[loxly]

Technically, the overwrite existing cookies from other affiliate traffic, they pop on natural traffic that would have been theirs anyway. Savendonate makes merchants pay an affiliate when they shouldn't have to and costs everyone money. If they donated ALL that money to charities you might be able to make a case, but since they KEEP the lions share without compensation to the affiliates they overwrite, there is no up side to this.

If your clients want to partner with a thief for a few extra bucks, that tells us a lot about your clients.

[MichaelColey]

Moderator Note: I've removed the inappropriate namecalling and attacks. Let's keep it civil.

So are your clients charities or merchants?

If they are charities, I hope you inform them of the ethical implications. If they aren't concerned about ethics, that sure doesn't sound very charitable.

If they're merchants, I hope you research the impact that parasites can have on merchants. They end up paying for a lot of traffic that they would already have, double-paying when it comes to PPC and other advertising, and they lose a lot of legitimate affiliates.

You're doing a serious disservice to your clients by recommending trash like this.

[Rollerblader]

The issue is that toolbars have the ability to set cookies on traffic and take credit for sales that they never earned.

I have not tested this particular toolbar so I am speaking in general and not about this particular one since I have not tested it, but in general, what can happen is that the Toolbar Affiliate can pay people to download their toolbar or offer them games, ringtones, cashback or points, or remind them coupons are available on your Merchant's site, etc... for downloading it. The person doesn't even always have to have ever visited that Affiliate's website to get the toolbar.

Then, when the end user who has downloaded the toolbar gets to your Client's sites, the toolbar can set a cookie which will take credit for the sale. Now, here is where it could be theft, if your client is running a PPC ad, the end user clicks that ad and your client paid for the click.

The end user is now at the Client's website because your client paid to bring them there, however because the Affiliate got their toolbar installed on that person's computer, the toolbar has the ability to set a cookie and take credit for the sale, instead of the Client's own paid for traffic. This can also happen from email marketing, tv and print advertising, organic traffic, other Affiliate's traffic, and pretty much any way someone can find the Client site.

In other words, if you and I were to both be pitching your Client over why you should keep them or why I should take over, chances are that I would win by showing them how you have been, didn't know about but now do, or are knowingly allowing theft or I would probably get to split your fees with you as a co-manager to help check for this type of practice so your Client's are not being stolen from, or at least not as much.

Like I said, I have not tested this toolbar and am not making any claims about it or its owners, but am speaking about the abilities of some toolbars in general. You will need to test the toolbars yourself to make your own judgements and decisions on if they it into your business model.

[jmletennier]

This makes more sense... than the other blathering..
one point though is they told my clients , they receive the "Lion's Share" don't know what that means exactly, but I will find out
Thanks for the technical responses...

[jmletennier]

As for Diservice or not, that is not within my pervue.. My instructions are clear and to the point. Will this harm our computers and those of our users?
As I said I am not hear to recommend or not, simply inform my clients of the technical implications. What they chose to do after that is up to them...
These 2 clients are both non-profits and I have 3 more like them so I am sure I will have to answer the same questions again, and I don't like doing work twice...

[loxly]

The lions share goes to the toolbar company and not the charity. Your clients need to know that there are large groups of people that consider this activity not very above board, with the charity thinking they are getting a lot of new money, when the company that provides the toolbar is actually earning at least 3 times what they could make if the charity was the affiliate themselves.

The charities you are consulting with can make *all* the money if they have their own affiliate relationships with the merchants and have a shopping section right on their own websites.

[rematt]

Originally Posted by jmletennier

As for Diservice or not, that is not within my pervue.. My instructions are clear and to the point. Will this harm our computers and those of our users?

Originally Posted by jmletennier

As I said I am not hear to recommend or not, simply inform my clients of the technical implications. What they chose to do after that is up to them...

One of the problems with toolbars and why many corporations won't allow their employees to use them (including Google's toolbar) is that part of the job of toolbars is to collect information. Usually that information is fairly benign; what sites are users visiting, how long are they staying on those sites and what are they clicking while they're there. But the information can also be harmful, toolbars have been used to collect personal data including passwords and logins and to serve ad-ware.

The biggest danger of toolbars is that they can be altered on the fly. In other words, the toolbar that I test and download today can very easily receive new instructions tonight without my knowledge that can have a major impact on it's behavior.

So if you're looking to give your clients the best advice possible, advice them that if they want to put their trust into a toolbar, it should be one of their own creation that they have 100% control over. Tell them that it's a fairly safe assumption that any organization that's willing to steal commissions from others under the guise of making charitable donations, probably isn't above stealing from your clients or their users also.

-rematt

[Daniel M. Clark]

Your question, and I quote, was this:

"So my question is , what makes them 'Evil"?"

We gave you answers. You didn't like the way we gave them, fine. I apologize for saying that you were lying when you said you had read the entire thread because had you watched the video and read Kellie's breakdown you would have understood. Maybe you did read the thread, maybe you didn't. More importantly though, was your question:

You asked what makes them 'evil', an admittedly subjective term. You did NOT ask for a technical explanation of what the program does. You asked what makes them 'evil'. That's the answer people gave you, and it is, in fact, the answer that was given three years ago when this thread was created. If you want technical details, that's a whole 'nother question - one you did NOT ask up front.

[jmletennier]

Calling people you don't know liars is not an answer... to any question at any time...
grow up
and for the record I did not say anything about not likiing the answers as a matter of fact 2 people were cordial enough to answer my questions and I thanked them for their time
now unless you have technical information that can help, please stop wasting our time...

[MichaelColey]

You have your answers, yet you continue to return to mock those who have taken the time to point you in the right direction. It's obvious that you're not going to use anything you've been told. There's nothing further to be said.

Moderator Note: Thread Closed