[KierM]

Originally Posted by miss_moxy

So I am trying to think about it in philosophical terms and use examples to help shed light on what is ethical, etc...

Hi Moxy,
Philosophy graduate here

As a trivial technological fact it's broadly true in that someone who knows how an affiliate program works could deliberately ensure that they click last on a given affiliate's link but I don't think any ethical conclusions follow from this without further premises being supplied.

[markwelch]

miss_moxy wrote (in part): > "What if I walk into Barnes and Noble and . . . find a book I want to purchase. Rather than purchase it there, I fire up my iPhone and buy it via Amazon.com. Have I just "stolen" money from Barnes and Noble? Certainly it doesn't seem 100% ethical but I'm not sure how BN could prevent it." <

I don't view the ethical issue as significant (and I've done exactly this, ordering a book from Amazon using my iPhone while standing in a Borders store, because Amazon's price was $20 cheaper). Certainly if the practice were very widespread, we'd probably have fewer local bookstores.

Borders paid money to promote itself so I'd come into their store. They didn't get paid (this day) because their prices weren't competitive. Amazon did nothing to interfere with my relationship with Borders. Indeed, I'm sure that Borders and Barnes & Noble are aware of this behavior already, and are trying to find ways to deal with it.

The difference here is that I didn't take some action that interfered with Borders' ability to properly track the ROI of its marketing spend. For that day, their ROI from bringing me into the store was null (negative 100%).

Change the example for a second. Suppose that Borders' online store participates in loyalty/incentive/charity programs like OneCause, but their brick and mortar store does not. If I go into the Borders store and choose a book, and then go to Borders online to order the book so that my charity or I get some money, then Borders loses the ability to track the ROI from its marketing for its brick & mortar stores. (But whose fault is that?)

Suppose I despise my local newspaper, but I pick it up in order to check out the Fry's Electronics ad. And suppose that I go into Fry's and buy some items that I found through the ad, but I deliberately tell Fry's that my business came to them because of their ad in another newspaper (which I didn't actually buy that day). Now I've screwed up their ROI tracking. (Of course, Fry's doesn't appear to do this kind of tracking at all -- pinpoint tracking is something quite unique to online business).

[markwelch]

Haiko wrote (in part): "I wonder if the toolbars and networks really want the consumer to decide who gets paid ... I mean really once this hits mainstream media you think joe six pack wants some stuffed shirt pseudo charity or big wig Network getting the green light to steal from Joe and Jane affiliate - people just like them? I don't think so. * * * EVERYONE has a problem with a thief. So don't be too damn sanctimonious with your "allow the consumer to decide" - cause I can almost guarantee that they won't side with you if they KNEW!" <

I agree with the theory (that if consumers "fully understood" how things worked and who wins and loses, they would object to OneCause et al.).

But it's much more likely that any attempt to educate consumers would create more misperceptions and misunderstandings. Without a "full and complete" understanding, but with a "partial understanding," most consumers would probably choose to have the commissions paid in a way that benefits a charity (or earns them points or rebates).

It's all about perception, and OneCause is in the perception business.

[loxly]

Originally Posted by KierM

Hi Moxy,
Philosophy graduate here

As a trivial technological fact it's broadly true in that someone who knows how an affiliate program works could deliberately ensure that they click last on a given affiliate's link but I don't think any ethical conclusions follow from this without further premises being supplied.

This post is brilliant

[KierM]

Thanks!

[Teesed]

Originally Posted by markwelch

I agree with the theory (that if consumers "fully understood" how things worked and who wins and loses, they would object to OneCause et al.).

But it's much more likely that any attempt to educate consumers would create more misperceptions and misunderstandings. Without a "full and complete" understanding, but with a "partial understanding," most consumers would probably choose to have the commissions paid in a way that benefits a charity (or earns them points or rebates).

It's all about perception, and OneCause is in the perception business.

Unfortunately I think that's true. My wife and I work with rescue groups and do TNR for feral cat colonies. She saw something on one of the rescue groups sites where she could download something to her computer and give them 2% of everything she bought online through certain... you know the spiel.

So, she did it. After all, it helped her friends. She even ended up joining it and putting the link info on her own site. All innocent and feel-goody... until I saw it one day (we keep separate computers so she doesn't wipe out my business)

Once I explained it to her, she got it. Explained the affiliate part, the hard work, the theft, and the complicitness of her innocent actions in it. It also took explaining to her that in order to give her fav groups that 60 cents from the $30 purchase she just made, someone else was making $3.90. If she really wanted to benefit the group, donate the durned $5 straight to them. It took putting it in my own terms with her and with me as the example affiliate so it wasn't just "some other big company losing out on the commission".

She got it, but it took a face to face and about 15 minutes of her undivided attention. Unfortunately the general public isn't going to care. Good thing I'm not married to them.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Originally Posted by markwelch

...and OneCause is in the perception business.

Yes, but, ... let's remember they kept half the money and all of it was stolen ... that will infuriate just about anyone. But yes consumer enlightenment is not the wise route, but they are a powerful tool with merchants for them to see the light, brand integrity always trumps greed. Done correctly the PR push could be completely devastating to Rakuten and the company that used to be known as Linkshare.

-----
Loved the post Keir

[openrsm]

Haiko is right. And in another way altogether. Any PR effort would be better focused the people at the charities themselves.

I'm on the board of a couple 501C3 non-for-profits. If information like what has been compiled here got in front of either of those boards (and they were either accepting or looking at the onecause toolbar) it would be the end of the road for that. And plenty of information would be shared with our supporters about it as well.