reminds me of the Soviet Union denying missiles in Cuba as American propaganda)

Then you call me out by saying:
“Donut - I agree, you should ask Steve to more fully answer what he meant about cookies and whether they use them to track sales.”

That lead Donuts to post in the LinkShare boards asking for a response. I am not sure again what is going on in Santa Barbara but in the rest of the world your actions where a clear invite to defend myself against your false claims. Are you really trying to say that you did not call me out to answer your accusations?

Steve

[smesser]

Michael,

You are 100% right. I apologize about my attitude. No matter what might be said and no matter what accusations I have to deal with I should not have my tone turn into sarcasm or be condescending. You are right on this point and I will make it a point to change that.

Best regards and I apologize for that.

Steve

[ToddCrawford]

I admit it, I was wrong on one point. I wrongly thought LS used cookies to track return days. Instead, you rely on your advertisers to set cookies and track transactions.

I am not afraid of being wrong. And it doesn't change all of the other points/issues.

[ToddCrawford]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes or no Todd, please try to stop making up additional facts and just answer the question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What's the questions again? If everyone turns off cookies, would e-commerce come to a stop? How many Internet shoppers have cookies turned off? Of those who have cookies turned off, how many of them actually buy online?

The fact of the matter is there are many factors that can impact tracking, there is no single scenario and if you want to discuss tracking, you need to take all of it into consideration not just carve out one thing to make a point.

There are many tracking solutions out there and each has is pluses and minuses. In the end, they all appear to be tracking fine.

[happypoon]

If I may interject.

I seem to recall Todd on several occasions implying that most of the sales are on the initial click and even producing graphs at one point to back up his statements. I couldn't find the instance I was looking for but here is one such reference that says 90% of purchases "are" done on the initial click.

http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=106607689&m=1286008482&r=6336047682#6336047682

Now you're saying it doesn't work that way. Why am I confused or could it be... I'm not?

As an active internet shopper myself and even clicking on my own links, I can say I hardly ever buy on the initial click which is why I've never bought off of such high conversion with the initial click. I do check my cookies for validity before making a purchase though LOL.

I can't help but wonder if parasites are significanly impacting your thinking in regard to the click / purchase scenario. You can correct me if I'm wrong but for every parasite sale that is made, "it's recorded on the initial click" because a cookie is re-written every time the consumer visits a site. The parasite is not looking to say "look we already have a cookie and.... it has our id in it so no need to call and set a new cookie". It's much easier to just set the cookie via another call. Wouldn't this "assuming there is a huge amount of sales done by software affiliates" significantly skew your data regarding "sales really made on the initial click"?

With this in mind I'd like either or both of you to tell me why my assumption is wrong and the click thru data that either of you are presenting is a viable figure to consider.

[smesser]

Todd,

I was hoping for an honest discussion on these issues. As my message said, I was going to take each scenario and go through it one by one. My scenario is a pretty typical one and one of the most common. That was the most appropriate place to start. Before anyone tries to complicate the discussion it makes the most sense to go through the straight and clean scenarios (which also account for the majority of sales). I did that. I think my example was clear. It only required a right or wrong response. Then I was prepared to go through the next scenario. This would make it easy for readers to follow, and much more clear. For some reason, rather then answer directly you keep trying to confuse issues by mixing and matching facts to suit your response. If you want the truth to come out, as I do, I would urge you to answer the direct questions and trust that when we get to the next questions we can touch on your points, of which I am happy to address.

Best regards,
A kinder, gentler Steve

[Gordon]

[removed]

[smesser]

Happypoon,

Without going into too much detail, your scenario about BHO applications should not impact the statistic. Also, the statistic on how many buy on the initial visit has not really changed all that much since we started this business close to eight years ago.
Best regards,
Stephen

[Radegast]

I'll also risk a warning.
I respectfully submit that Todd and Steven would benefit from some soft skills training from their most junior customer service representatives.

[smesser]

Radegast,

I also regret the tone I took earlier and am going to make this discussion more civil. It is only fair out of respect for Todd and everyone else here reading these posts that we be direct and clear. If not, I agree that we all have better things to do with our time.

Best regards,
Stephen

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

All,

Let's please allow Stephen and Todd to explain their points before we start with asking any additional questions.

[happypoon]

Stephen, I respectfully disagree and ask you to provide solid reasoning and or facts why I'm wrong.

"should not impact" is not what I was looking for at all. Both of you are using this figure as an underlying basis for why "your tracking is better" "or no better" than your competitions.

If it helps, lets forget the BHO aspect and let me ask this way. If I click on a network link multiple times (even when a cookie previously existed) and make a purchase, is that sale considered to be recorded on the initial click thru? If yes, and frankly I don't possibly see how you could say no - my assumtion regarding the validy of the session / cookie sale coversion ratios would be negatively skewed.

[SSanf]

Well, as described so far, it seems LS has the advantage that a cookie will be set regardless of the cookie on or off situation on the buyers computer. It makes me a little uneasy that only the merchant really can assure that the cookies are properly set and accounted for. Non-the-less I am sure their are those merchants who can and will cheat and steal in both networks. So, neither network has an advantage there.

I would tend toward the LS solution if it weren't for the fact that LS has not kept faith on coming up with consolidated checks as promised so very long ago. So, how can you trust anything that LS says at all? If you lie or mislead me about one thing, can I trust anything you say?

And, I see CJ making some real good faith efforts on some major problems, currently. I am almost ready to start using them again which says a whole lot.

I really would like to see CJ look at other alternatives to the cookie tracking problem. I have read this board from the beginning and the CJ board before this. I am totally convinced that CJ tracking problems exist. So many affiliates over such a long period of time cannot be in error on this subject. Complaints about LS tracking are kind of rare.

Does the LS method protect against parasitic applications in any way?

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

I'll repeat ...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Haiko:
All,

Let's please allow Stephen and Todd to explain their points before we start with asking any additional questions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posts will be removed.

[ToddCrawford]

My argument is that no tracking solution is better than another (at least when comparing CJ to LS). This is what I have been trying to point out in these threads (in case it wasn't clear). I think it is wrong to make statements that call competitors' tracking into question when it is merely speculation or wishful thinking.

In other words, I think this discussion, while informative, does not (and will not) prove one tracking solution is better than the other.

[smesser]

Happypoon,

I am glad to discuss the issue you raised further, and I apologize for the brief response that I gave. I was simply trying to stay focused on the issue at hand before we start to go through additional scenarios. For me at least, it gets very confusing when all the various scenarios get mixed together into similar discussion. I hope you understand that.

Best regards,
Stephen

[Radegast]

Steven,

I apologise for being 'clever'.

Your last two posts are what I, for one, would like to see more of.

Straightforward and to the point.