Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 73
  1. #1
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    Jeff Pullen States 5% Revenue From Downloads
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...&siteid=google

    At CJ, a rough estimate of about 5% of revenue in this division comes from downloads, according to Pullen.
    Hmm...ok. Not like I have any hard figures to go off of myself personally. But, let's think about that one. Annual Report 2004 states Affiliate Marketing Revenue (that would be CJ and BF with some of their other services put into the Media Division for reporting) was $60M. Five percent of $60M is $3M revenue attributed from downloads. That's CJ's take. Now approximating it out a bit (not a true figure of course), if CJ's take is 30% of the commissions paid, then that $3M revenue translates into roughly $10M in commissions for 2004.

    Now I'm having a hard time coming to terms that all the downloads out there together only generated $10M revenue for the year through CJ/BF. UPromise, IGive, SchoolPop, WhenU, 180, BoxTops, Ebates, SAHS, TopRebates, IBIS, BuyersPort with all their co-branded sites, GiantRewards, all the ExactAdvertising apps, DonationTree to just name a few. So all these folks combined (and many more not even listed) only took in $10M from commissions earned at CJ/BF? Not to mention all the affs who run stuff through 3rd party apps like 180, DirectRevenue, AdRoar and ExactAdvertising. And while I don't have any hard figures myself, I do know what I have had some individual Merchant's tell me a particular download was doing a month just for them. The math just isn't adding up. Rather mind boggling.

    "We have in our affiliate marketing business a huge number of publishers, some of which use downloads," he said. "Over the course of time, the amount of revenue has continued to shrink as we've enforced a code of conduct."
    Bolding added by me. That's the part the made me have to pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard. Oh yeah...that would be THE reason for any revenue shrinkage being seen. I'm sure it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the growth of consumer education, installation of spyware removal tools, etc. Oh yes...I'm quite sure the revenue loss being experienced via downloadable apps is related to CJ's enforcing of the COC.

    Gotta just LOVE corporate PR spin when the heat gets turned up a notch. Of course with CJ accounting for about 35% of ValueClick's revenue, I'd be putting Pullen out there to spin also.

    After reading those quotes I was inspired however. I have some swamp land down here for sale if anyone is interested.

  2. #2
    Merchant Linda's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    TN, USA
    Posts
    1,030
    I'm sure it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the growth of consumer education, installation of spyware removal tools, etc
    I'm sure it also has absolutely nothing to do with little ole affiliates like us that have removed quite a large number of CJ merchants from our sites either. We're now Linkshare free and won't be too long before we'll be CJ free and then they can have all those software downloading affiliates all to themselves.

  3. #3
    pph Expert! Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    5,781
    I would imagine this is about as near the truth as you are likely to get from any Network let alone CJ regarding the parasites earnings (privacy don't forget and all that rubbish) until the Law Lords subpoena their records for a wonderful court case.

    If I remember correctly we were told here on ABW about 2 or 3 years back that the parasites only took around 1/10th of a percent LOL another great big fi..... (spin). LOL

    If this post upsets anyone please delete it. LOL
    One day parasites and their ilk will be made illegal, I bet a few Lawyers will be pissed off when the day comes.
    Mr. Spitzer is fetching it nearer

    YouTrek

  4. #4
    MasterMike HardwareGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    3,810
    I Think we should all email the NY State Attorney General who is investigating Yahoo for their Roll in adware/spyware. I think if he were made aware of ValueClicks involement he could investigate them. Afterall Valueclick has offices in NY.

  5. #5
    Ad Network Rep ToddCrawford's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,162
    There are two parts to this story to discuss/debate. One part has to do with the percent of commissions earned by publishers utilizing software. The second part is what percentage of those earnings could be considered "parasitic"?

    If a software publisher earns $100 in commissions and none of their traffic overwrote another publisher's link or intercepted their commissions, what issue would other non-software publishers have? The point I am trying to make is we monitor the network traffic for this type of behavior and take appropriate action whenever it occurs. We require all publishers that use software to be in compliance with the CoC. If they are not in compliance or are unwilling to change, they are removed from the network.
    Todd Crawford
    Co-Founder, Impact Radius

    Give me a minute before I post again

  6. #6
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    There are two parts to this story to discuss/debate. One part has to do with the percent of commissions earned by publishers utilizing software. The second part is what percentage of those earnings could be considered "parasitic"?
    Jeff didn't make that distinction in his comments. Or least it didn't get reported if he did. Of course if CJ wants to let us know what proportion of the revenue % earned by downloads is parasitic, I'm all ears.

  7. #7
    Ad Network Rep ToddCrawford's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,162
    Kellie,

    The point I am trying to make is that we want it to be zero and that is where we are keeping it. We have significantly beefed up our Network Quality team and are better able to stay on top of these issues. In addition we have removed the publishers that were unwilling to comply with the CoC.
    Todd Crawford
    Co-Founder, Impact Radius

    Give me a minute before I post again

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    "If they are not in compliance or are unwilling to change, they are removed from the network."

    So all the software affiliates are currently in compliance?

    "we have removed the publishers that were unwilling to comply with the CoC."

    Like who? I know LS has removed Whenu, 180. CJ? Are they little ones that no one has heard of, haven't really made any money, might interfere with the bigger ones? The 5% is interesting. Since it looks like a lot of the top publishers are software affiliates. But who knew all of them put together only account for 5%, it's amazing.
    Last edited by Trust; May 4th, 2005 at 10:30 PM.

  9. #9
    Internet Cowboy
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,662
    You can see Zango popping on one of millions of affiliate links. When it pops it resets the cookie simply because the merchant's web site is now entered via another affiliate link. How can you possibly say
    The point I am trying to make is we monitor the network traffic for this type of behavior and take appropriate action whenever it occurs.
    unless you monitor every click you record and the previous clicks eminating from the user's browser.
    I can care less about Jeff Pullen or anyone else in VC and the spin they broadcast. What I care about is the fact that Zango is popping via MetricsDirect when a targeted web site is reached. Does it really alter the honest affiliate's page? No. Does it alter the honest affiliate's income? YES it does and CJ does nothing about it. When a customer goes from my site to xxxx.com then zango pops, it resets the cookie to the MetricsDirect affiliate or to 180 themselves.
    Todd, this action has a positive effect on your paycheck while it eliminates mine and everyone else's.
    How can you honestly say
    We require all publishers that use software to be in compliance with the CoC.
    Is the sand so deep in Santa Barbara that your head is buried in it 24/7? Or do you truly just not give a sh!t about people?


  10. #10
    pph Expert! Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    5,781
    If a software publisher earns $100 in commissions and none of their traffic overwrote another publisher's link or intercepted their commissions, what issue would other non-software publishers have?
    You know damned well we have said many times here on ABW that if a company like this does not divert or steal our comissions we have nothing against them in fact we would welcome them. It's a shame I can only think of one company offhand that does just this.
    The point I am trying to make is we monitor the network traffic for this type of behavior and take appropriate action whenever it occurs. We require all publishers that use software to be in compliance with the CoC. If they are not in compliance or are unwilling to change, they are removed from the network.
    This is yet another load of codswallop Todd and you know it. How can you expect me or anyone else here at ABW to think you are an honest man when you post this kind of drivel? What about the hundreds of times we have posted and shown you videos of ebates whenu 180 and all the others diverting our traffic and swapping our AFFID's. They are still at CJ and LS, they are still stealing our commissions, how the hell can you expect us to respect you when they are still allowed to do this kind of cr*p?

    Why do you not come out and tell the truth why try to whitewash or put a spin on everything? I suspect that CJ has no bloody intention of getting rid of any them let alone stopping them from stealing or diverting our hard earned commissions. The parasites are making CJ good money therefore it is quite reasonable for me to think CJ's opinion could well be "it is hard luck on the nonparasitic affiliates because we make more from the parasites"

    Just as an afterthought can you name once when CJ have taken any action against any parasite without being first told about it umpteen times here at ABW?
    One day parasites and their ilk will be made illegal, I bet a few Lawyers will be pissed off when the day comes.
    Mr. Spitzer is fetching it nearer

    YouTrek

  11. #11
    Ad Network Rep ToddCrawford's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,162
    Perhaps your assumptions are wrong.
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo...53300A639CE%7D
    Todd Crawford
    Co-Founder, Impact Radius

    Give me a minute before I post again

  12. #12
    15 years and counting
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,121
    Jeff Pullen - "180Solutions was in violation of our code of conduct," said Pullen. "They were kicked out," earlier this year.
    So, when are you going to give us our money back, CJ. You can't tell us they were not in compliance and allow them to go away with our commissions.

  13. #13
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    Cj is probably just keeping the commissions.
    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
    Kellie,

    The point I am trying to make is that we want it to be zero and that is where we are keeping it. We have significantly beefed up our Network Quality team and are better able to stay on top of these issues. In addition we have removed the publishers that were unwilling to comply with the CoC.
    Todd,

    Yes I know CJ has beefed up it's Network Quality Team and have implemented some additional measures for detection. You and I have talked about some of that and I don't doubt it at all. I also know that CJ has terminated some affiliates for failure to comply with the COC. And yes, 180 is gone from the CJ Network (although that event is likely a bit more recent than the impression Pullen gives when saying 'earlier this year').

    Equally true to all of the above is that I could turn on the test computer right now and find some folks in violation of the COC. My point wasn't about parasitic behavior however. Whether it's parasitic on affiliates or Merchants traffic. The majority of applications are programmed in such a way that they have to feed off of something (web site, email, IM, etc) the end user is already doing and hence are parasitic. Although the COC seems to allow for parasitic behavior of Merchant's traffic and wouldn't be a COC violation.

    My point was that for quite a long time now many people have wanted to know what amount of revenue going through a Network can be attributed to downloadable applications in general. I've had reporters ask me numerous times. I know they've asked the Networks. I know the 'whispered' figures I've heard for years, but no one has ever come out and said publicly AFAIK. Pullen has now come out and given a figure. I'm saying that I'm finding that figure hard to believe. That it seems low. The dollar amounts just don't seem to add up to support the 5% figure Pullen is stating. I think that the degree to which downloadable applications are involved in Affiliate Marketing is greater than 5%. With all the increased attention right now towards downloadable applications from people outside of our Industry, the real degree to which downloadable applications have become a part of the Industry is important to all of us.

  15. #15
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellie aka Ms. B
    Jeff Pullen States 5% Revenue From Downloads
    if CJ's take is 30% of the commissions paid, then that $3M revenue translates into roughly $10M in commissions for 2004.
    BULLSH!T --- if anyone is trying to tell me that eBates [who wants to go public] is only making a portion of that $10MM ... what was I born yesterday?

    Quote Originally Posted by Todd Crawford
    There are two parts to this story to discuss/debate. One part has to do with the percent of commissions earned by publishers utilizing software. The second part is what percentage of those earnings could be considered "parasitic"?
    Yep, so there you have it, eBates is in compliance so they wouldn't be considered "parasitic" so what we need defined is what are the companies that are considered "Downloads" by Mr. Pullen so that we can extrapolate the numbers better .... because there is no Freakin' way that it's only $10MM.


    ============================
    Edited to Add the following Disclaimer
    ============================

    I am not classifying eBates as a download application nor implying they are parasites or in or out of compliance in any manner. eBates, however was co-bundled in prior installs thus I used them as a download app example.
    Last edited by Haiko de Poel, Jr.; May 5th, 2005 at 12:18 PM.
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  16. #16
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    Pullen says "a rough estimate". So here's what I'm wondering. Does that estimate only contain the $$ that are easily seen as coming from downloads. For example, where it is known that pretty much ALL traffic is coming from a download as the 'affiliate' doesn't have any web site presence.

    But what about the cases where the download (such as Ebates and many of the other more high profile apps) run the URL that a Merchant is located on their web site through the application. That URL (whether the traffic came from the web site or software) shows as referrer. While there are some methods that could be used on CJ's end indicate where the traffic really came from, it becomes a bit more murky to know for sure. And I'm wondering if CJ just didn't include all THOSE figures in their 'estimate.'

  17. #17
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    Haiko, you are SOOOOOOO right on this.

    I'd bet we'll soon here the spin on it further. And the full quote is:
    At CJ, a rough estimate of about 5% of revenue in this division comes from downloads, according to Pullen.

    Question is, what does Pullen mean by "in this division" - I suspect he means the tiny little number division he created for Spitzer to see. Once the books are analyzed, as Haiko did above for just one stealer, the truth will be known. Guess we'll have to wait for Spitzer's subpoena... that will be a great day.

    PS - Todd's not sleeping well. The Karmic train-horn in the distance is getting nearer.

  18. #18
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    Kellie - great post!!! The revenue they are talking about surely has nothing to do with what adware does and the comms it generates for CJ when it's in scum mode - what it does all day. They just mean the nickels they generate for CJ when they pay publishers who lead people into downloading an evil app - this is not the aggregate financial gain reaped by CJ's complicit cooperation here.

    Spitzer comes.

  19. #19
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    we're innocent. we secretly kicked them out a long time ago. we're clean.

    like death row inmates finding God.

    face it - you lied and you cheated. you do not kick people out.

    hire Edelman to run an independent division that oversees your behavior, or, you and your shareholders are going to finally be punished more than your complicit profit can offset.

  20. #20
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Time for a smart "tough love" decession by the networks management. Due to the push to eliminate spyware/adware vendors from hijacking consumers systems without their expressed permission by State and Federal governments, the networks are exposed to devestating bad PR and legal fines by their association with known bad actors account for only 5% of their revenue. It's a No brainer to infer this should immediately justify completely eliminating all S/W download affiliates from the commission pool as sooth all the ruffled feathers. Saving the trust and performace of 95% of your revenue stream partners by eliminating the costs of controlling and enforcing your CoC violators hardly takes a MBA mind to justify.

    100% of any hijacked referral cookies by the BHO's would be automatically move from the BHO sales total column to the rightful referral affiliates accounts with no extra expense to the networks. No one penny lost by the networks and a huge PR gain. Just cut all the BHO losers lose and relieve your legal staff and pool of merchnat victims of double dipping.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

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

  21. #21
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    Todd,

    Here's an affiliate that uses Zango / 180 to pop his site all over the place.
    http://www.*********-review.com

    Note that his site contains javascript (that's triple layer encoded to disguise it - although poorly) so that a merchant cookie is written when his site is delivered via popup. Note that his site does not require a visitor (even though they're all illegimately obtained via adware) to even click on his links to a merchant - the javascript plants the cookie upon popping. Note that this behavior ignores afsrc=1.

    He intentionally targets the merchants landing pages with the popup to take credit for the sale after someone else (like me (an affiliate), a search engine or a neighbor) took them to the merchants site. He's cheating.

    Click on his "landing pages" and then check your cookies to see affiliate number:

    http://www.*********-review.com (uses javascript to overwrite cookie)
    http://www.*********-review.com (uses meta-refresh to overwite cookie)
    http://www.*********-review.com (uses javascript to overwrite cookie)

    Those first 2 are CJ programs!

    Are you telling me that your team is incapable of finding people doing this?

    I reported these actions to the merchants - so before you tell me you terminated them a week or two ago, don't bother - "you" don't do anything but cover your butt when it's exposed. And your company is VERY slow to do that!

    How many more "landing pages" does this guy have?

    CJ gets credit from this affiliate's "sales" even when there's no referring affiliate who deserved a sales commission - like when a consumer finds dish pronto from it's own listings in a search engine's results pages.


    I'm getting the urge to go into CJ movie making mode to expose how laughably easy it is to catch the cheaters that your team is overlooking intentionally.

    You're complicit - and I mean you and all of CJ. And the payback is coming soon.

    Spitzer comes.
    Last edited by Haiko de Poel, Jr.; May 5th, 2005 at 12:54 PM.

  22. #22
    Affiliate Marketer Rogi's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    415
    I think we need to invie Spitzer to ABW. It would be beneficial to his cause and to all of us.

  23. #23
    ABW Ambassador Ron Bechdolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Affiliateville, USA
    Posts
    7,927
    Donut,

    Glad you are able to show folks some examples, but it clearly stats here you are not to post Affiliate URLs.
    Ron Bechdolt | Affiliate Program Management Consultant
    7 Days A Week Marketing

  24. #24
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    CJ is saying 5%. Affiliates say up to 50%. I think the real number is somewhere in between. (Any amount is too much.)
    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

  25. #25
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    Quote Originally Posted by 7-days
    Donut,

    Glad you are able to show folks some examples, but it clearly stats here you are not to post Affiliate URLs.
    Which of those is an affiliate url?

    I don't see any affiliate codes. And I'd hardly characterize this cheating scum as an affiliate.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. States See Little Revenue From Online Sales Tax Laws
    By JCrooks - AffiliateWindow in forum Affiliate Tax Laws
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 7th, 2014, 03:01 PM
  2. Will Jeff Pullen buy CJ? ;)
    By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: November 17th, 2006, 09:05 AM
  3. Pullen Promoted; Vadnais to Manage CJ
    By Kellie aka Ms. B in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 21st, 2005, 06:17 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: January 20th, 2003, 11:52 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
  •