Results 1 to 4 of 4
June 17th, 2006, 07:01 AM #1
LMI, Tracking & Publisher Privacy
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
- Los Angeles
I'm finding myself increasingly bothered about privacy issues when thinking about the possibility of CJ data mining "publisher" sites. I'm thinking like a "publisher" about this because if it's to be invasive (and difficult) and there aren't replacements for CJ merchants, then pages will have to be turned into content pages and run contextual advertising from Adsense or YPN.
What I'm really wanting to know, is that by them putting JS links on sites that call scripts that we'd have know way of knowing what they are and what they do, what kinds of information would they be able to gather about our sites and pages when people visit?
June 17th, 2006, 09:17 AM #2
Do you have a Google Analytics account? What about Statcounter?
Combine all of that information and that is what CJ will get, for free, from every single publisher. With VC/CJ ads reaching 68% of internet traffic (according to comScore Media Metrix), what is all of that worth... millions? billions? Oh yea, VC/CJ also knows when you make a sale so they cap off your data-mining with exclusive knowledge into what actually converts! They are setting up the most massive traffic-sales conversion data gathering system ever conceived.
If you have a clue as to the value of that sort of data (being able to combine the traffic and purchasing patterns of over 2/3rds of the internet), it is easy to see why VC/CJ doesn't mind culling some of the noisy affiliate chaff.
June 17th, 2006, 01:13 PM #3
I agree with TheHoff on this.
I also said this earlier...
We want affiliate networks, not to be a part of a data collection machine that interferes with our primary goal - selling for our merchants.
Merchants should realize that CJ goals are not primarily aligned with the merchant's reason for using CJ. CJ isn't just interested in facilitating affiliate selling, they're in search of so much more from the merchant relationship. Mandatory LMI, even if they back off that some, also proves that CJ's more interested in the data collection angle, than the affiliate selling angle.
If I were a merchant and planned on staying with CJ (an unlikely scenario), I'd say CJ should pay me for the value I bring to their data collection machine. No more merchant fees paid to CJ, they should pay me as a merchant to be a part of their larger business efforts.
June 17th, 2006, 01:59 PM #4
- Join Date
- August 30th, 2005
I just tried this to verify it.
The big difference between the IMG tag used for tracking and a 'black box'(unknown code) JS tag is...
With an IMG tag CJ only sees a server log entry for a visitor viewing your page with your page as the refferer.
With a 'black box' JS tag CJ can get YOUR server log entry with your refferer which is often the search engine that your visitor came from and the keywords they searched on. Now that would make a handy DB.
I think this is what TheHoff said above.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Last edited by brent; June 17th, 2006 at 02:24 PM.
By cowboysfan in forum Business & Legal IssuesReplies: 2Last Post: February 19th, 2014, 02:23 AM
By isellstuff in forum Google Affiliate Network - GANReplies: 2Last Post: March 23rd, 2011, 01:40 PM
By quantum115 in forum Newbie Affiliate FAQs & Helpful ArticlesReplies: 4Last Post: March 6th, 2011, 07:50 PM
By jaysh in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 1Last Post: March 12th, 2008, 03:59 PM
By deepestblue in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 8Last Post: June 21st, 2006, 10:58 PM