Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,279
    LS Parasiteware Siting

    So smesser, what's the deal? What's the LS take? You guys hate and despise the scum that it is or do ya go around recommending it to your merchants?

    When so many of us thought LS was taking a stance AGAINST Parasiteware, were we all wrong?

  2. #2
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    If Linkshare doesn't auto feed these parasites with coupon and daily specials they can't survive on manual inputs. Feeding the likes of Looksmart -Ezula -Morpheous or Gator will make them into network eating monsters who demand a cut on every single merchant URL that pays commissions. Steve might very well understand these guys will migrate to inhouse solutions cutting out any income going to the networks on sales volume.

    Now that Ezula is married to Double Click in a revenue share deal they are covering their ass if LS and the others pull their autofeed plugs and they refuse to pay LS for signing up merchants for their scumware. You can bet Looksmart will be in the Double Click correl and where is Value Click hiding their allegences...maybe a Gator.com or ShopNow/Whenu buyout with BeFree cash....Hah hah hawaaa

    [ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: EcomCity.com ]

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,279
    BUMP

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005
    Posts
    1,537
    Linkshare is parasiteware.

    They don't need any position on it.

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Cedric? Don't you know nuffin'? Steve is far too busy to answer your question because it takes *time* to spend all those ill-gotten readies!

    [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]


    I

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,279
    I'll just keep bumping it... if it never gets answered, it will still be asked...

    over and over and over and over...

    It's a pretty simple question... and I think before the recent revelation by a merchant many of us thought we knew the answer...

    Now? I'm pretty sure I know the answer. Linkshare, like all the other networks, doesn't give a flip about how affiliates get bucks -- even if they steal it from another affiliate.

    I though LS was going to be a leader in the battle... too bad about the clay feet.

  7. #7
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    My own great test for Linkshare's continued success or eventual demise comes from their ability or inability to make BeFree's Overstock.com into a successful converting merchant there....period. I will not try any new LS merchant until this network shows they can keep a major winner.. a winner at Linkshare. Steve also knows this is his real true test too since he fought so hard to finally get a profitable -viable etailer to jump ship from BeFree's sinking boat.

    Is Overstock pulling back from their involvement with feeding the "dark side" who hijack affiliate's traffic? Or was their move to get into another networks merchant feature set devised to automate the parasites at the expense of all legit site owners and do a private side deal with Gator and ShopNow?

    Steve has listened to me in the past and always responded after careful thought. If LS is moving towards a level playing field for merchants and affiliates ( large and small) then they should use OverStock as their flagship site to show this can be done. Overstock appeals to all savvy shoppers regardless of category...no person can find a legit reason NOT TO buy from Overstock. Prior to the announced move to Linkshare Overstock closed for me 1 sale per every 100 clicks regardless of creatives. After the move announcement this performance stat dropped on BOTH networks to 1 sale in every 1100 click throughs.

    This, ABW members, is the true test for all parties concerned. Can Overstock regain it's affiliate marketing leadership by hoisting the Linkshare flag??? Currently I'm showing just at LS for this month 1348 clicks =1 sale for 2.27 in commissions. I never earned less than 100.00 monthly from Overstock during the months prior to January 2002 on far fewer clicks.. If Steve can't answer this one his credability with me drops many notches.

    [ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: EcomCity.com ]

  8. #8
    Affiliate Manager
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    1,285
    I'm seeing increases in conversions in the past two months. I'm looking at the data for overall links, not via individual affiliate. However, homepage conversions alone have doubled in the last 60 days. That makes this seem a bit odd. Affiliates overall are increasing their revenues with us. I'll be busy this week analyzing those that have decreased to see what's going on. I'm sure we can turn this around in no time.

    Thanks,

  9. #9
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Shawn said: "However, homepage conversions alone have doubled in the last 60 days. That makes this seem a bit odd."

    The reason for this Shawn is because when you opened up at Linkshare the newly recruited affiliates tend to just pick up the home page links and banners to test the waters. Once they see sales they expand the exposure to products and deeper categories.

  10. #10
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Cedric,

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When so many of us thought LS was taking a stance AGAINST ParasiteWare™, were we all wrong? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Stephen did! the terms did preclude WhenU from popping up on affiliate sites and competitive merchant sites. WhenU, remember, has a large subscriber base that they email offerings and we know how well that works.

    The crux of the problem lies with the merchants who teams up with the ParasiteWare or "D"uper Affiliates and skew the entire equation that shows that CPA is the least expensive customer acquisition model there is, they [merchants] need to WAKE up and not pay these fees that the "D"uper Affiliates demand or encourage the greed of the Parasites by paying them!

    It is difficult for an Ad Network to police the industry or preclude a merchant from dealing with another but Stephen DID do something about WhenU and I foresee Linkshare / Stephen taking real positions against ParasiteWare™ when and as needed, case by case.

    ---------

    Shawn,

    What Mike said ... they will not deep link till they see some results first.

    Haiko

  11. #11
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    I am not so sure anymore that LS's new terms were designed to protect us or the merchants. Remember, LS never once said that that was their intention. LS has been mum on this issue.

    For them to recommend software that redirects thru a coded link when a user types a url directly into the browser gives quite the opposite impression. I now believe tha new terms were designed to protect LinkShare.

    The affiliate agreements state that affiliates will receive a commission when users click thru the coded link, or return by typing in the url into the browser at a later date (within the return days).

    If LS did not put clauses in specifically banning the redirecters, it would be open to action on behalf of the non-redirecter affiliates.

    In other words, by putting adding the clause prohibiting redirecters, they cannot be held liable when the redirecters steal our commissions.

  12. #12
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,694
    Haiko:

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The crux of the problem lies with the merchants who teams up with the ParasiteWare <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Haiko,
    what about this post from
    http://www.abestweb.com/cgi-bin/ubb/...6&t=000053&p=1 ?


    Babystyle:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm sorry that everyone is upset by seeing that WhenU is in our program<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    (snip)

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
    About a year ago Linkshare suggested that we partner with them saying that they had some sort of tool to alert customers to deals. Since Linkshare had recommended them we accepted them into the program
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

  13. #13
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Eaglefire,

    Babystyle DROPPED WhenU, they 'didn't know' who they were/what they did. LS did change the terms two months ago(?) so if they marketed WhenU a year ago that was a different animal .... I base my support on current actions not the past.

    Haiko

  14. #14
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,694
    I applaud Babystyle for dropping them (and did so in the thread). Notice they say they weren't even *aware* of the WhenU issue, and only partnered with them b/c of Linkshare's *recommendations*.

    Policy change or no, it's like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted - why didn't Linkshare then notify existing merchants of the WhenU issue and ask that they drop them from their programs - since they knew full well they'd been promoting them for at least the past year?

    At least some of these merchants wouldn't havbe been doing business with WhenU if Linkshare had not recommended them. I would expect that they are responsible for helping to set that right by doing some policing since they were responsible for the problem in the first place.

    If they screw someone that way and say they won't do it anymore, but don't set things right, what kind of integrity does that show? Just how much credence does it really deserve?

  15. #15
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    eaglefire,

    You point is valid, however, as I understand it, WhenU changed their business model to be ParasiteWare as they saw the others getting away with it.
    http://web.archive.org/web/200010171...com/index.html

    This looks like a cool tool that I would use also ... and If I was Stephen, I would have pushed it also [THEN], it is NOT his fault they became dirty.

    Haiko

  16. #16
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,694
    I guess I am a bit old school and believe in helping clean up the messes you make, even the inadvertent ones. I believe in showing integrity in business and owning up. It is the *responsible* thing to do. Business is about building relationships; it is one of the cardinal laws of Sales. Good business is showing integrity and taking responsibility for the consequences of how your actions impact your partners (affiliates ARE supposed to be "partners" - or is that just sizzle?).

    Or to put it another way, since you are using the word "dirty" : If I found out I'd been spreading an infectious disease to others, however unknowingly, I have the responsibility to notify them of the infection so that they take measures to eradicate it. Simply not spreading the infection anymore doesn't exactly get me off the hook.

    Bottom line - according to Babystyle - Linkshare hasn't done anything to notify it's merchants that WhenU is "dirty". Why? because LS is making *money* from the dirty app.

  17. #17
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    The mindset of the networks has to change from advertising to sales....period. The parasites are after mass advertising and even turning off the shoppers ability to click away from an endless stream of lame offers by kidnapping their computers.

    Merchants have to learn that their are no short cuts to ROI when approaching affiliate campaigns. They have to reward the site owners ( not the hijackers) in order to get long term results. The pre-sell of affiliates cannot be automated by the ShopNow Ezula crowd who have to rely upon gorilla tactics and incent deals.

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

    I agree 1,000%!

    Stephen did change the terms, but yet many merchants still cognitively deal with WhenU, or others, because of their lack of ethics, not Stephen's. Can he do more? absolutely! Has he done more than Befree or CJ? HFY! Will he do more? I sure hope so!

    It is still my position that merchants who feed the ParasiteWare offerings are to blame!

    Haiko

  19. #19
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,694
    EcomCity:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The mindset of the networks has to change from advertising to sales....period. The parasites are after mass advertising and even turning off the shoppers ability to click away from an endless stream of lame offers by kidnapping their computers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    I tend to agree - I think it's just a matter of time before their method realizes diminishing returns. I know some desperate users that routinely delete all the cookies on their system in a effort to put a stop to the endless onslaught of pop-ups and pop-unders.

    You'd have thought they would have learned from the "Banner Blindness" fiasco - read Dr Jakob Nielson's Alertbox columns on Useit.com. I've no doubt that pop-up/under blindness is beginning to develop. I wasn't surprised in looking at the EPC's on CJ to see that many of the top-performing links were text-based ads.

    [ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: eaglefire ]

  20. #20
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,694
    Haiko:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is still my position that merchants who feed the ParasiteWare offerings are to blame!

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Not if the merchants aren't aware. If you are going to let LS off the hook you've got to let them off it too; esp if they started using WhenU in the first place on *Linkshare's* recommendation. Apparently LS's recommendations are taken seriously enough so as not to be questioned - LS certainly must know this. So ... why doesn't Linkshare now "recommend" that merchants stop dealing with WhenU? They apparently have not done so; when a merchant comes to this forum and openly *apologizes*, dissolving their relationship with WhenU I tend to believe them when they say they were not aware of WhenU's shady practices.

  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    I don't think LS has done much of anything.

    Sure, they changed some terms in the agreement, which theoretically prohibits some forms of scum bags.

    But that was it. They just said we are changing the agreement. Never explained it. Did they enforce it?

    As far as I can see, they just did it to cover their own rear ends in case some affiliate wondered how come he/she did not get credit for sales that were hijacked.

    Anyways, we can speculate all we want about their intentions, but it looks like LS is NOT going to discuss it (or take a stand).

  22. #22
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    eaglefire,

    I'll admit that some merchants didn't/don't know about WhenU or the other Parasites, and absolutely when they come clean like Overstock, babystyle and others, I do commend them, so much that I actively invite them in to ABW so that all may make more with true and open communications. There has been a serious lack of knowledge and communication in this industry, ABW will fix that.

    ------------

    Jimbo,

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sure, they changed some terms in the agreement, which theoretically prohibits some forms of scum bags.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    They did change the agreement so that that scum like WhenU can't pop up on affiliate sites nor competitor sites of LS merchants. That is 10,000 times more than the others did!

    Haiko

    [ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: Haiko ]

  23. #23
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,279
    While I truly do appreciate everyone's take on the situation, at this point, I'd really like to hear LS's take frome someone at LS.

  24. #24
    Affiliate Network Rep
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005
    Posts
    352
    Well, I usually try to stay out of this type of discussion because these topics always drop into a flame war which tend to be argumentative and go nowhere (I can only imagine the flames that statement will bring out, but nonetheless it is true).

    There will always be someone who believes that we have not done enough, but LinkShare works hard to make sure that our affiliates get paid for their efforts and as such we look at all new technologies that could challenge this. In the past few months there have been numerous new technologies to shake up the current market. This overall is an evolutionary process and in the larger scheme of things a good thing to go through. But as we all know change is painful and sometime not all change is good. Most recently we have seen some technology used to interfere with other advertisers ability to manage their customers. And thus, here we are today discussing this topic.

    But lets not focus on the technology providers, termed “scumware” today, but on the larger issue of what types of activities are permissible on the net, legally or socially. This will allow us to address the real underlying issue, which today has taken the form of a particular software but tomorrow may take another form.

    For example, everyone is talking primarily about how to deal with the current situation on the table. I have seen one approach that has been suggested here numerous times; that being to just shut these players down. While on the surface this sounds like a great solution, it only highlights how little many affiliates understand about what can effectively be done. The minute LinkShare or any provider for that matter, shuts down one of these technologies, that player simply can just reapply with the same merchants under a new affiliate account (remember we offer free membership). And thus brings to mind a dog chasing its own tail. So this is not a realistic solution to the problem.

    Another suggestion I have heard is to have LinkShare send out newsletters on all the potential issues surrounding some of these players? We could, but then this communication would become the primary discussion of every service we offer, and thus we could not perform all our duties. In addition, what happens if we mischaracterize one of the players (slander) or miss a player altogether?

    So we have chosen to look at the root cause of the issue to find a solution. Today we see so many variations of these technologies and other new uses of LinkShare that it would be nearly impossible to write about them all here. Also there are some players that walk a tight line between acceptable use and "scumware". As a provider, this make our job challenging. In other words, this is not a simple problem where the lines are clear for all the players we work with as many of the posters on this board pretend.

    Like everything LinkShare does we have chosen to investigate these technologies. First to understand what they do, how they do it, and what is the impact on our partners. Once we have a clear understanding of the issues we then try and develop a clear set of guidelines that makes sense for all our partners. This guideline can then be published for all to read and thus we can make the process more transparent.

    As part of this process, I personally met with all the major players in this area to hear them out and better understand their points of view. From what I have been told by them, we are the only provider to have taken the time to speak with them. If I did not feel that this was a big issue I would not have personally have taken the time to do this. What I learned was that most of them want to take into account your needs and are willing to work with all of us to fairly address them. While sometimes they disagree with the stance that affiliates have taken they have shown an openness to discuss ways to work within the affiliates concerns. I for one was glad to see that most where thoughtful and willing to work with us.

    As part of this process we had hoped to have a policy completed early this year. Due to the events of September 11, and the subsequent collapse of part of our office building (resulting in numerous days where we had no main NYC headquarters) we had to postpone the effort.

    Today we are picking up where we left off and trying finalize this policy. Once we do our next step will be to talk to the current participant who fall under the policy to confirm that they are or will conform to the policy. All this is going on while we work on single check and many other projects (this is not meant as an excuse but realistically we only can do so much at one time).

    I hope to have more information to share later on.

    Best regards,
    Stephen

  25. #25
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,650
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>While sometimes they disagree with the stance that affiliates have taken<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd be interested to hear you say more about that. It boggles my mind that a merchant would have trouble understanding that affiliates object to having our traffic (and commissions) stolen by last-minute interlopers who connive to steal a free ride for their links by parasiting on our content???

    A merchant's attitude towards parasitic link placement paints a revealing picture of their ethics, or lack of same. Can a merchant who condones theft be trusted for much of anything?

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And thus brings to mind a dog chasing its own tail. So this is not a realistic solution to the problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahem, would you accept this argument if, for instance, the police decided not to bother enforcing laws against driving while impaired because there's always another drunk driver and it's a battle that never ends?

    Chasing your tail for a bit by actually *enforcing* your terms of service might not solve the basic problem, at least in the short run -- I'll grant you that much -- but it would make a clear statement about your own and your company's values that would have value far beyond the immediate situation.

    Sometimes you have to take an ACTIVE stand about things even if you're not sure what difference it will make - it's a matter of integrity.

    What message do you want to send here?

    Elisabeth Archambault

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Art.com Position on Parasiteware
    By Link at Art.com in forum Merchants opposed to ParasiteWare
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 12th, 2004, 03:45 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
  •