Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Continued from http://abw.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...5226#981105226

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

    We all know that CJ/BeFree merchants are also involved ...

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Further, 180solutions said that it only uses double pop-ups with Commission Junction's network - Article Source <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So ...

    1) Why wasn't CJ/BeFree quote/interviewed in the above article?
    2) Why isn't there a stink in thier forum?

    Why has virtually NOTHING been said to / about CJ/BeFree or Performics for that matter? Anyone seeing or smelling something here? I know I am!

    ========================
    Ben,

    What happened when you shared your information with CJ/BeFree? Did they pay for your dilligence? Did their Merchants pay?

    out of the 1,000s of merchants you investigated what percentage of them were from LS, CJ/BeFree and Performics?

    Is this even a problem with performics? If so did performics pay for your dilligence? Did their merchants pay? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    [Fixed Link as per Bster's post below, TY Bster!]
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  2. #2
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    Like I said in the other thread,

    CJ's gotten lots of flames for YEARS while LS got off scott-free despite deserving at least as big of a helping!

    It's about time LS got their fair share!!!
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  3. #3
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Sandra,

    Please read my post in the original thread (still open), I wanted to discuss the points listed above, as such, your posting should be in the Linkshare thread since it has nothing to do with this subject.
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  4. #4
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    Haiko,

    Your link above goes to this thread.

  5. #5
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Fixed, TY Bster.
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    "Why has virtually NOTHING been said to / about CJ/BeFree or Performics for that matter? Anyone seeing or smelling something here? I know I am!"

    I just woke up so not following. Are you saying Ben is just mentioning LS in his article because they didn't pay? Thats why no mention of Performics or BF merchants? Yes 180 is in every network. Performics never takes any heat because they have never had 1 person posting here. So they've escaped any flames. So all networks are pretty equal in who they have in them except LS is minus WhenU if i got that correct?

    As far as Ben's articles and research, they look pretty clear to me, well researched and make sense.

    As far as pulling LS, a couple i see in that thread who are for it don't even have any LS merchants up. I wish mailman would stay out of those threads since he said he never made 1 dime for LS merchants and pulled all of them awhile back. I have 150+ LS merchants with a 3.6% conversion rate combined so i'm not pulling any plus there are some para free merchants that have forums here that i do well with, Mondera, Drivewerks etc. I'm not pulling them down. But if it gives you a warm feeling inside, pull them. You might as well pull every merchant that's in the major 4 networks then and go indy hunting like i've suggested many times in the past. You could make a case that even if you use parasite free merchants in the networks, you're still supporting them because they still a cut when a sale rolls thru them. 99% of the merchants listed on sites people consider parasitic are network merchants. You can go 100% indy/SAS/MYAP etc, how many of actually done so?

  7. #7
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    First everyone needs to be perfectly clear that the issues with 180Solutions are not just LS or for that matter at CJ/BF or Performics issue. The issues are reflective of behaviors in how 180Solutions software behaves. Yes, I've seen ads containing tracking URL's for all of those Networks. But I have also seen ads with tracking from other Networks, independent aff programs, other affiliates and direct ads from Merchants. Additionally while I find 180Solutions software behavior to be quite unacceptable, let us not lose sight of the fact that theirs is not the only software out there and indeed I've seen software with far worse behaviors. That is not meant to detract from the issues with 180Solutions but however a call for us to keep our perspective. And that I don't particularly see solutions being effective which take necessariiy a software application by software application approach. IMO the solutions need to be more globally. Furthermore it's the behaviors globally that need to be addressed and not necessarily those specific to one application.

    Somewhere in another thread somewhere I posted the article Haiko quoted contained some very interesting points that should be addressed and I would when I had time. I guess I'll do that now.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>180solutions said that it only uses double pop-ups with Commission Junction's network, and hidden pop-ups with LinkShare's network. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    First is that 180Solutions is admitting they use hidden pops.

    More importantly they seem to be saying that:
    double pop ups (popping the same site on the site the visitor is already visiting) happens only with CJ links
    hidden pops only happen with LS links

    Now tying those statements with 180 saying:

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Keith Smith says that the hidden pop-ups detected in the Edelman research report are devoid of any tags or codes that redirect to 180solutions or its advertisers, commissions that ought be paid to other affiliates..... He added that empty i-frames are the only way to avoid the automatic deployment of another company's ad without effectively re-writing 180's entire software program. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So what all this seems to be saying to me is that 180Solutions is denying using the double pop technique for LS tracking URL's which will yield either a situation of cookie stuffing or cookie overwrites (depending on the previous suring of the end user) for LS Merchants. They will however use this method for CJ Merchants. They further seem to be saying that that blind pops are a protection measure by their software to assure the above doesn't happen with LS tracking.

    This was a very striking point for me when I read that article and elicited a big HMMMMM.....from me. It also begs the question why is that so????

    Now I will say that I have never seen nor documented the hidden pops myself by 180Solutions. However I have not tested their software to any degree in the timeframe where these issues may have become relevant. Additionally, I am far from convinced at this time of the claims as to why the use of silent pops are being used and that they do indeed yield protection of the affiliate tracking not being invoked. I base this in a large part of merchanisms I've seen them use in the past to be able to achieve ad suppression.

    Further Ben did send me a Network logs for one incident which he reported to me as a silent pop up call by 180Solutions for my review. The originating call out from 180 solutions for the pop ad did contain affiliate tracking and was different for most page coding in that it contained js calls for the page. Now 180 has stipulated publicly that they use iframes and js calls to invoke their silent protective pops. From the information I received from Ben I could not ascertain independently for certain that the ad call did indeed result in a silent pop (I had no associated video with the Network Transmissions logs and there was not reference to the content of the js file invoked to see it's actually coding). However based on 180's on claims, it should have been. In this particular log file, I did see that the affiliate tracking coding was indeed invoked and carried through to the Network servers. Additionally the logs clearly showed the Merchant flagged the "click" as that from an affiliate and that both the Network tracking cookie and the Merchant cookie (containing the aff tracking information) were shown to be set on the end users computer. The Network involved was BeFree.

    So what does all that mean?? Well it means there are definite conflicts in the information 180Solutions is putting out publicly. First, by their statements of their coding it should have been a hidden pop and those should by used for LS Merchants. It was a BeFree Merchant. Second, it should have protected from the Network tracking from occurring, but it didn't.

    In my mind, it appears that 180 may be making changes again in the way it's software functions. Why would that be? Is it directly related to the new Addendum they signed with LS? There also seems to be enough statements coming just from 180 to make me ask the question that any changes they may be making will only be applicable to LS and not any other Network on independent affiliate program. Well.....if that is true and they can do it for LS links then they can and should be doing it for all.

    Next I have to ask why we have not heard anything further from CJ/BF/Performics regarding their updates to the COC that were supposed to be happening. Has that happened? Are there new COC's in place? If so what are they? Specific to 180, why haven't we heard any comments from them regarding all the recent publicity and talk?

    At the end of the day, for me a forced click = a forced click regardless of the mechanisms to achieve it. The question should be are forced clicked occurring with any affiliate tracking code through 180Solutions software and with whom are these happening.

  8. #8
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Why has virtually NOTHING been said to / about CJ/BeFree or Performics for that matter?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Because we have said almost all this to and about CJ etal until we are blue in the face. Smesser has come here initiating this discussion and dallying with us about how he wants a new approach.
    Comments are opinion unless otherwise noted. Remember, pillage first. Then burn. Half of all people in the world have IQs under 100. You best learn to trust ol' SSanf!

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    I don't know what you are smelling Haiko, but it doesn't matter to me if the discussion focuses on one network or all of them.

    If Mr Messer feels like he is being singled out, too bad.

    His reasoning for working so closely with the parasites (that they will rip us off even if LS drops them from the network) is an insult to every legitimate affiliate (and the merchants who are getting ripped off thru their support and trust of the network).

    Furthermore I am getting real tired of him and certain AMs coming here and scolding us for not doing more in the fight against parasites. Compliance is THEIR job.

    So what if only a few paid to join Tiger Direct's lawsuit? So what if everyone did not drop all other merchants when Overstock.com dropped parasites? And so what if we are not trashing CJ and Performics at the moment?

  10. #10
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    For the record, I DO have a couple of LS merchants up. Never got a check from them, though. I, as you know, would do fine without LS merchants who as yet have not shown me much at all.

    Trust, I understand you have a slew of them. Perhaps, you started with LS. I just wonder how much better you might have done if you had put the same time and effort into indies from the get go. Maybe, you cannot undo the past. But, you sure can make decisions about how you will spend your future time.
    Comments are opinion unless otherwise noted. Remember, pillage first. Then burn. Half of all people in the world have IQs under 100. You best learn to trust ol' SSanf!

  11. #11
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Ssanf it also depends on what type of sites you have. I have a shopping site so i have everybody on that site. As far as indys if you read my past posts or even this thread i've always encouraged people to look for them. I probably have more indys throughout my sites then most people here and promote them the same as i do other merchants and have the same results. Some bad, some good. Why are you hanging on to those LS merchants when you have never gotten a check from them and want others to pull them? I've also offered you and Mike and anybody if they're looking for an indy alternative just let me know. I have a big list of them and will give you some to try out. In the end i keep whatever merchants i get to convert for me and pay. And really it's nobody's business what networks/merchants other affiliates work with. Like i've said, i do well with LS merchants, 150+, 3.6% overall conversion.

  12. #12
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why are you hanging on to those LS merchants when you have never gotten a check from them and want others to pull them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because pulling merchants takes time and effort away from putting up new merchants and hanging out doing more pleasurable things like chatting here. I have already wasted enough time on those losers. However, I would be willing to pull them if it seemed that there was any support for the idea.

    I would love to see your indy list and I am willing to sign up under you if I use any of them.
    Comments are opinion unless otherwise noted. Remember, pillage first. Then burn. Half of all people in the world have IQs under 100. You best learn to trust ol' SSanf!

  13. #13
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    Tell you something weird. When I search for merchants that I might want to use, I will often find that the one I am looking at is a CJ merchant. I don't recall ever finding one that is a LS merchant. Could be coincidence. Could be that CJ just has more of the type merchants that appeal to me. I don't know why that is but them's the facts.
    Comments are opinion unless otherwise noted. Remember, pillage first. Then burn. Half of all people in the world have IQs under 100. You best learn to trust ol' SSanf!

  14. #14
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    Ben posted over here (I'm trying to keep the issues forum specific)

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A CJ staff person wrote to me last week, asking for some details of my findings. I told him some details of what I had seen -- e.g. that some CJ merchants are targeted with hidden cookie-stuffing (and some LS merchants with double popups), which came as a surprise since he seemed to think that 180 never targeted CJ merchants with hidden cookie-stuffing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ben unfortunately if CJ told you that, they told you something that is completely false. I know for a fact that CJ knew that blind cookie setting was occurring through 180's software for at least one of their Merchants around May. It is the behavior of software which CJ outlines in their COC. It should not matter if affiliate ID is tied to 180 themselves or if 180 had made the decision to allow others to operate through their software. In the end, 180 is responsible for all behaviors which occur through their software.

    Additionally, CJ took action regarding this particular incident involving blind cookie setting which occurred through 180's software.

    I can see no way they can cry ignorance at this stage of the game.

    Furthermore is CJ implying by that statement that they will allow auto cookie setting as long as browser window isn't hidden? Hmmm.......

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,403
    What jimbo said.
    A changed saying goes: Who goes with the parasites is a parasite too.
    We should not focus on 180.com. The networks are parasitic too.

    carneol

  16. #16
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Ms.B nailed it..."At the end of the day, for me a forced click = a forced click regardless of the mechanisms to achieve it. The question should be are forced clicked occurring with any affiliate tracking code through 180Solutions software and with whom are these happening."

    All the networks could cut to the chase and finally do their real merchant's management a favor by requiring a physical click action for the setting of any tracking cookie...period. Any thing less would be condoning traffic/cookie hijacking and make the pre-sell efforts secondary to trickery. There is no continuous reward or incentive for placing the variety of creatives on an affiliates site, actually promoting the merchant and their offerings, when cookie stuffers-traffic hijackers and outright theftware gets placed upon shoppers systems.

    All networks can enforce the installation technique and removal process of their BHO partners. All networks can BANN any affiliate who has refused to honor the sacred network coded cookie with a trackable physical click by the enduser shopper. Rational: eBates-180Solutions -iGive-SAHS etc etc are not restricted to their crappy domain sites and roam at will on the internet. We can put up with this unfair advantage if the networks enforce across the board 2 new pay-for-performance tenants.

    1. No cookie can be set without an actual physical click on a network generated link code. ( You frigging Adwhores want to pop at the point of sale then put something of real value into the popup to entice a click. Same goes for the perp-e-traitors with blind redirect cookie stuffing the SERPs, PPCSEs and from their sites pages.)

    2. Immediate network banning by any BHO who utilizes 3rd party infestation drive-by routines and rewards others for downloads or hidden bundling, and/or not having their programs completely removed by a one-step normal windows removal process.

    BF finally booted Gator for all the above. LS booted both Gator and WhenU for the above. Performics could give a crap about not working with any adware/spyware wank even if they funded terrorism as anyone can pay the entry fee. 180Solutions is a hybred of all that is bad with Gator and WhenU and LS can forget them playing by any rules when they take money for their theftware platform from any source without question.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  17. #17
    Kung Fu Master Eathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,833
    Having recently rejected 180Solutions (under the Metrics Direct name) for a small indy program, I think it's fair to say they're looking well beyond the networks, which is unfortunate.

    The networks have the ability to stop a lot of what is happening, but they benefit from it, so that's a very slow road indeed. Did Ben mention direct type in traffic getting converted to affiliate traffic?

    Merchants end up paying commissions to the BHOs and the networks for sales they would've received anyway...

    Affiliates see the theft of commissions, but imagine paying commission on a visitor that heard your radio spot and typed your domain directly into their address bar. A top brand could lose $millions a year!

    The merchants are the ones really getting screwed, and the networks they work with don't seem inclined to educate them on what is really going on. More articles like Ben's may help to fill in some of those gaps.
    Eathan Mertz

    Black Cat Mining - Gold Prospecting & Rockhounding Equipment

  18. #18
    ABW Veteran Mr. Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,795
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eathan:
    Affiliates see the theft of commissions, but imagine paying commission on a visitor that heard your radio spot and typed your domain directly into their address bar. A top brand could lose $millions a year!

    The merchants are the ones really getting screwed, and the networks they work with don't seem inclined to educate them on what is really going on. More articles like Ben's may help to fill in some of those gaps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That's a good point and the more the merchants learn about for what they're paying that commission for, the better it would be for all of us (the merchants and the honest affiliates).

    The way it's now, I can only see that the networks get their cut, no matter who get the final credit for the sale, as long as they make money on every sale, either way they get the commission it's fair game for them.

    Any merchant that don't get it after they read what you just said ( imagine paying commission on a visitor that heard your radio spot and typed your domain directly into their address bar. ) must be too busy to rethink the way they lose money on that network or they're just blind or don't really care about business expenses as long as they make some money.

    Sal.

  19. #19
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eathan:
    Having recently rejected 180Solutions (under the Metrics Direct name) for a small indy program, I think it's fair to say they're looking well beyond the networks, which is unfortunate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would be willing to bet that at least 80-90% of their commissions come from merchants in the three major networks. If the networks cut them off, they would be in a world of hurt.

    Also, if the networks cut them off, it would be a huge selling point for the networks both to affiliates and merchants. Imagine if a merchant didn't have to invest significant resources policing their affiliates for these thieves. Imagine if affiliates truly had a "trusted third party".
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  20. #20
    Kung Fu Master Eathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,833
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I would be willing to bet that at least 80-90% of their commissions come from merchants in the three major networks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    My guess is it's closer to 60-70%. Don't forget Amazon, the adult industry, casino gaming, what's left of the OP industry and all the penis enlargement stuff out there. The big three are a nice convenient pool of programs to draw from, but I guarantee these guys are trying to build up the rest for fear of putting all their eggs in one basket.

    I agree with the rest of what you're saying though. The networks could put them in a world of hurt by cutting them off, denying payment and refunding those commissions back to the merchants, including their cut.

    Not only would parasite free be a great selling point for the networks, but returning the commissions would be a show of good faith in moving forward. Water under the bridge is water under the bridge, but refund the rest...
    Eathan Mertz

    Black Cat Mining - Gold Prospecting & Rockhounding Equipment

  21. #21
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    318
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eathan:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I would be willing to bet that at least 80-90% of their commissions come from merchants in the three major networks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    My guess is it's closer to 60-70%. Don't forget Amazon, the adult industry, casino gaming, what's left of the OP industry and all the penis enlargement stuff out there. The big three are a nice convenient pool of programs to draw from, but I guarantee these guys are trying to build up the rest for fear of putting all their eggs in one basket.

    I agree with the rest of what you're saying though. The networks could put them in a world of hurt by cutting them off, denying payment and refunding those commissions back to the merchants, including their cut.

    Not only would _parasite free_ be a great selling point for the networks, but returning the commissions would be a show of good faith in moving forward. Water under the bridge is water under the bridge, but refund the rest... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a very interesting thread,since I have merchants in all programs, except CJ,what chance does a new to online retailing have, you are all excuse the expression, pros at this and still habve problems,is there a solution? I get a lot of clicks, hits, on all, but I find most of the SAS, a best web, ans Kowanga merchants pay when I earn anything.All of Chris's programs in Linkshare or SAS have been fair,Lost my nickles worth,after reading all of this.
    JJ

  22. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Continuation of OT 180Solutions Thread
    By Kellie aka Ms. B in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 28th, 2004, 02:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •