[Trust]

Trying to find some current stats on what never gets talked about, uninstalls. This is like 5 years old:

"Adware vendors want to legitimize their business model; to do so they must obtain users' informed consent before they install adware on PCs. But nearly 80 percent of people who get adware end up uninstalling it (according to several adware executives), so it's clear most people don't want the programs."

The Hidden Money Trail

80% pretty decent. Since it was 5 years ago and people and systems are better/more knowledgeable, since it came from an adware exec, number probably even higher.

Seriously, who do you know that actually like adware on their computer? Everybody I've ever known that's gotten it, first thing they try to do is remove it.

Even that 58.25% above. And remember, that's somebody searching for an online scanner and you usually do that if you feel you've caught something. ABW example - Got a virus prunnet.exe

After they scan, that 58%, do you think they say ok, i'm infected, that's cool, I'll go on with my day? No, they probably then remove it, probably using their stuff to do it. And if you use 80% removal, we're in about single digit territory.

[leeann]

Trust, I think everyone knows that affiliate sales can drop for various reasons. But we also know they will surely drop when a visitor's system is infected w/ adware.

There are many things affiliates cannot control when it comes to losing sales. Reporting suspicious activity from an adware company, educating merchants about adware, OR avoiding those networks that seem to not only support it, but are involved in it, is something we can control to an extent. But we can only do it by being aware of who those companies are and where they have affiliations.

Trying to figure out how many ppl are infected with this stuff is rather futile, but we definitely know it is enough to keep the adware companies out there stealing. And to add salt to the wound, now companies have designed software to combat adware, and ultimately hurt affiliates as well because legitimate affiliate cookies are also removed.

I don't know if you like to argue, just for the sake of argument, but your position on this just seems strange.

I think it's right to encourage people to look at all possibilities when their sales drop for no apparent reason. I think it's wrong to discount that part of the reason could be due to adware. You are trying to sell an argument that is very detrimental to the affiliate business.

[leeann]

Originally Posted by MichaelColey

This is one reason (and actually not even the biggest reason) why I don't like working with multi-network merchants.

I'm curious what the biggest reason is Michael. This is a subject I'm really ignorant about. I'd like to read your (and others) thoughts on it. (spin off to a new thread?) I'd like to see this thread go back to what it was originally about. Not to say your comment wasn't sticking with the topic-- it was -- but it seems that we've ventured way off topic here with other comments.

[leeann]

Originally Posted by Kellie aka Ms. B

I asked in the PJN forum if they allowed contextual adware marketing. I haven't gotten an answer, but now see that no one from PJN has posted since the summer, so maybe they don't come over here anymore.

Whether they allow it or not, I've seen an increase in the amount of contextual adware traffic connect to PJN affiliate links. Some of the affiliates I'm seeing connected with PepperJam are affiliates who were terminated from other retail networks years ago.

As we move into the busiest shopping season, this activity can only be expected to increase, especially if it is being allowed (either willingly or through lack of compliance).

So I'll be posting some merchants I've seen being targeted by PJN with affiliate forced clicks. In some instances, there are multiple affiliates targeting the merchant. In some instances, hidden forced clicks are being used, which we now know the DOJ considers a felony (wire fraud). All merchants I list I've seen affiliates targeting within the last 3 months.

Affiliates promoting these merchants (either on PJN or another network) should be aware of this activity.

Any merchants who would like specific information about the affiliates can contact me through this forum, IM (on my profile here), or email afp at affiliatefairplay.com

QualitySmith.com
Hayneedle.com
eSaleRugs.com
101inks.com
Crutchfield.com
Shop.NHL.com
Swarovski.com
Baseballexpress.com

I'll update this list as I come across them during testing.

Could this be made a sticky? I, for one, am interested in what other merchants are found.

[Kellie aka Ms. B]

Could this be made a sticky? I, for one, am interested in what other merchants are found.

At this point, this would be a terrible thread to sticky.

And to be blunt, I don't see myself inclined to take any more of my time to post any additional information I have regarding this here. As Ben mentioned, it is very time consuming to go through the log files and extract the data. Many merchants have moved to PJN. As Ben as said as well, there has been an increase of this kind of traffic being seen on PJN. So I started this thread as a PSA to the community and to maybe be able to facilitate some change. Even if PJN doesn't address the issue (although I still hope PJN does the right thing), then others in the affiliate marketing equation would have been better informed.

But what is the point and why should I take my time to share the informatoin when it's just going to be met with intentional B$ to not have anything remotely productive happen? Ultimately something that is justifying bad behavior within this industry. I can better spend my time and efforts elsewhere where the results are more productive for change. Maybe that was the intention to begin with or the love of arguing for the sake of arguing or whatever, but for me it really doesn't matter. What matters it what gets results and this thread has been hog-tied.

[leeann]

Originally Posted by Kellie aka Ms. B

At this point, this would be a terrible thread to sticky.

The whole thread would be for sure. I meant just your original post.

[Trust]

"(although I still hope PJN does the right thing)"

"There have also been adware issues in the past with GSI...like way back."

Doing the same thing, expecting a different result =

You know when real change happens. It's not hoping a network does the right thing. There is no history from them handling this.

"but your position on this just seems strange."

My position is simple. It does get kind of old when the whole truth isn't told because some feel it doesn't help our cause. You can pretend valid points weren't brought up if you want too. It would be nice to have a discussion on things but have a real, open and honest discussion about it. I had no interest in this thread until I saw a somebody talking about a program I myself was having a problem with. If you want to talk about BS in this thread, here it is:

My question:
Give me a ballpark of what percentage of computers you think are infected that would have an affect in what we're talking about. I'm thinking single digits and probably low single digits.

Kellie response:
A recent report (September 2010) by Symantec reports that 55% of US users have experienced viruses/malware. Globally, the number was slightly lower at 51%.

So when affiliate reads that, especially coming from Kellie. Now you have it in your head that 55% of people have adware on their computer that is going to affect our sales. Now add in all the other problems and it's a wonder anybody is making sales.

So I guess I'm the bad guy because I took a look at that 55% and pointed out 2 valid points. Ones that haven't touched if you notice.

1. People do usually only go to online scanners when they have a problem or expect a problem.

Do you disagree? You can simply search ABW for online scanner and see for yourself. I was reading over on their site and somebody brought up the same

Title: Re: 40% of all computers adware infected!
Post by: DavidR on May 05, 2008, 06:11:35 PM
The title is somewhat misleading/incorrect/alarmist as it isn't 40% of 'ALL' computers, but 40% of the 275,000 computers housecall scanned, a huge difference.

2. Uninstalls

So that's not a valid point? I made that up, that people uninstall this crap? No.

So that's my problem. I'm not a fan of fear mongering and bullshit. Would like to have real conversations about it, but that ain't happening here.

If you want to believe 55% of people have the type of crap on their computer that's affecting your sales, and pretend those valid points don't exist. Ok, that's on you.

[leeann]

Trust, you are being redundant. Why not start your own thread about "fear mongering and bullshit". In the meantime I would like to hear what someone with legitimate research has to say instead of seeing the thread filled with a bunch of hypothetical theories that you have presented. What you've posted is insulting to anyone who has taken the time to actually do the research and present it to the affiliate community.

[John Powell]

Looking at the OP it seem that this thread has been hopelessly derailed. A good candidate for closing to me.

[leeann]

Originally Posted by John Powell

Looking at the OP it seem that this thread has been hopelessly derailed. A good candidate for closing to me.

Yep. It's just ridiculous and happens too much.

[2busy]

Moderator Note: The Original thread Contextual Adware (PPV) Activity On PepperJamNetwork - ABestWeb Affiliate Marketing Forum was closed so that discussions could continue here.