Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 100
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Was just logging into Performics and they have a publisher code of conduct listed there. I am reading it now.

    http://www.performics.com/about/pres...of_conduct.pdf

    Sales are everywhere, Sales are mine.

  2. #2
    Pimp Duck popdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Take off eh?
    Posts
    3,249
    Beat me to it.
    It is also posted on the main CJ page.

    Game on!!!!

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,511
    Be Free, Inc., a ValueClick Company
    W. Blair Heavey, Executive Vice President & General Manager

    Commission Junction, Inc.
    Jeffrey A. Pullen, President & CEO

    Performics Inc.
    James Crouthamel, President & CEO

    Where's Linkshare???

  4. #4
    Full Member styleforfree's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Boston...and a huge NY Yankees fan
    Posts
    407
    This is a great start!!!

    Huge thanks to EVERYONE who made this possible [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    With my best,

    Liz
    http://Styleforfree.com

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,419
    "Publisher may notify an End-User once that End-User has arrived at the Advertiser’s
    Web site of an opportunity to utilize technology employed by that Publisher and
    obtain the End-User’s consent via affirmative action upon each occurrence to proceed
    with the operation of such technology. Implementation of software application
    functionality requires that the notification be easily understood by the average End-User,
    that it occurs on each instance that the functionality is to be activated, and that it
    is not objectionable to the Advertiser.


    This says - No direct diversion is allowed but parasites can do anything you want to divert the user!

    This is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. The waiting game will be to see how merchants respond!

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    817
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Publisher may notify an End-User once that End-User has arrived at the Advertiser’s
    Web site of an opportunity to utilize technology employed by that Publisher and
    obtain the End-User’s consent via affirmative action upon each occurrence to proceed
    with the operation of such technology <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I think that refer's to advertisers and not publishers web sites.

    Yes- this is a great first step. I also believe a second summit is planned to continue the process and gather feedback from the community.

    Kudos to the solution providers who stuck out the meetings and for getting the Code put forth in early december!

    -wayne

    Wayne Porter
    V.P. Product Development
    AffTrack LLC.
    http://www.afftrack.com
    http://www.revtrends.com
    Get a free two-week trial use code ABWEB at RevTrends.com

  7. #7
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    From a first read, this is poppycock! One more than one statement in this very short document.

    The lack of LS's name to this document is very obvious. I'm assuming it's because they saw it for what it is, a bunch of poppycock. Their addendum is stronger than this, well if they make signing the thing mandatory.

    Going to go and do a slow careful read now.

    Keep Your Hands Off My Cookies

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    817
    I have looked it over it completely and I feel it balances all parties concerns fairly. Meaning publishers, software publishers, advertisers, networks, and the end-user.

    It also solves the automatic redirection of links which was to me the biggest problem.


    The big question will be how it is enforced. As I understand it each provider will be enforcing things on their own terms and they will be setting up contact parties within each of their companies to facilitate this. This type of enforcement is partly due, I believe, to concerns over anti-trust issues.

    I also believe they are planning a follow-up summit to keep dialogue flowing and to check to see how this solution meets the problem and to comment on other industry problems.

    I think the Code of Conduct is good, needed and timely!

    -wayne

    Wayne Porter
    V.P. Product Development
    AffTrack LLC.
    http://www.afftrack.com
    http://www.revtrends.com
    Get a free two-week trial use code ABWEB at RevTrends.com

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,419
    The network plans to legitimize the parasitic issues will be to adopt a standard that basically stipulates :

    "Consumers are so dumb, we have decided to allow and support unethical parties to be able to put applications on consumer PCs that exist for the sole purpose of watching a consumers every move while they surf the web so that the application can have an opportunity to remind the user that they can get a rebate if they go to the parasites web site."!

    This is a not a great leap in technology that benefits consumers.

    It only allows parasites to continue stealing sales from our sites. All they needed to say was........

    "All affiliates must use their on website and generate sales from them or email fliers sent to users who have opted in via their own website."

    I guess thats just to hard to do!

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    817
    The issues are addressed. People will either support it or they won't. So far the feedback I have gotten is positive and merchant's like the code.

    Perhaps publishers don't want the issues resolved? Perhaps it is easier to play the blame game?

    If Ebates or other properties can no longer automatically take affiliate's commissions I see that as a good thing and a big improvement over current conditions.

    -wayne

    Wayne Porter
    V.P. Product Development
    AffTrack LLC.
    http://www.afftrack.com
    http://www.revtrends.com
    Get a free two-week trial use code ABWEB at RevTrends.com

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    176
    I agree with HappyPoon.

    This is the whole "Are parasites OK if we make them jump through enough hoops?" I say no they're not.

    IMO this is not much of a victory for affiliates.

    I'm not actually disappointed, though, since it's about what I expected.

    - Ed

    "It's my hope that you'll come to appreciate the past should not be forgotten. It should be cherished, and run late-night, in syndication, after the local news." (Orange County)

  12. #12
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think that refer's to advertisers and not publishers web sites.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ebate's isn't popping up on publishers websites, it's waiting and popping up on advetisers. So what's the gain?

    Publisher [ebates/whenu] may notify an End-User [the visitor] once that End-User [visitor] has arrived at the Advertiser’s [Merchant's]
    Web site of an opportunity to utilize technology employed by that Publisher [ebates/whenu] and
    obtain the End-User’s [visitor] consent via affirmative action [click the pop up they already have coming up to get rebate/coupon/deals] upon each occurrence to proceed
    with the operation of such technology [then they can overwrite the originating affiliate's link]

    All ebates has to do is alter their pop up slightly to have a big "click here to receive your x% rebate from this merchant" and then wait to redirect to their affiliate link. Whenu would alrealy be in compliance with many instances in how it is functioning.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Each Service Provider has committed to enforcing the Code through means consistent with its own business operations and practices, and to communicating and cooperating with its customers regarding enforement and interpretation of the Code. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So it's left up to each network to interpret and enforce the Code in a means consistent with it's own operations and practices. So let's see, each service provider could interpret this very brief code in a different way, even though it's the same folks who wrote it up? Looking at the timing of ebates release of their new version and the release of this document, I have to wonder if these 3 networks are "interpreting" that ebates is in compliance. I can't believe that ebates didn't have some inkling about what was coming down the pipes.

    Keep Your Hands Off My Cookies

  13. #13
    ABW Ambassador ShoreMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    NJ, USA
    Posts
    912
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne Porter- AffTrack:
    I have looked it over it completely and I feel it balances all parties concerns fairly. Meaning publishers, software publishers, advertisers, networks, and the end-user.It also solves the automatic redirection of links which was to me the biggest problem.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Publisher may notify an End-User once that End-User has arrived at the Advertiser's Web site of an opportunity to utilize technology employed by that Publisher and obtain the End-User's consent via affirmative action upon each occurrence to proceed with the operation of such technology.

    If this means (as it appears to mean) that an end-user arriving at an advertisers site through that publishers link can then be presented with an offer by that publisher, then it seems like it addresses the issue fully.

    If it actually means that any publisher can present an offer based on a click-thru from any other publisher, then it means little, it is still interference with the original intent of the end-user and it would still be to the affiliates advantage to seek out merchants that are not permitting such interference.

  14. #14
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Victory chant of the day ... "Take the HO out of BHO!

    Great first step with a logical conclusion. Once enforcement breaks down it's simple to remove ALL incent sites from the major networks and let the pre-sell efforts rule the commissions.

    WebMaster Mike

    "Vision without Action is a daydream .. Action without vision can be a nightmare"
    Combine the two and you have the makings of a profitable reality!

    [This message was edited by EcomCity.com on December 10, 2002 at 01:38 PM.]

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    On first reading, what Wayne has been warning us about has come true. They gave us a paper, a 'code', and not much else.

    And he was right that these big comanies could not move fast too; 4+ weeks and they could not all four networks agree.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    176
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps publishers don't want the issues resolved? Perhaps it is easier to play the blame game?
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Wayne,

    As I see it there is one specific issue here that is not being addressed.

    As a businessman, I provide a service. My service is that I help people find things. If I don't get paid for that service, I can't continue providing it. Ebates in this model, would prevent me from getting paid when:

    1) I am the reason why "customer" found it's way to "merchant";
    2) I am the reason why "customer" is buying "product" from "merchant";
    3) I have provided a service to the customer by saving them "Internet time" and to the merchant by creating a sale;
    4) and the only service eBates provides is to make an offer to give a discount to "customer".

    In the above case, all the customer has to do is click yes on a "Would you like free money?" pop-up from eBates, and my links are over-written, and I don't get paid.

    Ebates can argue that they should be paid something because their cash back offer "closed" the sale, but there is no argument that explains why I should not be paid something as well. Either eBates owes me something, or the merchant should be paying us both. That is the issue, and it has NOT been addressed by this.

    Or do you see it differently?

    - Ed

    "It's my hope that you'll come to appreciate the past should not be forgotten. It should be cherished, and run late-night, in syndication, after the local news." (Orange County)

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    176
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ShoreMark:
    [QUOTE]
    If this means (as it appears to mean) that an end-user arriving at an advertisers site through __that__ publishers link can then be presented with an offer by __that__ publisher, then it seems like it addresses the issue fully.

    If it actually means that _any_ publisher can present an offer based on a click-thru from any other publisher, then it means little, it is still interference with the original intent of the end-user and it would still be to the affiliates advantage to seek out merchants that are not permitting such interference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The fact that it can be interpreted two different ways says a lot about the strength of this agreement.

    - Ed

    "It's my hope that you'll come to appreciate the past should not be forgotten. It should be cherished, and run late-night, in syndication, after the local news." (Orange County)

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Ebates can argue that they should be paid something because their cash back offer "closed" the sale, but there is no argument that explains why I should not be paid something as well. Either eBates owes me something, or the merchant should be paying us both. That is the issue, and it has NOT been addressed by this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    EXACTLY! The end user wouldn't be on the advertiser's site ready to buy if it weren't for the original referring publisher.

    The people doing the work -- making the sales happen -- get cut out of the deal. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif[/img]

    And, there's a 60-day grace period to comply! There goes the entire 2002 Holiday shopping season.

    Andy

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

    AFFILIATE MARKETING STANDARD: The site upon which the initial action to buy occurs is the site the commission is paid to. Period.

  19. #19
    ABW Ambassador ShoreMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    NJ, USA
    Posts
    912
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne Porter- AffTrack:
    Perhaps publishers don't want the issues resolved? Perhaps it is easier to play the blame game?
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't know about any blame game, but what I feel that the affiliates want is pretty simple:

    When they attract the eyes of an end-user to their Web site (be they a regular reader of that affiliates Web site, or a new visitor via a search engine) when that same end-user clicks on a merchant link on that affiliates Web site, that affiliate wants that end-user to be able to proceed with their ordering process (that resulted as function of the individual relationship between that particular merchant and that particular affiliate) without being monitored, and lured away, by another competing affiliate.

    Yes, that it will no longer be permissable to automatically overwrite the commission is better than it was yesterday, but if those third-parties will continue to target the clicks provided by the original affiliate with their offer overlay, except that it's only being presented at a slightly later time, then it means little to the integrity of the relationship between affiliate and merchant and as I said in an earlier post, it would still behoove the affiliate to seek out merchants that value that relationship enough to prevent this occurrence.

    Edit: I too will be interested in seeing if the reason LinkShare didn't sign on was because they feel the code needs more teeth in it.

  20. #20
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,916
    Hmmm.

    Nothing to add more than whats already been said really.

    I applaud the fact that we have SOMETHING.

    It still however looks like these predatory affiliates can continue to do things that most of us disagree with. And now these practices may even be more "legitimatized."

    I am relieved that at least drive by downloads and automagic link overwriting seem to be addressed and discouraged. Whether or not that is enforced, we'll see.

    I wish all distractions were addressed, however, I'm thinking that may never happen...

    Hmmmm...... will be interesting to see what comes of this.

    --
    The Newer Nicer Joseph [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador ShoreMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    NJ, USA
    Posts
    912
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joseph Monuit:
    Hmmm. It still however looks like these predatory affiliates can continue to do things that most of us disagree with. And now these practices may even be more "legitimatized."
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It goes back to the same old premise. I sign a lease and open a donut shop in a strip mall, if someone else also signs a lease and opens a donut shop next door and sells their, identical in every way, donuts for 5% less, it's called competition.

    If, on the other hand, yet another party wants to roll up a donut cart (without the lease costs and operating expenses) in front of both our stores and sell them for 10% less, they're going to be prohibited from that by the both the property management and local laws. Since there seems to be no (enforced) law against the parasites doing the exact same thing on Web, the only thing the affiliate can rely on, is honorable merchants that prevent it on their end, since this new code does nothing to prevent it as far as it seems now, unless my initial interpretation is the correct one (doubtful).

  22. #22
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    462
    Nevermind...

  23. #23
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    322
    As others have mentioned, it does seem odd that ebates resumed automatic redirection of affiliate links not long before this “Code of Conduct” was released giving them 60 days to continue automatic pilfering of commissions. It does seem that ebates had some inside information, but that’s only my paranoid opinion. The 60 day grace period makes it open season on affiliate links not only through Christmas but also up until the Valentines Day sales are beginning to dry up. Merry Christmas ebates! Don ’t get me wrong, though, I think this code is a good start, but only a start.

    Jason
    “That’s the song I’ve been sangin for years, that’s the way the wild wind blows” – Robert Earl Keen

  24. #24
    ABW Ambassador Ron Bechdolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Affiliateville, USA
    Posts
    7,927
    We waited all this time for this? Perhaps I had blinders on, but for some reason I had hoped for much more.

    Ron - 7 Days A Week Marketing

    Every day is a chance to learn something new and a opportunity to teach someone else.

  25. #25
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    To me this is simple what i want as an affiliate. If somebody arrives at a merchant site by way of an affiliate link, no diversion should take place. It's that simple. Having shopping tools is ok if the end user goes to a merchant site directly(typing url into browser) and then a popup would be ok. But once someone clicks a link on my site and the visitor is on the way to the merchant site, there should be no interference whatsoever. The visitor came to my site for a reason, and then clicks a link for a reason. Having a competing affiliate just waiting to issue a popup on traffic i'm sending to a merchant is diversionary. If the networks had that in writing then i would be happy.

    Once an affiliate link is clicked, no interference or diversion tactics whatsoever.

    Sales are everywhere, Sales are mine.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Be Free on the Code of Conduct
    By Pike in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 11th, 2002, 01:07 PM
  2. Code of Conduct Released--Linkshare is Not a Party
    By Snowman in forum Rakuten LinkShare - LS
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: December 10th, 2002, 11:48 AM

Posting Permissions

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