Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    Donuts finally has something positive to say about DoubleClick
    Google recently bought DoubleClick. DoubleClick is big in the ad distribution business and also owns Performics. DoubleClick is well known for having malware distributed through it's systems. I've been hoping that the new owners (Google) would be forcing better policing within the halls of DoubleClick and Performics for all the malware antics that have gone on there for years. I think a sign of that actually coming, just occured.

    Last week, some researchers caught a german company called adtraff who were spreading malware polution by pumping it through DoubleClick's Ad systems. In fact, initially, the researchers thought DoubleClick themselves were to blame for doing it, when really DoubleClick just hadn't yet caught the germans exploiting the DoubleClick system. So if DoubleClick's guilty of anything, it's just less effective internal policing than external independent researchers can perform.

    Lo and behold though, to my surprise, insiders are saying that DoubleClick isn't faking it and talking DoubleSpeak like we hear from Zango-type companies all the time. I hear they're embarassed and are very pissed off and are tracking down the german's (who I think will likely end up not being german's after all) and stopping the shitware from pumping out through their systems.

    While I would prefer they caught this stuff earlier, on their own, it does appear I can give them a two-pinky-mini-clap for actually acting on input from researchers.

    Google has refused to comment on all of this. I am hoping G can design better and better policing mechanisms within their DoubleClick enterprise to cut off the malware pumping.

    Related stories:
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2215635,00.asp
    http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2007...-networks.html

    So how did the scumware makers avoid being detected by Google DoubleClick's inside malware researchers? Their adtraff flash video ads had encrypted coding that would use geo-activation as well as timing settings so that the DoubleClick guys would only see flash ads that never did the bad behavior. Once the ads were up and out being served to the world, they awoke and fired off. The flash files would then pass a redirect url to the ad viewer and take them to sites that would trigger installs of malware.

    Imagine how G feels about all of this... what if people started saying, don't click on ads, you'll get spyware installed... I am quite sure G-men and the heads at DoubleClick are staying very quiet, but working Doubletime on resolving this.

    How will G's DoubleClick be able to police something like this going forward? I think all responsible ad networks and ad technology providers are going to have to create automated police bots that are remote and autonomous, who mimick consumer browsing, and monitor what happens in the field. I also think someone like Google will force their advertisers to reveal (or not encode) any ad elements that are encrypted with the ad delivery stream. G has the ability to monitor many things, they have the resources to monitor the behavior of the ads that they play in a role in distributing. They have a serious interest in making sure this shitake stops.

    So DoubleClick (and you Performics underlings), I hope you step up your screening of partners going forward, but thank you for doing the right things in handling this adtraff nightmare.

  2. #2
    Affiliate Manager Howard Gottlieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 30th, 2006
    Location
    Mansfield, Texas
    Posts
    1,561
    Sign of changing times?? Nah.
    I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die
    to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there
    isn't and die to find out there is.

  3. #3
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    I'm as skeptical as you normally, but with G's purchase, there's something very different at work here now. Very different indeed. It will take time to see whether I'm right or you are, but not years. G can't stand too many of these stories becoming public, they simply have too much at stake financially and are also watched by geo-political players.

  4. #4
    Comfortably Numb John Powell's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 17th, 2005
    Location
    Bayou Country, LA
    Posts
    3,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Donuts
    but with G's purchase
    Has the deal actually finalized?


  5. #5
    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 bumpaw
    Has the deal actually finalized?
    Yes, the deal is done, but must be approved by some gov't entities.
    http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/10/...-doublecl.html

    "Mountain View, CA, 4/13/2007 - Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) announced today a definitive agreement to acquire DoubleClick Inc., a global leader in digital marketing technology and services, for $3.1 billion in cash from San Francisco-based private equity firm Hellman & Friedman along with JMI Equity and management. The acquisition will combine DoubleClick's expertise in ad management technology for media buyers and sellers with Google's leading advertising platform and publisher monetization services."
    (http://www.doubleclick.com/about/new...ls.aspx?id=530)

    But, no matter what the status is, pre-approval or post, G doesn't want this story to be repeated.

  6. #6
    Grandma broke her coccyx! Uncle Rico's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 8th, 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,238
    I kind of like your shitware, scumware adjectives.

  7. #7
    Classic Rocker Mack's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 27th, 2007
    Location
    Lower Left Coast
    Posts
    1,167
    I think it is a good sign. Bottom line is that it comes down to the bottom line.

    Google makes most of its money selling ads. If a few stories like this were to pop up, people would quit clicking ads. No ads, no money. So they are going to have to do something about it, quickly. It's not like they don't have the money or technology to come up with a way to police themselves.

  8. #8
    The slot machine that IS paid! Billy Kay's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Small Town in Tennessee
    Posts
    5,226
    There was a great article yesterday about how G states on their website they're not affiliated with any SEO companies... yet they now own performics... and went on to talk about the inherent conflicts of interest

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,511
    Google has not acquired Doubleclick, nor is that what the press release says. Government approvals come before consummation of the deal, not after.

  10. #10
    Best New ABW Member 2007 sfcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 9th, 2007
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    1,705
    Donuts - I respectfully request permission to have the following as a sig when I get the rights:

    "I can give them a two-pinky-mini-clap" - Donuts 2007

    -sfcom

  11. #11
    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 sfcom
    Donuts - I respectfully request permission to have the following as a sig when I get the rights:

    "I can give them a two-pinky-mini-clap" - Donuts 2007

    -sfcom
    Haha, sure. But be careful, if you keep up the humor, Haiko will assign you a wise guy handle2, that byline that goes under your handle / name.

    :-)

  12. #12
    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 Snowman
    Google has not acquired Doubleclick, nor is that what the press release says. Government approvals come before consummation of the deal, not after.
    The question wasn't whether it had been consummated, it was whether it was finalized. Go back and read it. Those are two different things.

    There are two types of people in the world, and you and I are cases of each one.

    I say a deal is an agreement.
    You say a deal is a consummated agreement.

    If I make an agreement and shake someone's hand or sign a contract, I consider the deal to be final, done, completed, immutable without renogotiation, etc.

    You evidently believe the deal is not final until external things happen and all the conditions of the agreeement have been met. By your definition, let's say G pays $3.1B to DoubleClick right away, and DC's founder had agreed to work 3 more years there. Two years from now, is the deal finalized? Is it consummated?

    Money is an obligation in the agreement. For the deal to be final, all obligations in it don't have to be completed - they are what is promised and mutually agreed upon, to be completed.

    If you make an agreement with someone and their check to you then bounces, does that mean that no deal was ever finalized? Can you sue them? If so, on what grounds?

  13. #13
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,511
    I stand behind and reiterate my earlier response.

  14. #14
    Comfortably Numb John Powell's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 17th, 2005
    Location
    Bayou Country, LA
    Posts
    3,432
    The question wasn't whether it had been consummated, it was whether it was finalized.
    I ask the question because I was wondering if G had taken the controls yet. I'll have my lawyer ask the questions from now on.


  15. #15
    Newbie HazelB's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 25th, 2007
    Posts
    74
    Maybe this will clear things up on the deal...
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/I...ow/2541671.cms

  16. #16
    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 Snowman
    I stand behind and reiterate my earlier response.
    And to be accurate, you've also chosen to answer none of the questions I've asked of you to further discuss this issue, one you raised in objection to something I had stated.

    I didn't have you pegged as the declarative posturing type before... are you sure this is how you want the discussion to end?

    Whether the deal is final or not, approved or not, consummated or not, I still think Google will still feel immense pressure if these stories from their announced acquisition (or whatever else it actually is right now or what anyone would like to call it) get mainstream and don't soon ebb. If anyone wants to differ, let's discuss that. If anyone thinks G has no risks in this event and prospective future ones like it because of the timing or pending nature of approval by the various government entities, speak up and toss your ideas in there, they are of interest to me and I'm sure others.

    My hopes here are that cleanliness comes to an area where we've all seen dirt in the past, because the players, through acquisitions happening everywhere, are becoming companies like G that are public and have a different stewardship of their reputation that results in things getting cleaner as times passes. So I think very good news is emerging here, for our entire industry. And for the first time, I think I can clearly see that DC is acting firmly and quickly to stop it. In the recent past, companies like this were not understood by the media and they'd just keep pumping shitware flash redirecting crapola out to the world because no press coverage was there, nobody understood what was happening, nobody had anything at risk in letting it flow... so it did.

    I've heard the rogue partner story many times before, as cover for shitake that kept coming... so call me an optimist, but this is the first time I actually believe the rogue partner story. And I think DClick is dead serious about chasing down this rogue and stopping it.

    So if we disagree on everything, the word finalized, whether this event is meaningful, or the how it affects us - I'm saying this event may be special for us all and just might possibly mark a point in the road where some very big players just might have taken a turn for the better.

  17. #17
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,511
    My intent was solely to correct misinformation that was posted for the benefit of the person who asked and anyone else reading this. It never was to discuss anything else. Mission accomplished.

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    November 1st, 2005
    Posts
    2,064
    Great thread and info Donuts, it does sound like a good step in the right direction. Snowman, I see nothing has changed, I'm unsure why you always need to be so p.essimistic and totally takes threads out of perspective & direction.
    Hosting Discounts from Professional Rates Hosts - Deals and Coupons on Domain Names from GoDadday, Namecheap, Domain.com and more top registers.

  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
    Snowman has her point, and I feel I have mine - but the bickering over whether it's finalized or not, isn't what we should focus on. The cheaters of the world hope we bicker over less relevant details and miss the larger point. Google is feeling pressure - they're under a microscope right now, this DC acquisition deal being scrutinized, especially in Europe. And I believe DoubleClick is feeling that pressure - now would be the wrong time to muck up the monopoly scare discussions (that affect their deal) with newspaper reports of the shitware being spread. All the deal-is-final or not arguing aside, we have a flash-infection-via-major-ad-distribution-player story made public along with tactics and identities involved - this is the main issue / news. I remember talking to several prominent researchers myself, roughly over two years ago, and we were all trying to find out how flash was most often being employed to spread shitware. Now we know how they're doing it - and we now know how they fooled DC and the signs that I see all say that DC is tracking it down and seriously cracking heads. DC did not deny things (as many ad networks did, in times past), they engaged the researchers and found the problem and stopped it. Two years ago, it is my opinion, they wouldn't have bothered as long as the check from the advertiser didn't bounce.

    If all (or most) of the major ad networks become public companies with reputations to protect, I think (and hope) that we'll see a much cleaner landscape unfold.

    [edit by request]
    Last edited by Merchant Consultant Team; November 20th, 2007 at 10:48 AM.

  20. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Some Positive Words
    By SunshineTricia in forum Rakuten LinkShare - LS
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 12th, 2010, 10:48 PM
  2. A positive experience...
    By bhawk in forum Google Affiliate Network - GAN
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 15th, 2006, 10:03 PM
  3. A positive spin!
    By Rexanne in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 4th, 2006, 02:01 PM
  4. Be Positive!
    By weisinator in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 18th, 2003, 08:41 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
  •