[ToddCrawford]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Todd, we can go into the scale of these issues further if you really like, but I am not sure that it is worth spending more time on this issue if all you will do is refuse to acknowledge this reality, poo poo the risks by throwing out unsubstantiated numbers as diversion, and bury your head in the sand. On my side, I think its time for me to get back to work now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I think these issues are more wishful thinking on LinkShare's part than actual issues affecting tracking.

How does it cost more to have your merchants do the tracking than using cookies and image pixels? We intergrate both ways and the costs are fairly comparable.

[Gordon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A couple that are probably deserving of more attention than they received also <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought so too Ms.B but I thought http://66.132.187.8/smilies/lipsrsealed.gif is the best bet at the moment. I am just hoping these guys can get around to a meaningful discussion and cut some of the smoke blowing out.

[Jeff_Converseon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With all due respect, you keep trying to point to the grand canyon (cookie tracking)and say its no different then a pot hole (LinkShare tracking).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have claimed several times that LS doesn't need cookies to track sales. Yet, when challenged, you have admitted that this is not true for return visits, and indeed is not even true for first visits where the LS merchant uses a session cookie instead of URL sessions.

You have not yet revealed what percentage of your merchants do indeed require cookies to be on in order to track the LS sale (in spite of direct accusations that it is the majority of your merchants -- not the "exception to the rule" that you claim), meanwhile continuing to bash any solution that uses cookies!

Again, I am not in any way discrediting the LS tracking solution; I have said more than once that I think it is excellent. But if you continue to base this argument on the flaws in cookie tracking, then you need to be more forthcoming about this specific issue.

MichaelColey has asked the most important question twice now. If one were to turn off cookies (your "cookie flaw #1" scenario), how many LS merchants would still track the sale? It seems to be a simple question, and yet is still unanswered.

[elbowcreek]

Just as a side note to all of this, two things. First thanks for the interesting thread, this has been/is an excellent discussion. Second, I think that a topic like this would also make a nice article for Revenue, where all of you would have time to frame your thoughts and have them spelled out properly. JMO.

[smesser]

Please see what the number one and number two most downloaded programs are at download.com and the over 90 million downloads for these two programs alone that impact third party (not IE again) tracking cookies:
Cookie Failure #2 more data (http://www.download.com/3101-2001-0-1.html?tag=dir)

Summary for those who click at a later date: As of August 24, 2004:

Rank Name of software number of downloads
1:Ad-aware SE Personal Edition 63,422,065

2: Spybot - Search & Destroy 30,079,542

Ad-aware had over 1,594,958 downloads this week.
Spybot had over 758,516 downloads this week.
That is over 2.3 million more users that are impacted.

Both have been at the top of the charts for months.

Ad-aware has been on the charts for 92 weeks,
spybot for 78 weeks with no sign of stopping.

That is only two of the players in this space. Calling this issue small, is I think a big understatement.

Steve
P.s. I really have to get back to work now.

[ecomcity]

You guys notice that I sure don't jump in while the information is flowing on this important subject....TRUST in tracking referral sales. The higher the TRUST factor the higher the quality and work of affiliates promoting the network...period! Tracking every sale 100% is not a priority of merchnats who devise every means of diversion under the sun to keep commission exposure to a minimum.

LOL ...at Todd shoe horning in an offer to host LS's finest for 90 days so he can smooze Overstock for a 5 minute cookie & pixel parsing job. Stephens answer was equally challenging. The more serious oversight in this thread was my BLATENT challenge to compare the already in place fully document performance of a common merchant to ValueClick/BF/CJ and Linkshare. DELL.COM. Cough it up folks. Forget the technical neuances and smoke and mirrors and just post the last 3 years summary of the standard conversion ratio for Dell.com (The BHO's have ridden this merchant to death on both networks)

For the network advertising mindset playing the pay-per-performance spin on us domain bound affiliates the conversion ratio is this simple stat: Average number of clicks to generate one reported network sale. Both Stephen and Todd have these clicks and # of sales totals at their immediate disposal for the last 3 years. Showtime! This puts the tracking technology rubber to the road.

Do this and you can continue to ignor my simple loaded question asking if BHO's get special tracking consideration and technology.

[MichaelColey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smesser:
With all of the cookie blocking going on out there, the inability to log on is one of the fastest growing areas we get questions and complaints. So, we are redesigning our own site to eliminate cookies because of this issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Talk about misdiagnosis. Try taking a look at your new login "security" (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=905107306) (2 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=877100396), 3 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=684103476), 4 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=951108156), 5 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=225104345), 6 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=605102336), 7 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=471105706), 8 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=263103785), 9 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=765107985), 10 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=766109335), 11 (http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=548608979&f=444603789&m=632100124), etc.). I bet if you remove that, the questions and complaints would drop back down to previous levels.

[MichaelColey]

Mike,

Regarding Dell.com, it's comparing apples to oranges. They are different divisions of the company, catering to entirely different audiences, and with different affiliates. A comparison would mean nothing.

[cardfrog]

After reading this entire thread (which was very interesting and enlightening) I have come to the following conclusions:

Steve's Cookie issue #1
Linkshare has the advantage that it does not rely solely on cookie based tracking on initial session transactions, in that case the tracking is session based via URL(if the merchant is compliant). Kowabunga and CJ can also implement this method at a merchants request, but it doesn't sound too common.

I don't think anybody really knows whether cookie issues effect 10% or .1% of transactions, but even it is .1%, Linkshares everyday system has the advantage. However, by steve's own admission, not all merchants are going this route. Alas, the advantage, however so slight, goes to Linkshare on Initial Session transactions.

Steve's Cookie issue #2
Ad-ware, Nortons, 3rd party cookies and return days.

We all know Linkshare uses Cookies for Return days, cookies seem to be the only way to do that without requiring a log in.

This is where I get unsure, but I will do my best to see if I understand. Steve asserts that Linkshare is superior in this arena as well since merchants set the cookies, thus making them a first party cookie and not susceptible to the ad-ware and nortons. Other affiliate networks set the cookie themselves, thus making them a 3rd party cookie and vulnerable to these programs.

A flaw in this would be that it seems like the merchants seem to have a lot of control over this. The entire reason for a network site is to keep the responsibility for tracking out of the hands of both the merchant and the affiliate.

Steve's Cookie issue #3
pixel errors
I think this is just fluff, so i am not really going to bother. Any of these technologies can have errors. Linkshare's tracking is so complicated, i would say that they were the most susceptible to this. Advantage, other networks.

Lastly, Steve. We all understand you are a busy man with a very large company to run. If you can not give us any more of your time, we understand. However, this is a very important issue to us, and I really feel like you are showing that Linkshare is a better solution. It would be very detrimental to just abandon this discussion. Therefore, please designate someone who can devote the time to help us understand all of these issues.

Thanks.....

[ecomcity]

Don't deflect the very decisive example Mr Cooley. Their is no decernable difference to any affiliate on the merits of promoting Dell via LS or BF. They equally suck as too AM's, lack of creatives, no product links, no high conversion landing pages, and remain the diversion King of all time on either network. Dell's affiliate administration policy to these AM's is exactly the same. They share a common domain and a common shopping cart! The only thing different in reporting sales is the networks tracking technology.

[smacie]

All other items equal, using cookies and image tags has its weaknesses. I don't think anyone really disputes that there are some weaknesses. The dispute is in how much of a weakness it is. The cookie method also has advantages which should also be factored in. These are:

A) Cheaper and faster merchant integration.
B) Better control and consistency over return day cookies.
C) Less chance of merchants playing loose and fast with crediting affiliates.

It is also worth pointing out that Todd mentioned above that they can work with merchants in a "cookie-less" fashion as well if they prefer it. Imagine that... giving merchants a choice. There is a concept.

[cardfrog]

Why do you say "Better control and consistency over return day cookies."?

From what I know (i could be wrong), Linkshare requests that merchants set a cookie that doesn't expire, simply allow the transaction to be tracked and then the network will determine whether or not to commission the sale. I would consider this an advantage.

What do you mean by "C) Less chance of merchants playing loose and fast with crediting affiliates."

Thanks...

[ecomcity]

As Todd and Stephen both know the biggest weakness to CJ simple cookie + parsing script tag solution is the parsing tag can be turned off & on by the merchant inside one minutes work. An LS merchant would have to jump through IT hoops to turn off that tracking solution. Much easier for LS merchant to eliminate the return day cookie setting and advertise 45 days ...but only give credit on single session sales. CJ gives this option to merchants too by allowing them to hide they can opt to only pay commissions one time per unique customer via a checkbox.

[ToddCrawford]

Mike,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As Todd and Stephen both know the biggest weakness to CJ simple cookie + parsing script tag solution is the parsing tag can be turned off & on by the merchant inside one minutes work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is just as easy to remove a percentage of transactions tracked from a file prior to transmitting it as it is to mess with the pixel integration. If an advertiser wants to mess with their affiliate program by not tracking or transmitting correctly, it can be done with any solution.

An in-house program is by far the easiest way to cheat since there is no third party involved in the tracking/reporting.

[ecomcity]

Your correct Todd the networks are at the mercy of the merchant's honesty or lack there of.... I find over the years Batch reporters on all networks flag and filter out larger trasactions. Ran some test purchases on some dead pool merchants to prove this and shoved the receipts up the network's butts for inaction. Seems sales over 300.00 got whacked on the same day with two seperate client credit cards.

I did my all to prove to all here that both LS and BF can track if the affiliate manager and the network IT guys work together and the AM wears a sales managers cap. That was a courtesy from WebMaster Mike for dragging you guys into breaking the silence over the TRUST issues raised by the .com bombs. I know you loved the upper hand in those forum battles. I've never complained about CJ tracking...just their shady merchants and sleezebag BHO partnerships.

Now go dig up those DELL figures and challenge Stephen to the tracking trust test, based upon the real carrot to tracking technologies ... conversion ratios.

You guys know I have a foolproof 100% tracking solution impossible for a merchant to cheat on. Impossible or illegal for Norton, or any other anti-anything, to interfer with too. It's just too expensive for you guys as it's a fee payable to me and Charlie. http://66.132.187.8/smilies/rotflol.gif

[smacie]

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

What do you mean by "C) Less chance of merchants playing loose and fast with crediting affiliates."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, common sense dictates that the more control a merchant has over the sales data, the more they have the ability to fudge numbers. I am not saying that they will I am just saying that the cookie/image system gives merchants less chance to fudge.

Either way, as mentioned before, if a merchant wants to screw you they can, but it is just easier for them to do so with a batch system.

[MichaelColey]

It's just as easy to cheat either system for a merchant determined to do so. Fortunately, most merchants at the major networks are honest. That's a whole different subject, though. Let's keep this thread on topic.

[Affiliate Ian]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MichaelColey:
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? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Was this covered? Can't seem to find a reply to it. Very insightful question Michael.

[MichaelColey]

This is the only coverage it received:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smesser:
I have not forgotten your challenge, I just want to stay focused on the logic tree discussion and then, once we are complete circle back to all the secondary questions. It is always so confusing for me (and probably others) to follow six threads at the same time. I just want to keep this simple at this time if possible. I hope you understand my hope. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Translation: Stephen only wants to look at the negatives for other technologies and wants to defer any questions about negatives that affect the technology Linkshare uses.

Based on Todd's tests that showed that 71% of shopping carts didn't work without cookies for the Linkshare merchants he tested, this couldn't even be tested with most merchants.

I think I'm going to go ahead and do a test on my own. I'll let everyone know what I find.

[Affiliate Ian]

Thanks Michael http://abw.infopop.cc/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[MichaelColey]

Well, I tried to do a test order, but none of my Linkshare merchants I was willing to place a test order through had shopping carts that worked without cookies.

[Affiliate Ian]

Now isn't that interesting. Thanks for the follow-up Michael.

For what it's worth, I turned off 1st & 3rd party cookies and even disallowed session cookies and was still able to log in to my bank. Guess there isn't a need for this to work for my financial institution.

[LinkShare Moderator]

All -

Just wanted to let you know that Steve is out of the office today. Meanwhile, we realize that many of you want to see a true test performed, which would have to address each of the 3 issues described by Steve, not just one, as the risks are cumulative. Although the last flaw (pixel failure) would be difficult to test, we can certainly test the other two. We'll suggest an appropriate test when Steve returns.

Sarah

[ecomcity]

What's wrong with the 3 year live stat head to head test using Dell.com? Every real world factor is in play that could possibly scew the results equally between both the networks.

[abestwebas]

Yeah! Show some stats!