[SSanf]

Todd, the proof to me is all the anecdotal evidence from all the posters who have reported CJ tracking problems over a time frame of many years. It adds up. You may say anecdotal evidence is not the same as proof. But, when you find missing cookies and a child with cookie crumbs on their face it isn't proof, either, but you know where the cookies went just the same. LS has very few complaints of nontracking.

To me, that does say one system is better than the other.

As I said, to me, LS has other problems which is why if I need one or the other, I will use CJ as long as you continue to aggressively address problems as you have just started doing. I'm not there yet, but I am thinking about it which I had almost given up hope of ever doing.

[smesser]

Todd,

While I would disagree with your conclusion, I respect your decision to end this discussion. I think we can both agree that we disagree about the risks surrounding the use of cookies to track CPA deals and it will be up to the affiliates to decide the risks out for themselves.

If my earlier postings were rude (which was unintentional), or if you felt I was rude for posting in your message board (which I felt you had invited me to do, but can also see why you might not have believed that) then I apologize for that posting behavior. Hopefully now, at least you realize that what LinkShare says is not propaganda. ;-)

Best regards and have a great weekend everyone,
Stephen
(p.s. I am off for an early/long weekend so I hope everyone enjoys what little is left of this great summer)

[ToddCrawford]

Ssanf,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Todd, the proof to me is all the anecdotal evidence from all the posters who have reported CJ tracking problems over a time frame of many years. It adds up. You may say anecdotal evidence is not the same as proof. But, when you find missing cookies and a child with cookie crumbs on their face it isn't proof, either but you know where the cookies went just the same. LS has very few complaints of nontracking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be like saying that CJ is 3X bigger than LS becasue we have had 30% - 40% more posts/activity in our forum.

We have investigated most complaints and either determined that there wasn't actually a problem, it was an issue with the user or was specific to an advertiser and not the network.

A large number of complaints are from affiliates with very few clicks and sales which makes their findings difficult to validate. Most of you here have also agreed that unless you have enough clicks and sales, you cannot determine that you have a tracking or reporting problem.

[Radegast]

I didn't see any intention to close the discussion on Todd's part.

What the heck happy weekend everyone.

[MichaelColey]

I must have missed something here...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smesser:
(To Todd) I respect your decision to end this discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did he?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smesser:
Hopefully now, at least you realize that what LinkShare says is not propaganda. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That certainly hasn't been denstrated. While calling it propaganda might be a bit harsh, it still appears to be hype to me.

[smesser]

Ragegast,

I took the line:

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

in conjunction with not answering the first post I made as meaning there was no more point in discussing the issue further (as far as Todd was concerned) and thus calling the discussion over. I also saw it as my chance to get out of here early and enjoy one of the last great weekends of the summer. http://abw.infopop.cc/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif We can always pick this up next week if Todd wants to continue the discussion.

Best regards,
Stephen

[SSanf]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That would be like saying that CJ is 3X bigger than LS becasue we have had 30% - 40% more posts/activity in our forum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be more likely to be 30% - 40% more people are upset with CJ and hence feel a need to post in your forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We have investigated most complaints and either determined that there wasn't actually a problem, it was an issue with the user or was specific to an advertiser and not the network. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the advertisers (and affiliates) ARE the network. It is much more than the software that runs it. You are the "trusted third party" and you must be able to assure that advertisers cannot cheat. Otherwise, what good IS your network?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A large number of complaints are from affiliates with very few clicks and sales which makes their findings difficult to validate. Most of you here have also agreed that unless you have enough clicks and sales, you cannot determine that you have a tracking or reporting problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They can sure find out by buying thru their own links from someone else's computer after clearing all the cookies on that machine. The largest number of complaints have been from people who can personally verify a sale took place. I have read that over and over again. Those reports really make me question your tracking methods. If it happens to affiliates, and you know they are being careful when they buy, how many unknown sales are not reported?

The thing is, right now I think you are stuck with what you have. I encourage CJ to investigate other options of tracking sales.

[ToddCrawford]

OK, let's take a break.

Have a great weekend.

BTW, the Summer never ends over here in Santa Barbara. It's 70 and sunny year round. http://abw.infopop.cc/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[ToddCrawford]

Ssanf,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That would be more likely to be 30% - 40% more people are upset with CJ and hence feel a need to post in your forum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did you remember to subtract your posts from these totals? http://abw.infopop.cc/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[SSanf]

LOL!!! http://66.132.187.8/smilies/rotflol.gif

You have a good weekend, too.

[Kcedit]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MichaelColey:
While calling it propaganda might be a bit harsh, it still appears to be hype to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true! It's big hype when LS says they do not use any cookies, rather their advertisers do. Advertisers set cookies so that LS system can track and credit sales. That means LS system uses cookies.

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

Not exactly true! If the cookie is turned off, there will not be any cookie, not from CJ, not from LS, not from any advertiser. Without cookie, return day is zero.

[Rhea]

Now that everyone's taken a deep breath, I'd like to say that I find this thread very confusing. I thought the original goal of the thread was to allow Stephen an opportunity to explain how LS tracks sales, where we affiliates would have an opportunity to ask him questions. I didn't think it was going to turn into a debate between Stephen and Todd. I'm very disappointed.

I'd like to suggest that there be three threads. One in which we can have a dialogue with Stephen about LS's methods, one in which we can have a dialogue with Todd about CJ's methods, and one in which they can debate the merits of their respective tracking systems.

This thread is just a little too chaotic, IMHO.

[smesser]

"BTW, the Summer never ends over here in Santa Barbara. It's 70 and sunny year round"

I know that fact all too well. In fact, that is why I take cheap shots at Santa Barbara every chance I get; it helps to comfort me against the cold of a New York winter. Have a great weekend everyone. Now I really need to get out of here or I am going to get killed in traffic.

Best regards,
Stephen

[smesser]

KCEdit,

You are focusing on return day tracking and not the majority of tracking, which is not what we where talking about. We DO NOT us a cookie for original sales at all (including a merchant set cookie). If you read the post on the CJ thread that started all this you can get a better explanation on what we do that is different from cookie based technology. It is much different, and I am sure will clarify the issue for you and Michael. Now I have to get out of here or I am going to be in big trouble on the highway.

Steve

[Kcedit]

For those who have not read Linkshare's patent, here is the link:

[Link removed as it was invalid, for those who want to read it look up patent # 5,991,740]


In this patent, LS talks about cookie. Here is the quote:

"10. The system of claim 1 wherein a cookie and/or means for storing information on said USER'S computer corresponding to the USER'S interaction with the Merchant's site is placed on a USER'S computer if a purchase is not made during a visit to said Merchant's site."

That sure says LS uses cookie. Doesn't it?

http://66.132.187.8/smilies/bonk.gif That damn link does not work so well in this board. Copy-paste in your browser if you want to read that.

[smesser]

KCEdit,

That refers to the return day feature, all of which is clearly discussed in the posting on the CJ thred that started all this. If you take a moment to read that post it will clear up your confusion.

Best regards,
Stephen

[SSanf]

OK, now I am totally confused.

Would someone here, please, explain to me exactly how the LS tracking works, what cookies are set on both the merchant site and the customer site and what they each do.

Please, use real little words for me.

Start with, "A customer clicks an affiliate link....."

[Kcedit]

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

That refers to the return day feature, all of which is clearly discussed in the posting on the CJ thred that started all this. If you take a moment to read that post it will clear up your confusion.

Best regards,
Stephen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I know it is refering to "the return days". Tracking of "return days" is part of the network tracking technology. That's how I see it. Other than a very few impulse buys in specific seasons, most purchases do not occur in the same session. CJ provides data for time of the click and time of the order. I analyzed that data month after month. I have seen only low percent of trasactions occurs with 15-20 mins. I'd guess a session will not last more than 15 mins or so.

[smesser]

If you read the post I made in:
The original post that started this thread (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=548608979&f=106607689&m=251108166&p=4)

You will see that there are two different mechanisms for tracking sales

1: The initial session where 90+% of sales take place. This does not use a cookie in LinkShare to track versus all other cookie based solutions;
2: Return days which account for less then 10% of most affiliate revenue. This requires a cookie be set to track a customer who comes back. In the case of LinkShare, we choose a different way of handling this as well to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. What we do is have the merchant set a cookie. By not having LinkShare set a cookie we eliminate all the risks set by (anti-virus programs that delete ad type cookies, adware removal programs that also delete any advertiser’s cookies and more). This is different then the cookie based guys who use those types of cookies and thus are at risk to the above mechanisms.

So hopefully now you can see that the vast majority of our transactions 90+% do not rely on any cookie to do tracking and in the instance (return days) where it is needed we mitigate the risk by having a merchant set the cookie not LinkShare. Hopefully the difference between 100% reliance on a cookie for all tracking and our approach is clear.

KCEdit, our data and most of the analyst point to a different conclusion then what you see. ALso our reports give our users the same ability to see return day sales. Either way hopefully you can see the difference now.

Anyway my post does a better job then I just did of explaining it so please read on. Have a great weekend.

Best regards,
Stephen

[SSanf]

Ah! "What we do is have the merchant set a cookie." So, if cookies are turned off, I guess, the merchant can't do that but it gets around all the other problems you mentioned.

Somehow, my gut reaction is that 90% of the sales probably don't take place on the first visit. Maybe, that is something specific to the kinds om merchants LS attracts, or something.

[Jeff_Converseon]

I've just got done reading this entire thread, and thought it might be appropriate for KowaBunga! to jump in here. I'm the CTO, so I would hope that I have some understanding of how affiliate links are tracked. http://abw.infopop.cc/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm also familiar with LinkShare and BeFree's tracking methods.
No offense, but as a competitor of LinkShare's, I do find it a bit misleading to tell users that their tracking does not use cookies (though Steve has been forthcoming about that in this thread). It is true that on the first click, no cookie is needed to track the sale (though one is written by the merchant - a first party cookie). Instead, the affiliate id is passed to the merchant's site, who is then responsible for recording it into their ordering system/database. It's a bit more complicated than that, but the point is that on first click sales, the merchant is essentially responsible for storing that affiliate id, and cookies are not used. I do not know the exact percentage of orders that take place on return days, though I did see a LinkShare presentation during the last Affiliate Summit that used data from one merchant showing it was about 72%. I am sure it varies widely by merchant and depends entirely on what sort of product they sell. All subsequent visits to the merchant's site do, however, require that first party cookie to be detected for the affiliate to get credit.
At KowaBunga!, we actually do use a very basic third party cookie to do tracking for default users. Though IE 6 does restrict third party cookies, it is only from sites who do not have the proper privacy headers in place, and ours were in place while IE 6 was still in beta. We use this type of tracking by default because we believe it is very reliable (our research shows about 0.6% of users have cookies off), and, most importantly, it puts no extra burden or responsibility on the merchant to be responsible for the tracking. That being said, we also offer other ways to track affiliates, based on the merchant's needs/abilities:
1) A system similar to LinkShare's, in that the affiliate id is passed to the merchant and the merchant is responsible for passing it back (BeFree did this as well)
2) A system by which both a first and third party cookie are written, and responsibility is shared between us and the merchant
3) A system by which the affiliate's URL is used to determine the credit, and is then converted to a value that can be used in 1 or 2 above.
The point of all these various mechanisms, and where I think both Steve and Todd deserve some credit, is that there is no perfect way to track users. If there was, we would all do it. Cookies are always necessary to track return visits (unless the website requires a user to log in to purchase, in which case we have set up systems in the past to permanently assign an affiliate to a customer log in). All affiliate links and tracking can be defeated by users who don't want to be tracked.
To add one more point, the recent worries over Norton's ad blocking just shows that even with a "foolproof", patented tracking system, affiliate links can be blocked by a third party before there is even a chance to track them. KowaBunga! has a solution for this, and I'm assuming the networks are not too far behind. The key to all of these discussions is that affiliate providers will always work to find the best methods possible to track as our businesses rely on our tracking technology.

[MichaelColey]

Stephen,

So you're saying that if I set my browser to not accept cookies at all, if I click through on a Linkshare merchant link and place an order, it will track properly? I would be very surprised if that's the case.

If you claim that it is, would one of my Linkshare merchants PM or email me about doing a test order?

The ONLY merchant I know of that works totally without cookies is Amazon. They embed a session ID in all their links. Perhaps some Linkshare merchants do that as well, but I would be quite surprised. Most merchants rely on cookies for session tracking.

[Kcedit]

I think Jeff's post sums it up nicely.

I'll comment on the statistics about first session purchase once I gather more factual information.

[ecomcity]

Well I sure look forward to part 2 of this informative discussion and like Jeff said the networks do benefit when the tracking works as outlined. Thanks Jeff, at Kowabunga, for jumping in and showing how you've had to provide choices in tracking technologies as you cater to indies migrating from BF-CJ & LS. They want what their used to as AM's are not the most computer literate folks in this business.

MY LS summary so far: Stephen set up house as a DoubleClick banner/text link clone with a patent pending CPA sales reporting hook. Thus the advertising mindset from day one determined there was no need for any return day cookie tracking in the LS system. Even Amazon copied LS in the greed driven Bezos style of doing things. Guess they might pay LS licensing fees as LS did get their patent and both continued the session only sales reporting. All LS merchants were session only from jump street and Stephen knows it was pressure from yours truly to force him to recognize the value to all his affiliates to duck tape return days into LS sales tracking.

Summary of CJ so far: CJ to get a jump on affiliate recruitment (they were a distant 3rd) over the return day cookie issue pushed their merchants with cattle prods to adopt a minimum 15 return day cookies. Remember the fiasco when the default for new merchants was stuck a 0 days..LOL. CJ benefits from a very simple parsing script for those merchants who can access the HTML of their final checkout page. If they set the click tracking referral all works as planed as long as the merchant keep the parsing script in place. A point not brought up in CJ's favor is their parsing script can easily co-exist on multi-network merchants. BeFree's and Linkshare's referral tracking systems do not co-exist on certain merchants shopping carts...matter of fact they're self destructive to a point one or the other have to be turned off or nothing gets reported. The return day crediting via cookies is a patched in after thought as both LS and BF catered to session only merchants during the early Mass Eyeball era. Only the .com bomb bursts and complete erosion of network trust forced them into even discussing return day cookies in the open. (both forums where this cookie battle took place will not be mentioned here)

Hopefully my questions at the start of this exchange will surface later. In fairness to Todd I sure can't hold him accountable for any Befree tracking fiasco's. I was a early CJ merchant and every sale tracked from day one for 2 years straight with no hiccups. My thanks to Poon for his very insightful post as I was itching to say the exact same thing and quote the IBM study showing their average single sale took 5 return visits on tracking over 200,000 purchases. Poon pointed out the truth.

What really skews that 90% of sales on first session smoke and mirrors by both Todd and Stephen is this fact. In the early network years none of the networks due to carefully practiced diversion tactics pushed any return days on their sought after merchants. The pitch to merchants was you won't have to pay out a dime in commissions till after the first 90-180 days...if ever... with 100 minimums and quarterly payouts. CJ had consolidate monthly payouts so the hell with return day cookies. Affiliates were a dime a dozen and dumb as a bag of nails. When CJ listened and kicked the CPC spammer fronts posing as merchants to the curb along with their click cheat thieves, instituted EPC and return day cookie merchant pressure, was when LS and BF had to take any cookie integration action. My point is from 1998-early 2001 sales tracking by all was basically session only. So throw out stats on those years Todd & Stephen.

Second fact that still exists and is growing is what Poon pointed out. All those hundreds of millions of BHO theftware sales are reported as initial visit sales. Throw all those to the curb too. Now come the kickers. All affiliate spam e-mail sales, in the hundreds of millions are reported as first sale only as the originating domains are hidden. Most all coupon and incented sales in the hundreds of millions are generated from Google and other SE searches after the buyer see the "place discount code here" box and they to get posted as fresh cookied first session sales.

The only sales that don't skew this 90% figure come from sites like EcomCity which rely 100% on return day shoppers. I Hope this puts all this in perspective as even LS's Obdon finally conceded to all the above....bless his soul.

[ToddCrawford]

For the historical record, in the beginning CJ required every advertiser to use a 90 day referral period. Now we allow advertisers to set referral periods anywhere from 1 to 120 days (although we recommend at least 45 days). Our data shows that affiliates hit 99.999% of sales after 7 - 10 days so anything past that is very generous and appealing but probably doesn't generate any additional commissions.