[FatWallet]

I think some of you misunderstand my position.

We are operating in the REAL WORLD of affiliate marketing.

Our toolbar is in public beta and has received VERY LITTLE promotion. Until the post on this forum all the feedback I'd received from respected webmasters was positive - if not even congratulatory for taking an affiliate friendly approach.

In my ideal world, affiliates would NOT be allowed to incentivize purchases - Based on current merchant thoughts, that is not likely to change for the forseeable future en masse.

Also in my ideal world, affiliates would be limitied to non spam email, and website based marketing. Contextual applications such as our toolbar would not be allowed!

Contradictory? I don't think so - The fact remains that by our current set of rules, both incentives and client side applications are allowed.

What makes things worse is that the networks have little or no incentive to stop it - anything that puts more money in their pocket is good - they don't care which affiliate gets the money, as long as some affiliate does.

Back in the early days of Football, there were plays like the flying wedge that teams used to dominate the game - If you didn't use them, you were at best second place. When the powers that be realized that too many people were getting hurt and it was damaging the game, they changed the rules to not allow that type of activity.

We're all in the same game here, and we are all playing by the same rules. Some of us choose to take the advantages that are available, some of us choose to be much smaller players in the affiliate marketing game.

Speaking of Football -

"It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there - to compete. To know the rules and objectives when they get in the game. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win."

"The object is to win - to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don't think it is."

-Vince Lombardi

(and for the record, I despise the packers, but you have to respect a man with that much drive)

[mrmerchant]

Buckworks:
Wayne Porter's posts are never full of "buzzwords and bafflegab" - only logic. Perhaps his logic isn't appealing to some viewpoints. He interjects educated opinions when appropriate. Also, when he speaks of "customer retention" he's speaking from the merchant's perspective - one that seems to be lost in the discussion.

[kickaha]

Buck,

Your argument is very well phrased and rational. I appreciate that. Ditto Tim.

I understand Tim's view- He is getting squeezed by larger and larger sites with advanced technology- in order to remain competitive and keep users loyal he must answer. This is the Darwinian nature of business.

Conversely I can understand why Buck's doesn't want an application whether it is passive or aggressive in nature, being used when it hits her site.

This is a distinct business disadvantage, but is it stealing? What constitutes theft?

Clearly if the application (i.e. a BHO) *automatically* subverts links then it IS stealing. The consumer has made a choice and the BHO has usurped that choice. This is unethical at the least, and in my book- stealing. I really think automatically is the operative word here.


The consumer has installed this application knowingly and willingly- they want it on their machine. It is their browser and they actively made a choice. As long as users have to actively make a choice in installation and use I don't see stealing going on- provided the application does NOT cover up other's intellectual property. My browser is my domain and I can add in the Google toolbar, or any other tool bar I choose.

Buck what is your opinion on this as I have not seen it discussed and would like some feedback since this comes from Amazon, a brand leader in the space.

Is Alexa, owned by Amazon.com, a parasitic application? It prominently shows the Amazon.com logo and urges users to click through and buy on every page. Do you feel this is parasitic??? (Note- I dont know if that link overwrites affiliate cookies or not.)

Mr Merchant- Yes I am trying to look at the arguments from all sides. I am very pro-affiliate, but I am also pro-free enterprise. Users should be able to choose but there has to be a line for software applications to toe. In this case that line is no automatic interception.


regards,
Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[kickaha]

BuckWorks writes: "Tiger Direct's position has integrity. It will be interesting to see how many other merchants have similar backbone."

Yes it will be interesting. After many discussions with both sides I don't see a mass movement of merchants moving to kick out parasitic software.

Likewise I don't see very many affiliates dropping merchants on the issue. If affiliates want to take a hard liner stance then they will need to break relationships. These relationship breakers need to be volume influencers, otherwise I feel things will continue as they do now or until a legal determination is made.


best,
Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[FatWallet]

I wanted to make one quick point perfectly clear -

We have the ability and willingness to opt a merchant out of the toolbar participation, all it takes is a request to us AND that other affiliates are also precluded from using similar technology.

Play ball!

[ecomcity]

Did I wait long enough to have everyone respond to my "no thought" post? I saw the Fatwallet site a long time ago when several of my e-commerce clients asked me if they should jump in and ride the "incent" toolbar craze as advertisers. If I remember correctly they were enticed by the usual "advertise at the point of sale" on your competitors site pitch. The same one used by Gator and the Duperaffiliates interlopers. I advised them to not join your merchant group or accept Fatwallet as an affiliate...they listened.

I'm not surprized by TigerDirect's AM cutting off incenting their normal affiliates traffic. They will survive and florish as the Gorilla marketers find fewer merchant's will sacrific their brands to unehtical ..if not illegal..cherry picking tactics.

Wayne sells affiliate management statistics software to the Dupers. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. I speak for the unautomated masses of affiliates who manage like me to buck the trends and target my product and merchant displays to give immediate gratification to my shoppers. They will not get a better deal on that item regardless of the interlopers popup offers. That's why,regardless of slow page loads, 18% of my traffic comes from bookmarks.

It's stupid for Fatwallet to popup a Dell, Pcmall or PcConnections rebate on my visitor to TigerDirects specials. It's a waist of time for Fatwallet to cherry pick Overstock closeouts and redirect their users to an overpriced lesser quality merchant for similar items. Give them a Free freight popup when all items clearly displayed already have FREE freight til the 30th. Fatwallet wants my commision plain n' simple. I'll choose my links and merchants to make sure Fatwallet users get no value for their download. I'm sure they'll try to leave me with a thin wallet while they figure out how to fatten theirs.

Meanwhile I'll showcase TigerDirect so their users are befuddled and waste time trying to see where the value is in having this app on their desktop along with POPs from Morpheus -LimeWire and others.If I can net 500.00 a month from just TigerDirect on my low traffic site then multiply that by 20,000 others TD affiliates and you can see Andy's decision was a no brainer.

Therefore I stand by my original off the cuff post!! If nothing else Wayne I'm consistant after all these years.

WebMaster Mike

[BareNecessities]

Bare Necessities has opted out of the FatWallet toolbar.

Thanks Tim, for the quick response to our request.

Michael
973-621-6211 x 5040
michael(at)barenecessities.com

[kickaha]

Mike,

LOL. Yes Mike- you are consistent with your views, I will never fault you that. If affiliates feel strongly about parasiteware they should do as you do- do not engage those relationships and vice versa. People must take personable responsability for the the partnerships they entertain.

On the note of we only serve large clients- We serve an array of clients from small niche publishers to large companies. We specifically tried to make our tool open to all size publishers and provide affordable pricing ala revtrends.

best,
Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[canfree]

Buckworks...I am 100% behind your statement.

passive or aggressive it's still wrong.


There is no easy solution, to this all. This is the hard part of fixing the problem.


Wayne. ( My rambling)

Affiliates are mad, they may not be dropped, but they won't be highly promoted either. But here's the problem with parasites. Lets say for instance they only "steal" or "sway" customers their direction of 1% of all affiliates earnings or potential earning. Let's say these 5000 affiliates combined make $100, 000 per month. That's $10, 000 of comissions spread apon 5000 people, Equally only $2 per month is lost in "comission" some more some less. Now times this by 10 (parasites) and that's $100, 000 per month, divided by 5000 and that's $200 per month if done equal. With it being spread out world wide of lost comissions, some to most aren't going to see drastic difference unless they expliciately only promote a few of the merchants, unlike most people promote several on the list. So people may only see a small conversion difference, some large, but majority small to medium differences. So here's some stats to chew on. Overstock was in the top 25 of 300 merchants in the month of August. Dropped to number 40 in September. Yes noticable but comission wise it wasn't a lot, $30 dollars. (I don't overly promote them...was working on it, but then changed my mind to see what they are going to do about their stance on parasites.
I'm not going to drop them, they still convert 1 in 100 for me, versus 1-79.



The answer my friends in Education. Educate users, educate merchants, and yes educate the CEO's. I am on a mission and will be hopefully helping contribute to educating merchants in general.


Sorry this post is long and am jumping subjects here. But I did contact a merchant by phone today. Mitchner Bulbs (Cj) and asked her how many people contacted her.

Guess How many? 1, 10 , 100 people?



Just me. Now that's sad, everyone here is complaining etc, some are doing work, some are thinking, everyone else is doing stuff, they don't need me, some people only emailed merchants they deal with, others simply lurkers. Simple case of "We're not working together" syndrome.

"Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open." Thomas Dewar

[buckworks]

"The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win."

Okay, so who sets the rules? Do you base your business decisions on fundamental principles, or just on whatever others are getting away with this week?

An extreme example to illustrate the point: Hitler was the biggest bully on his block for a while, and lots of people played along with him, but he was fundamentally wrong in what he was doing, and so was everyone who collaborated with him. Might does not make right.

I keep coming back to one of the most ancient rules of all: "Thou Shalt Not Steal."

Tim, if you are willing to truly play by that rule -- in other words NOT to intercept customers (not even very, very politely!) that other people send to merchants -- then I applaud every success you achieve. I DO give you credit for good intentions and taking some steps to play more fairly than some of what we've seen lately. But if you want to be seen as playing truly fair, you will refrain -- totally and absolutely -- from riding on the backs of other people's promotions in any way.

Wayne said: "I understand Tim's view- He is getting squeezed by larger and larger sites with advanced technology- in order to remain competitive and keep users loyal he must answer."

From an ethical perspective this is fallacious logic. Person A might be doing something harmful to Person B, but that in no way makes it right for Person B to harm person C. It simply doesn't follow.

"Is Alexa, owned by Amazon.com, a parasitic application? It prominently shows the Amazon.com logo and urges users to click through and buy on every page. Do you feel this is parasitic??? (Note- I dont know if that link overwrites affiliate cookies or not.)"

I'm on a Macintosh, so am not very familiar with Alexa. But here's some philosophizing. If they simply show (some store's) logo all over the place that would be annoying but not immoral. If they spied on the surfer and saw they were visiting a merchant who sells blue widgets, then somehow intruded to say, Hey, you can buy blue widgets at our store ... I would call that playing dirty, but not actually dishonest. If (some store) shows its logos via Alexa to a surfer who is already on the (some store) site, via someone's affiliate link, then they would be dishonest if they did anything -- ANYTHING -- to interfere with the commission that would otherwise go to the referring affiliate if a sale was completed.

I would call it theft if they watched to see when the surfer was at a merchant selling blue widgets, and then somehow intruded to intercept the commission when the customer purchases the same blue widgets that they *would have bought anyway from the same merchant* (because of someone else's promotions, not Alexa's or whoever).

The victim of the theft is whoever did the promotion that sent the shopper to the store for that visit.

---------

Parasites try to justify their actions by arguing that the user "chose" to use their software. The degree of choice is debatable in many cases, but be that as it may, the relationship between the user and the parasitic application is a secondary issue here. The question of how the software got on to the user's machine is unquestionably an ugly piece of the puzzle sometimes, but it is a digression from the essential problem.

What is the essential problem? Merchant -- and network -- integrity. If a merchant has an affiliate program, but tolerates parasitic link placement in any form, the merchant (and the network, if one is involved) are breaking faith with all their other affiliates. A merchant can have an affiliate program, OR can allow parasitic link placement, but they cannot with integrity do both.

The one exception to that statement would be if the merchant was honest enough to say clearly to its entire affiliate sales force: "You can promote us, and we'll pay you commissions once in a while, but we will also allow an unknown portion of your customers to be skimmed off by others, so someone else can pocket the commission you would otherwise have received."

Now THAT would be truth in advertising!

[buckworks]

mrmerchant said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Also, when he speaks of "customer retention" he's speaking from the merchant's perspective - one that seems to be lost in the discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, we're talking about a customer who is on the merchant's site anyway. What does intrusion by a parasite have to with customer retention???????

[FatWallet]

A few of you still don't understand our position here....

We ARE playing by the merchants own rules.

We DON'T want this type of activity to be allowed by ANY merchant, or even allow consumer incentives to be paid by a site.

The REALITY is that it is the current rules SET by the merchants allow this activity to continue.

We're not the enemy here - you aren't realizing that. This is a case where we are using all tools available to us within the guidelines of the programs.

I'd be all too happy to turn off the toolbar and throw away the development time and money. BUT it has to be across ALL of a merchants affiliates.

Mike - you continue to prove your ignorance once again. As I stated before, our toolbar is in public beta - A total implementation of about 89 daily users. Looking at our daily traffic, we can see that is only .002% of our daily unique users using this tool. We don't play the search engine optimization / keyword buying game - I don't see the long term strategy in it in the current environment. Our traffic is very loyal and many visit multiple times a day. Our users tell their friends, and that is how we continue to grow. According to Alexa, we are currently ranked in the top 5,000 most trafficed sites in the world. OK, I'll save you your next argument - The cash back mall accounts for approximately 15% of our total affiliate sales. Again, the reality is that when we added the cash back mall, our total sales went up, as did our net commissions. We started to recover and keep some of our own customers loyal to our site rather than jumping to a separate reward site. Do the math - would you rather have 20% of 15% or 100% of 0%? (If you need help with the math, just let me know)

Mike, if 89 users is a toolbar craze - you are much more crazed than I am.

[kickaha]

Bucks,


Bucks said "From an ethical perspective this is fallacious logic. Person A might be doing something harmful to Person B, but that in no way makes it right for Person B to harm person C. It simply doesn't follow.:

I do not feel my argument is couched in fallacy. Obviously our set of ethics are not congruent on this issue. So from YOUR ethical perspective the argument is fallacious. From my perspective your counter reasoning is also flawed. This is because we do not agree on one point in the deployment of shopping bar technology.

In my opinion *passive* toolbars are not unethical, they are a savvy technological extension that seeks to leverage the loyalty of a consumer.

I feel that aggressive toolbars are unethical, because they usurp the user's control of the buying process and do not let them make a decision. Of course, one could argue that a user can install what they wish in the privacy of their own home, but I feel we have to draw the line somewhere.

Good discussions and thanks for a very reasonable retort.


best,
Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[kickaha]

CanFree,

I can understand that. I still feel that affiliates need to take responsability for their actions and partners, merchants need to do the same thing!

If you feel an activity is unethical, do not participate or support that activity. But from the people I talk to there seems to be a very vocal few that are bringing pressure to bear on merchant partners. And there are only a few merchant partners bringing pressure to bear on makers of shopping bars. Granted the networks are sorting things out with them and some have taken proactive stances with their contracts. i.e Read Linkshare's affiliate contract.

I do feel networks will be taking hard-liner stances in the near future and I DO understand affiliates being angry about it. But we need to have an operating understanding of what IS and what is NOT unethical. People have many, many different views.

I am not so arrogant as to think my morality is right for everyone nor do I try to shove it down people's throats and say "You must follow what I think is the ethical standard because I know what is best."

It needs to be discussed intelligently and common ground needs to be found between all parties. Once the collective has this common ground action, not words, needs to be taken.

best,
Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[buckworks]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We ARE playing by the merchants own rules.
We DON'T want this type of activity to be allowed by ANY merchant, or even allow consumer incentives to be paid by a site.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be insane in some ways, but I don't see an ethical problem with offering rebates to YOUR shoppers, out of commissions that YOU earned from YOUR promotions.

Just refrain from using them as bait in customer poaching tactics and you'll be fine.

I would point out that "playing by the merchant's own rules" is not a sufficient base for ethical decision making if those rules are flawed or have major gaps.

Wayne, I think one place where we differ is on what constitutes a passive toolbar. In my book, a toolbar that does ANYTHING to draw attention to itself when a shopper is on my site or has clicked through to my merchant ("a button will come up") is not passive.

[kickaha]

Bucks,

You nailed it. I think our only real disagreement is on what constitutes passive and aggressive. I am sure there are some parrallels we could find in major world religions.

best,

Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[ecomcity]

Wow this is a studious display of opposing viewpoints. Well done from both sides and a benefit to all lurking ABW for trends -Do's & Don'ts. I know some users of Waynes software that leverage the figures to their advantage over plain network stats. I can see where fatWallet staff would need your programs expertise in predicting their revenues.

My clients when contacted about FatWallets opportunity for expanding their affiliate sales were excited by the soon to be implemented shopping tool bar and exposure opportunities on competitor or complimentry sites. They were not aware of what you said.."Mike, if 89 users is a toolbar craze - you are much more crazed than I am." They already had been approached by many other Dupers and even a Gator Campaign offering. I told them they'd be better off running keyword campaigns on Overture and Findwhat without resorting to offending their normal affiliates.

Wayne's software would easily chart out the effects of Morpheus's slipping into the "darkside" of diverting affiliate sales. I'll certainly honor his position that such information is private and will never be shared by his company ..before he clarifies this issue. It still sent out some Red Light alerts as commissions got shuffled into some third parties pockets on normal merchant clickstreams. I'm sure the impact was higher for some of his small site clients than others.

Even without Afftrack I was able to get alarmed on all my performing merchants when their conversion ratio jumped from 1/50 to 1/390 and did not come back to normal til Morpheus cured itself. Now I still don't really know how those same merchants convert my sites targeted traffic due to the other interlopers like LimeWire -Kazaa -eBates and Gator screwing with my traffic in route to a merchant's cash register..

WebMaster Mike

[mrmerchant]

Bucks...
I quote Mr. Porter, "For merchants the underlying issue here is loyalty and whether affiliate channels are built around customer acquisition or customer retention."

... and would appreciate if you could refrain from making vague statements when debating in this forum. The phrase "intrusion of a parasite" is rather vague and inflamatory and has nothing to do with e-commerce.

Customer acquisition vs. retention is a core issue here from the merchant side. Wayne is looking (as usual) to spark discussion on the issue (of so called "parasites") and around the issue. This is an issue that factors in. How merchants are spending their money and budgeting to pay affiliates is critical and equally important. All of this talk about parasites goes away if a merchant says, "well... I'm not doing this affiliate thing any longer" or "I'm not working with rebate sites any more" (a la Amazon). If they pull the plug and shift spending toward CPC outlets, Google, Overture, etc... that has impact.

Please understand that virtually all merchants entered into affiliate marketing to acquire new customers - period. Today, this is no longer that important to them - as reported by many articles in the trades and discussion forums. What IS (more) important is doing more with the customers they have. How does this apply? When a merchant works with eBates or uPromise... or FatWallet... the bottom line is that their customer is buying *continually* through an affiliate - they have loyalty to that affiliate... for whatever reason. This loyalty can be bothersome to a major brand - they're loyalty hogs. Also, many direct marketers or retailers don't want to "continually pay for a customer" by having them shop thru an affiliate. What they fail to realize is that performance marketing is NOT purely a customer acquisition tool and using it as such is foolish. It is also a customer retention tool - so $'s spent are spent on retaining a customer. There is ALWAYS cost on retaining customers... and they know this as well as anyone. Stores need to advertise to existing customers - send them direct mail. Catalogs need to continually print catalogs to solicit more shopping - all at a cost. Just the same, they need to spend money with the FatWallets of the world (and eBates, uPromise, etc.) to retain their customers. They need to run promotions to retain their customers - have sales, etc. etc.

Wayne's point is that this plays into all of this debate. That's all.

[FatWallet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EcomCity.com:
My clients when contacted about FatWallets opportunity for expanding their affiliate sales were excited by the soon to be implemented shopping tool bar and exposure opportunities on competitor or complimentry sites. They were not aware of what you said.."Mike, if 89 users is a toolbar craze - you are much more crazed than I am." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh Mike - I understood what you said in the rest of your message and amazingly it didn't baffle me near as much as your comments usually do. This one paragraph needs a bit of clarification.

I had mentioned the toolbar in passing when discussing with some merchants, I certainly didn't discuss the possibility of advertising on competing websites.

Who are these companies that consult with the great webmaster mike when planning their corporate direction?

Yes, we are an AffTrack Enterprise client and we do use afftrack to aggregate our data - We are currently active with over 300 merchants. Afftrack saves us money because of the time we save by not having to do the extra work ourselves.

[buckworks]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I quote Mr. Porter, "For merchants the underlying issue here is loyalty and whether affiliate channels are built around customer acquisition or customer retention."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Side note: That's the kind of prose I was talking about when I was shuddering earlier about buzzwords that fog the issues.

For affiliates, the underlying issue is that merchants (and the networks) are lying to us if they allow someone else to intercept commissions on sales where WE were the ones who sent the shoppers to the merchants. (The word "lying" is used as a dictionary-accurate description of what's happening, by the way; it is not my intent to inflame anything more than the truth warrants.)

You bring up customer acquisition costs ... okay, let's talk about that ... mrmerchant, do you understand how parasitic placement of affiliate links inflates customer acquisition costs??? If you did, you as a merchant would be howling in protest right alongside us affiliates.

Here's what happens: once installed on someone's computer (by fair means or foul), parasitic programs watch where the user goes, and wait for him/her to visit sites that link to certain merchants, contain certain words or phrases, or some such trigger. They then present their own message to the user, keyed to someone else's content (which is what makes them parasitic). The goal of that message is to induce the visitor to click the parasite's affiliate link. In some cases this results in a commission being intercepted that was rightfully due to another affiliate. In other cases, it is the merchant himself who is robbed.

Mrmerchant, if a shopper visits you because they found you in a search engine, clicked a banner you paid for, typed in your name directly because you paid for an ad in a magazine, etc. etc., the parasite will step in with its message and induce the shopper to click their affiliate link. In those cases it was YOUR promotions that earned the visitor, and every cent of profit from a resulting sale should stay in YOUR pocket. But it doesn't - the parasite has connived to claim the commission for yet another sale that they did not generate.

This situation is not an ethical problem for the merchant, it is a stupidity (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=stupidity) problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> ... and would appreciate if you could refrain from making vague statements when debating in this forum. The phrase "intrusion of a parasite" is rather vague and inflamatory and has nothing to do with e-commerce. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary, integrity has a fair bit to do with e-commerce.

It was my intent to be concise, not inflammatory, but if you have a more genteel way to describe the situations I've outlined above, I'm open to suggestions. Mellow it down however you want, my question still stands:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Um, we're talking about a customer who is on the merchant's site anyway. What does intrusion by a parasite have to with customer retention??????? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ecomcity]

"Who are these companies that consult with the great webmaster mike when planning their corporate direction?"

Well Tim several at right here at ABW. The others were contacted by e-mail offers and 2 by phone. I'm sure your use e-mail lists for contacting all of them as you expanded your Mall operations over the last few years. Only 6 of them have affiliate programs but all of them rely upon my advice for building site traffic while keeping their high conversion ratios. The all have some respect for my advice, which often is offered free of charge, since they all rely upon me for site upgrades and competitive evaluations.

My own sites aren't there since 1997 to primarily generate affiliate revenues. They are there to gather merchant stats on what works and what doesn't as ecommerce evolves. I can showcacse a merchant and digest their ability to sell from their storefront. I can evaluate "incent traffic" vs SE traffic vs targeted affiliate traffic in a real life etailing senerio. My job is to make sure my clients are still online and generating sales 10 years from now.

Currently my view of "incent" or "get paid to surf" traffic is that those trying that model exclusively litter the networks dead pools and Pud's Hall of Fame leaving millions of disappointed "earners" wonder where their money went. Maybe that's why even CJ's TOS prohibits any "incent" affiliates ..even those who pose as merchants. Now of course as you read the recent posts they selectively enforce these terms.

WebMaster Mike

[FatWallet]

Mike - So you offer free advice to merchants, and you run a website to test effectiveness of merchant programs....

Where is the business model again? Oh yeah... I think it includes whining on affiliate message boards about how affiliate marketing is so screwed up.

(yes, I'm having a bit of fun with this post)

[kickaha]

Let me address the last flurry of posts. I want to try to draw a couple of issues into the limelight- namely the use of Alexa and the use of pop-up blockers because they are relevant.



MrMerchant- Actually I was referencing customer acqusition from the affiliate side. The affiliate seeking to capture that customer- a great equalizer in the normally lopsided equasion.

Bucks- To address a few responses. Let me add that I don't mean for my posts to sound confusing or full of buzzwords. That is how I think and speak and folks who know me will verify that.

You said: " parasitic placement of affiliate links inflates customer acquisition costs???"

I know MrMerchant knows this, but the real point around all of this is the *shift of loyalty*. It doesn't matter HOW it occurs the operating premise is that affiliates with incentive mechanisms and shopping bars are seeking to leverage customer loyalty- the loyalty that merchants seek to guard. Are merchants willing to view this channel as retention or acquistion? It depends on who you ask.

Bucks said, "... wait for him/her to visit sites that link to certain merchants, contain certain words or phrases, or some such trigger. They then present their own message to the user, keyed to someone else's content "

Now this is a much better argument then what I am hearing. You are saying that the very analysis of your intellectual property and subsequent action from a 3rd party is a violation of your intellectual property- or that is the gist?

However people readily accept the notion of using adjuncts to their browser experience. For example, I don't hear anyone defending the interests of publishers who lose revenue when users use pop-up blockers.

Isn't this theft of intellectual property since these sites are not being able to derive potential revenue from pop-ups on their own domain???

Ahhh, but I see *some* of the same anti-parasite people advocating the use of pop-up blockers. (I have even seen them say they use warez- and that is blatant theft. Wasn't there a poll here recently?) Even Earthlink, a major ISP, has endorsed the use of pop-up blockers.

People are happy to endorse their use because they find pop-ups obtrusive and annoying. End users care because it impedes their surfing experience just as they might think some tools enhance their experience. The bottom line is that publishers see their revenues stolen when people use them. But hey most people think that is just fine- they can install them because they control their own computers and are allowed to view things through their own eyes.

We also have Search Engines that parse our content and URLs, some without permission. ( you can argue that the robots exclusion protocol gives users some control, but that can be bypassed.) For that matter we freely allow people to hyperlink to our own content and make comments on it as they see fit. We allow tool bars like the Google Bar to sift our content even though it is a customer loyalty tool that builds Google's brand. Ditto for Alexa that prominently features an Amazonian link that may or may not be parasitic- boy wouldn't that make some headlines.

Mike- Let me clarify that I do not own AffTrack. I work at AffTrack and I colloborate on other businesses as well. Scott McNulty gets the credit for creating it. It is a powerful piece of software. Our main goal is to see performance marketers make more money through analysis and to be smart about the relationships they choose.

Let me also thank you for reinforcing the rational tone of thread here. The exchange has been reasonable and not emotionally charged which is refreshing (and Bucks I appreciate it). Everyone is passionate about the issues, but it is important that we don't get vindictive and scare, and/or intimidate others from giving their views.

good weekend to all,

Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[buckworks]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let me add that I don't mean for my posts to sound confusing or full of buzzwords. That is how I think and speak and folks who know me will verify that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buzzwords are fine if they are on topic and relevant. The problem is that you have a tendency to use them to change the subject and dodge issues.

I dish out flak when I see faulty logic; that is how I think and speak and folks who know me will verify that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You are saying that the very analysis of your intellectual property and subsequent action from a 3rd party is a violation of your intellectual property- or that is the gist? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, if that "subsequent action" harms me, I cry foul.

Google and other search engines analyze my pages. Their "subsequent action" provides significant benefits to me.

Parasites analyze my pages. Their "subsequent action" harms me, directly and immediately.

Do you see the difference?

Some people's ethical frameworks would say, "well, that's business" when someone suffers losses because of someone else's actions. In some contexts, I would agree. But when the merchant and network who are supposed to be our partners condone and collaborate in the harm that is done to us, there is no other word for it but BETRAYAL.

That betrayal is the pivotal issue you keep dodging, Wayne. Merchants and networks are DECEIVING thousands of affiliates and you don't see fit to comment (at least not that I've ever seen). That puzzles me ...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I know MrMerchant knows this, but the real point around all of this is the *shift of loyalty*. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope, there might be a few points of overlap but customer loyalty is an entirely different discussion from the question of how well merchants and networks are or aren't keeping their word to the affiliates who trusted them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However people readily accept the notion of using adjuncts to their browser experience. For example, I don't hear anyone defending the interests of publishers who lose revenue when users use pop-up blockers. Isn't this theft of intellectual property since these sites are not being able to derive potential revenue from pop-ups on their own domain??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For starters, it's hard to fight more than one battle at a time. And if you haven't heard anyone defending the interests of publishers in regards to popup blockers, you haven't been hanging around in the right places. It's an issue I'd have to think about for a while, but one major difference I see is that even if a site might lose income because of someone's popup blocker , they are not being stabbed in the back by a so-called partner. Unless one of their partners is selling popup blockers!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ahhh, but I see *some* of the same anti-parasite people advocating the use of pop-up blockers. (I have even seen them say they use warez- and that is blatant theft. Wasn't there a poll here recently?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If there was such a poll I missed it. I don't know enough about warez to be able to comment intelligently.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even Earthlink, a major ISP, has endorsed the use of pop-up blockers. People are happy to endorse their use because they find pop-ups obtrusive and annoying. End users care because it impedes their surfing experience just as they might think some tools enhance their experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is another one I'd have to think about, ethics-wise, but it's worth pointing out that some popups can really mess up your system (harm), so a popup blocker could in some ways be viewed as defense of property, not just a matter of convenience.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The bottom line is that publishers see their revenues stolen when people use them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Here's a thought for you ... in the case of popup ads that are pay-per-action, there's no loss to the publisher because the customer wouldn't have bought anything anyway. When the ads are CPM, the publisher would experience a loss if they are blocked, but the advertiser would experience a loss if they were shown (because they are being shown to people who are not the least bit interested). Who's stealing from whom ...? One moral here is that badly targeted advertising is a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But hey most people think that is just fine- they can install them because they control their own computers and are allowed to view things through their own eyes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In many contexts this is a perfectly supportable line of thought. But if the thing a user wants to view/use can only exist because someone is harmed in the process of creating it or using it, what then? Child porn is an extreme example - such pictures are illegal because of the unimaginable harm caused by the very act of creating them. On a smaller scale, if someone wants to give the user something that can only exist by harming other websites, the user's desire to use that tool is not ethically supportable. In the case of a parasitic advertising application, very few shoppers see or understand the harm that is happening, so they cannot be held culpable, but the people who create or cooperate with such entities ARE culpable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We also have Search Engines that parse our content and URLs, some without permission. ( you can argue that the robots exclusion protocol gives users some control, but that can be bypassed.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If a spider bypasses a properly constructed "no trespassing" sign, it's a Bad Guy.

Regarding search engine spiders, most webmasters I know perceive great benefit in the loving attentions of a search engine spider. They would be much less keen on similar attention from an email-harvesting spam robot. One causes benefit, the other causes harm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For that matter we freely allow people to hyperlink to our own content and make comments on it as they see fit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not everyone does; there have been lawsuits over linking issues. However, the webmasters I know perceive being linked to as a good thing. If someone's link caused us some kind of harm, we would be justified in asking them to remove it. Whether that could be enforced would be a different question, but we *would* be justified in asking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We allow tool bars like the Google Bar to sift our content even though it is a customer loyalty tool that builds Google's brand. Ditto for Alexa that prominently features an Amazonian link that may or may not be parasitic- boy wouldn't that make some headlines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of things that deserve to make the headlines never do.

If Google or Amazon are able to enhance their brand without harming others in the process, I would see no ethical reason to object, although there might be a lot of aesthetic reasons. A question to ponder on another day would be the relationship between aesthetics and ethics. Sometimes people object to things simply because they are soooooooo ugly.

Keep in mind the importance of relationship and how it affects ethical analysis. I have a formal relationship to Amazon as their affiliate, while I have no formal relationship of any kind with Google. I can think of situations where the exact same action would be "just business" if done by Google, while if Amazon did it I would cry "betrayal". It's the partnership that would hold one entity to a different standard of judgement.

More later, I expect ...

Elisabeth Archambault

[This message was edited by buckworks.com on September 28, 2002 at 03:58 AM.]

[buckworks]

A question came to me as I drifted off to sleep ... a consensus on this would be major progress in this discussion:

At what point does "a savvy technological extension that seeks to leverage the loyalty of a consumer" become "tortious interference" in someone else's business dealings?