226 New Posts Today

[jhonysilver]

I was looking at my disapproved ads on Google and the message I got is as follows:

At present, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites (including services or products therein) that violate or encourage violation of any applicable laws. In this case, Google has received information via a complaint from a third-party indicating that your advertisement directs users to a website that may contain material that infringes copyrights and that this material cannot be distributed online.

As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising that we accept on our site and to terminate particular ads in our discretion.

[Brian_AffiliateFuture]

Hmm...thanks for the heads up. We'll look into this immediately.

[markwelch]

Don't just assume that "copyright" is the ONLY issue -- Google may also have trouble with the deceptive nature of the signup process, in which a user is prompted for name & email & password, then redirected to a page that apparently gathers a bunch of information for a survey client, without EVER clearly describing what the "mpfree" service is all about. When I tried to re-visit the site (after refusing to complete the mandatory survey), I was shown my "personal page" which is just a list of incentivized offers plus a promotion to download some software (which I cynically assume will include a toolbar/adware, since I can't see any terms & conditions or details). I was NEVER able to figure out what I'd actually be able to access, if anything, from the "mpfree" service, nor could I find any terms & conditions, privacy policy, etc.

Personally, this is a distasteful offer that I would never promote.

[GulfstreamPhil]

My name is Phil Nadel. I am the President of Gulfstream Internet Group, the owner of MPFree.com. I am writing in reply to Mark Welch's post.

MPFree.com is a straightforward offer. Members join because they want to earn free, legal music downloads when they complete offers from our advertisers. We don't "gather a bunch of information for a survey client". We provide our members with offers to earn free music downloads. We have more than 750,000 free tracks from every major label and many indie labels. We pay all of the royalties to the artists, so the tracks are legal and safe to download.

There is a link to our Terms and Conditions, which includes our Privacy Policy, right on our home page and on the Personal Page.

I am sorry that you find the MPFree offer "distasteful", Mark. Fortunately, more than 2 million MPFree members disagree with you.

I welcome any questions or further discussion about MPFree.

Best Regards,
Phil

[Snib]

I'm with Mark on this one. Any site that starts an audio track automatically already has a strike against it. The fact that the front page *only* blatantly requests my contact information is another strike. I proceeded through this page for a good chuckle and was bombared with one "offer" after another. I'm sure each and every one of them will sell my email to any number of 3rd parties. I wouldn't trust this site at all.

- Scott

[GulfstreamPhil]

I don't understand why you feel that playing an audio message on a landing page is a strike against a web site, but everyone is entitled to his opinion. This is something that we have tested extensively and we have found that our conversion rates are higher when we include the audio message.

You indicate that you would not trust MPFree because you are concerned that our advertisers might sell your email address. That is akin to not trusting Google for fear that some of its advertisers will also sell your email address. Web surfers must always beware of which sites they share information with, whether they discovered those sites through Google or MPFree. There is no risk when sharing your email address or other personal information with MPFree as we never sell, rent or share this data with any third parties without a member's express permission.

Regards,
Phil

[markwelch]

I think it's worthwhile to address the issue of "unwanted audio" on web pages. Like Snib, I find it unprofessional and an absolute bar to my ever sending affiliate traffic. There are several reasons.

First, there is simply the basic issue of "control and permission." When a computer user surfs to a web site, the user has certain expectations about what's going to happen, and the majority of people do NOT expect an audio stream to begin playing. In many cases, there is no quick way to turn the unwanted audio off or down.

Second, the audio stream is intrusive -- it commands another dimension of the user's attention, possibly interrupting or interfering with other audio that the consumer is paying attention to. Often, the unwanted audio stream can only be disabled by completely disabling the computer's speakers, preventing the user from continuing to enjoy other computer audio.

Third is the privacy implication: the audio blast expands the radius in which others can identify what the computer user is doing. Since we all recognize that a substantial number of our visitors are "web surfing at work," we must also recognize that they often don't want others in their workplace to realize that they are enjoying a brief diversion from work. In the worst-case scenario, the unwanted audio might result in someone's boss realizing that the employee is "loafing," which might get someone fired!

I certainly understand that some merchants believe that "their site is different," perhaps because the visitor has actually chosen to visit a site that has some kind of "audio" theme (such as an MP3 site, a text-to-speech site, or a VOIP site). However, my perception is that these visitors are actually MORE likely to find the unsolicited audio to be intrusive, because they are more likely to already be playing some other audio stream which they don't want interrupted, and of course they are less likely to be satisfied by simply turning off the computer's speakers. Why not get permission first?

Finally, the justification that "conversion rates are higher" is not an acceptable defense of any practice. After all, I might have better conversion rates if I used adware, pop-ups, pop-unders, and other marketing strategies that are unethical. My conversion might be even better if I was willing to use illegal marketing tactics.

When you're on trial for bank robbery, it's not a good defense to say "I earned a lot more money by robbing banks than any other work I did." If the judge is considering a sentencing enhancement because you used a gun, it's not going to help your case if you say, "But if I don't use a gun, some victims don't give me their money!"

Of course, unwanted audio isn't as bad as robbing a bank or promoting your offers via adware, but it's not something I consider acceptable, either.

[simcat]

Automatic audio intros are very '1997'.

JMO

[GulfstreamPhil]

Mark--you have stated your position eloquently. However, the proof is in the pudding. If our site visitors were truly annoyed by the audio, or if they felt it was an invasion of their privacy or an intrusion, they would exit the site as quickly as possible. They certainly would not join a site that they they found annoying or intrusive. However, we found that a greater percentage of our site visitors join when we play the audio message than when we don't.

"Conversion rates are higher" is not a justification or a defense. It is evidence that our site visitors do not feel about this audio message the way that you feel about it or the way that you postulate they might feel. Our conclusion is based on real-world testing.

I think you lost a lot of credibility by comparing the use of an on-site audio message to the use of adware or to robbing a bank. Please. You are entitled to your opinion about what is and is not "acceptable," but so is everyone else. We have heard the opinions of our site visitors loudly and clearly as expressed by their actions on our site.

Phil

[Bob Lawrence]

Sounds like we should put a coin drop from slot machine on all our links. ha ha