Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    quote:
    Dear Performics Client,

    There has been recent press coverage, combined with affiliate community discussion, concerning allegations of questionable practices by 180 Solutions/Metrics Direct, one of the affiliates with whom you have a relationship. 180 Solutions' senior management has already denied many of these allegations.

    Due to the complexity of 180 Solutions' technology, Performics is conducting further testing and investigation to better assess whether or not the allegations are accurate. Immediately, we recommend that our clients consider suspending their relationship with 180 Solutions until our testing can be completed. We are working with 180 Solutions to ensure that their technology functions appropriately, in a manner that does not violate our affiliate agreement and/or the wishes of our clients, and provides value to both marketers and consumers.

    If you wish to suspend your relationship with 180 Solutions pending further investigation, please respond to this email and/or speak with your account team. We hope to be able to get back to you shortly with an update.

    Regards,

    Performics




    [Bold added by me]

    [I am posting this to both the Performics and 180 Solutions forum]
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  2. #2
    15 years and counting
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,121
    That's big news. I was expecting that decision to come first from Linkshare not Performics. It's telling us a lot.
    Thanks Haiko, ABW lobbying is working.

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

    It's working better than just this email from PFX ... many of the PIDS identified by Ben have [been forced to] take down their sites and [I believe] warned by CJ that if they advertise with 180 it's a material breach of the PSA. Additionally Many merchants who frequent our managers only forum have already dumped the "unscrupulous" affiliates.
    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

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,419
    Woohooo,

    This is great news and a step in the right direction. Does this mean that merchants advertising with 180 would be violating the PSA as well?

  6. #6
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Great News that even the Silent one has reservations on the ethics shown by the 180Solutions folks and their merry band of theftware hitch hikers.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

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

  7. #7
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Poon,

    The PSA (Publisher Service Agreement) wouldn't be applicable if the merchant was bidding [as a merchant] on certain keywords of it's competitor.

    Is that what you were asking?
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,419
    Yes - Kinda. Specifically - what would make an affiliate advertising with 180 different (not allowable) while for a merchant it's OK.... if thats the case?

    Is it that affiliate links are used that "potentially interferes" with an existing tracking cookie or just the basis of "interference by software that occurs while on the affiliates domain?"

    The intent of the COC as I see it was - popups allowed on merchant sites but not on affiliate sites... So, If an affiliate used 10 keywords that interfered with my site and a merchant used the same 10 keywords that interfered with my site - whats the difference between allowing the merchant to perform the advertising but disallowing affiliates doing the same thing.

    To set a precidence where merchants can use the advertising of 180 and affiliates can't would only set a precidence for a lot more dupers to come into existance IMO.

    If the disallowing is in regards only to using an affiliate link to do the redirect and that affiliates and merchants can both do advertising with 180 "but not with affiliates links" (in either case) then it needs to be spelled out clearly. It's not spelled out clearly in my eyes which is why I'm asking.

    As the way I see it, the COC is suppose to take steps to protect affiliate sites from interference "period". To me, if a cookie is overwritten or not is not the only thing that is important to me as an affiliate. I do not want rouge applications being able to interfere with my visitors in any way and it doesn't matter if it's from another affiliate or merchant utilizing the rouge application!

  9. #9
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    quote:
    Originally posted by happypoon:
    Yes - Kinda. Specifically - what would make an affiliate advertising with 180 different (not allowable) while for a merchant it's OK.... if thats the case?


    If an affiliate advertised they would be using the advertisers links in an unauthorized manner - Section 2.3.g says:

    ... or that allows third parties to place Links to the Advertiser's Web site or Web site content, without such Advertiser's prior written permission;

    quote:
    The intent of the COC as I see it was - popups allowed on merchant sites but not on affiliate sites... So, If an affiliate used 10 keywords that interfered with my site and a merchant used the same 10 keywords that interfered with my site - whats the difference between allowing the merchant to perform the advertising but disallowing affiliates doing the same thing.


    This really hasn't been addressed by the CoC (at least with CJ) because the PSA is stronger. I really don't see anything in the CoC nor advertiser agreements [of any network] that would preclude an advertiser from doing ad buys on key words ... look at all the Gator, WhenU etc advertisers that are still in the networks. I guess the only way, in this instance [with 180] is if the network banned them.

    quote:
    To set a precedence where merchants can use the advertising of 180 and affiliates can't would only set a precedence for a lot more dupers to come into existance IMO.


    Duper as in affiliates playing merchant? Nah, I doubt it the networks are wise to most of those wannabes.

    quote:
    If the disallowing is in regards only to using an affiliate link to do the redirect and that affiliates and merchants can both do advertising with 180 "but not with affiliates links" (in either case) then it needs to be spelled out clearly. It's not spelled out clearly in my eyes which is why I'm asking.


    I disagree, I think it's pretty clear - affs no, merchants yes.

    quote:
    As the way I see it, the COC is suppose to take steps to protect affiliate sites from interference "period".


    Supposed to? I doubt that it even tries to profess any implication of that strong of a position in the first place. If it was then what about Claria, WhenU, Exact advertising and the others?

    quote:
    To me, if a cookie is overwritten or not is not the only thing that is important to me as an affiliate.


    Well now your getting into a totally different ball of wax! If the end user "opted-in" cognitively to a service, let's say Zango, then why shouldn't merchant X be allowed to buy a keyword pop in Zango that wouldn't result in an affiliate overwrite, but could result in lost revenue. You can control your site, but there have been more than enough cases to show that windows is a multi-tasking environment and as such, the opt-in pop could be seen (and for the most part it **IS**) as the same as an IM from a friend about a site with a link. So the only real area of grey is the opt-in process and that is the key here. The CoC never really addressed that.

    quote:
    I do not want rouge applications being able to interfere with my visitors in any way and it doesn't matter if it's from another affiliate or merchant utilizing the rouge application!


    Rouge application needs to be properly defined, neither your post, nor the CoC does that. Furthermore as I identified above, your site's visitors can be "interfered" with because of the sheer nature of their OS and a few legal precedent that specifically acknowledge and allow it. You have to remember that the end user is the one who controls this entire process, by opting in, surfing, clicking, and buying.

    [I know you don't like my answer, but it's real]
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    I think this is great news! What shocks me the most is that it's coming from Performics, a network I've never even considered due to its (bad) reputation as a breeding ground for parasitic activity.

    Perhaps this is a first step in cleaning the network up, and if it is, I will certainly be considering Performics in the future, as long as they remain diligent in policing their network.

    Andy

  11. #11
    ABW Ambassador Nova's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    home
    Posts
    2,395
    You know what they say...

    "Action speaks louder than words!"

    Those that don't say this and that all the time and just do it is better than smokes and mirrors and spinning the wheels.

    Good Job Performics! Thank you!

    What COC stand for? Crooks Overwriting Commission
    Don't worry tracking is Infected

    Live life to the fullest, You only get 1 chance. Enjoy it while you can... Nothing last forever!

  12. #12
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Mr. Poon,

    If you noticed, I asked both Linkshare and CJ your question.
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  13. #13
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,419
    Thanks - I do believe it's an appropriate question to ask.

  14. #14
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    As do I
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  15. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. 180 solutions..haha!
    By Electropulse in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: March 15th, 2006, 06:57 PM
  2. 180 Solutions & PFX
    By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Google Affiliate Network - GAN
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 4th, 2004, 01:52 PM
  3. Interview with 180 Solutions
    By Linda - 5starAffiliatePrograms in forum Suspicious Activity!
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2004, 04:58 PM
  4. 180 Solutions
    By Akiva in forum Suspicious Activity!
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 21st, 2003, 03:42 PM
  5. 180 Solutions ?
    By BareNecessities in forum Suspicious Activity!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 24th, 2003, 01:24 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
  •