[chrischen]

A real life example would be me at Costco looking at cereal.
This is a confusing analogy as the
online merchants = the cereal brands
Costco = affiliate networks

Consider this case:
I have Brand A cereal. I am going to buy it. Well, it has a Upromise logo on it. What does this mean? This means although I'm going to buy Brand A cereal anyways, Upromise STILL gets commission. Why? Because the store is using Upromise's college savings as an incentive for the buyer.

Analysis: In the online world merchants who partner up with Upromise know that they are giving a bonus to shoppers but they ALSO know that they will pay for some customers that might have otherwise bought their product anyways. But it comes with the deal. If merchants do not know this deal then they should really educate themselves and then decide whether or not this strategy works for them. I think the toolbar is not really the issue here, since it just simplifies the process for consumers to supposedly "steal" commissions.

[chrischen]

Originally Posted by Gary-AvantLink

What would you consider to be a parasite?

I will quote myself yet again.

Originally Posted by chrischen

I read a post in that topic where someone mentions that Upromise gives the user an option to continue with college savings or continue without (in which case Upromise takes 100% of the commission). I think the second option is hurtful and unethical. There is a difference between the second and the first option. The first option is chosen by the user. If the user chooses that then he is doing so possibly due to the Upromise incentive. But Upromise providing the second option is not beneficial to the merchant in any way nor the customer. Because if the shopper does not care about the discount, why would she use a Upromise link? Upromise in this case is actually stealing a commission from a shopper already having his mind set on going to that store (of course I can't see why anyone would click the second link).

As you see, here I explain that it would be a parasite if is of NO BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER. As a result of it being NO BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER, it cannot be of any benefit to the merchant either. So a merchant would have NO REASON to partner with an affiliate that does this. If they do, then it's almost certainly without a doubt by deception. THAT is where there is a problem. But with incentive based programs that provide the customer a BENEFIT and therefore an INCENTIVE, there is no problem.

Again, if I said Upromise is not parasiteware, I misspoke. I only mean that the incentive features of Upromise and the feature of the toolbar that allows users to more easily receive that incentive are not parasiteware.

[Greg Rice]

Originally Posted by chrischen

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending parasites. I'm saying sites like Upromise ARE NOT PARASITES. They do create sales with their programs. Frankly, if you don't think sites like Upromise drive you sales, THEN DON'T PARTNER WITH THEM. Simple. But then again, if your site doesn't partner with Upromise and a competitor does, then you are at a competitive disadvantage.

I do not believe UP would be profitable if they had to get their own traffic. They are parasites because they feed off of other people's effort. Without traffic from the merchant's own natural search, merchant's and affiliate's PPC and affiliate sites they would die away.

Sure, sites "proudly" show the UP logo but I truly believe 99% of them have no idea their own traffic is being diverted. I am confident that UP is NOT telling merchants they are taking their own sales away but selling them on this wonderful idea of saving for college. The mass isn't always right or knowledgeable.

[2busy]

Originally Posted by chrischen

The CONSUMER is also the parasite then. The CONSUMER who installs the toolbar WANTS to steal your commission. Read all the points I've made before saying I don't know what I'm talking about. I already acknowledged that what Upromise is doing may not be fair so you obviously don't seem to understand what point I'm making. And because the consumer plays a part by voluntarily installing this (because they get a cut of the stolen goods) you really can't do anything about this because Upromise has gotten the favor of the consumer. As I've mentioned before and I'll mention it again: the consumer chooses who and who not to give the commission to.

If I was told I can't use the Upromise toolbar anymore, I'd make my own toolbar, or purposely avoid your links and click on Upromise links instead (if I was the Upromise user so inclined on getting college savings). What would you do about it? Tell me I have to use your links because otherwise I'd be stealing from you?

chrischen thinks the consumer is the parasite. The "click on Upromise links instead" part is just precious. If Upromise was offering their own links who would care about Upromise?

[chrischen]

Originally Posted by Greg Rice

I do not believe UP would be profitable if they had to get their own traffic. They are parasites because they feed off of other people's effort. Without traffic from the merchant's own natural search, merchant's and affiliate's PPC and affiliate sites they would die away.

The way you describe it there does not make what Upromise does wrong. Although a site may provide a link to a store, Upromise incentives may provide the actual push for the consumers to shop there.

From what I understand, the natural legit promotion you speak of resulting from hard working websites that put affiliate links up--we'll call them natural links--are the only thing that's promoting a merchant? Sure, these natural links are one way for a sales person to make a sale, but the incentives offered by Upromise are another method. Natural links provide exposure, advertising for a store's website, while Upromise provides the incentive to shop there and not somewhere else. And so this method should be split from the same system that hands out checks to affiliates with natural links right? I think so. But the current system best suits affiliates who can DRIVE SALES FOR A PARTICULAR MERCHANT. So in your argument above you made NO concession that Upromise does benefit the merchant, you simply made the argument that Upromise with this incentive takes what once would have been an affiliate's cash. That is true, but why should Upromise, or the merchant care about whether or not the natural link affiliate get the money? I mean it was, after all, Upromise that made their store the chosen one right? The "other people's effort" is made in the wrong way. They are providing ADVERTISING and expecting to be paid for advertising from SALES. These "other people" should stop promoting a merchant who would rather give their money to someone who can make a sale.

Originally Posted by Greg Rice

Sure, sites "proudly" show the UP logo but I truly believe 99% of them have no idea their own traffic is being diverted. I am confident that UP is NOT telling merchants they are taking their own sales away but selling them on this wonderful idea of saving for college. The mass isn't always right or knowledgeable.

Then by means go and inform them. But do NOT put any bias or spin on the situation. Here is what Upromise is telling the merchants. UP is telling them that you participate in our program and people will choose you over a competitor who doesn't. The toolbar is not the problem that you see, because for all you know--let's say the toolbar doesn't exist--the shopper clicks on the Upromise link everytime anyways, the same problem still exists for you.

[chrischen]

Originally Posted by 2busy

chrischen thinks the consumer is the parasite. The "click on Upromise links instead" part is just precious. If Upromise was offering their own links who would care about Upromise?

Upromise does offer their own links. What's the difference between a site that puts a Wal-mart link next to a DVD player and Upromise and put's Wal-mart's link next to COLLEGE SAVINGS?

It just turns out that the consumer, knowing that if they click on the Upromise link (actually they're told to start their shopping on Upromise.com) will get college savings (or that if they install the toolbar will get college savings), would rather click on the Upromise one.

[chrischen]

Originally Posted by 2busy

chrischen thinks the consumer is the parasite. The "click on Upromise links instead" part is just precious. If Upromise was offering their own links who would care about Upromise?

No I'm saying if you consider Upromise a parasite then technically the consumer is too, since the consumer is also benefitting from the hijacking of commissions.

[rematt]

Perhaps there is room for loyalty sites. Networks allow them, some merchants embrace them (as misguided as that is) and obviously consumers use them or they wouldn't exist. What I'm not so sure about is whether they belong in the affiliate channel or not. My understanding is that affiliate marketing is designed to drive new business to a merchants site, helping the merchant grow their customer base and expand their reach. My understanding of loyalty sites is that they're purpose in life is to insure that shoppers return again and again to the same site to gain rewards.

About every year around Christmas I get this silly notion to put antlers on my dog. The dog really doesn't appreciate it and it doesn't fool anyone, but it's good for a few kicks and giggles. Of course everyone knows that he's not a reindeer, he's just a dog with antlers.

The problem with most loyalty sites is that they are masquerading as affiliates with the approval of the networks and merchants. But just because they wear the hat it doesn't really make them affiliates. It just provides merchants and networks with the means to redirect funds from one marketing channel to another.

As some have stated, loyalty sites aren't inherently bad. The problem is that they just don't belong in the affiliate channel.

And the thought that consumers should make the choice of who gets a commission is absolutely ludicrous. When was the last time you signed an agreement with the consumers that visit your site? My agreement is with networks and merchants that agree to provide me with a commission when I provide them with a viable consumer that completes a purchase. Regardless of what the consumer wants (or what you THINK they want), when I deliver that consumer to the merchants cart, I have earned that commission.

If a consumer decides that they want the rewards that a loyalty site promises, that's great. If the merchant decides that they also want loyalty sites to insure that the customer returns again and again and are willing to pay for it, that's great too. As long as i get mine, I really don't care. But the consumer cannot nullify the agreement that I have with the merchant and network. When I deliver that consumer to the merchants cart as agreed, I expect to get paid.

-rematt

[Mr. Sal]

Originally Posted by chrischen

No I'm saying if you consider Upromise a parasite then technically the consumer is too, since the consumer is also benefitting from the hijacking of commissions.

Would that also means that, since you're the only one here defending that thing, that then technically you too, are also benefitting from something related to that thing? ...

[Greg Rice]

Originally Posted by chrischen

The way you describe it there does not make what Upromise does wrong. Although a site may provide a link to a store, Upromise incentives may provide the actual push for the consumers to shop there.

That was an explanation of why they are parasites

Originally Posted by chrischen

From what I understand, the natural legit promotion you speak of resulting from hard working websites that put affiliate links up--we'll call them natural links--are the only thing that's promoting a merchant? Sure, these natural links are one way for a sales person to make a sale, but the incentives offered by Upromise are another method. Natural links provide exposure, advertising for a store's website, while Upromise provides the incentive to shop there and not somewhere else. And so this method should be split from the same system that hands out checks to affiliates with natural links right? I think so. But the current system best suits affiliates who can DRIVE SALES FOR A PARTICULAR MERCHANT. So in your argument above you made NO concession that Upromise does benefit the merchant, you simply made the argument that Upromise with this incentive takes what once would have been an affiliate's cash. That is true, but why should Upromise, or the merchant care about whether or not the natural link affiliate get the money? I mean it was, after all, Upromise that made their store the chosen one right? The "other people's effort" is made in the wrong way. They are providing ADVERTISING and expecting to be paid for advertising from SALES. These "other people" should stop promoting a merchant who would rather give their money to someone who can make a sale.



Then by means go and inform them. But do NOT put any bias or spin on the situation. Here is what Upromise is telling the merchants. UP is telling them that you participate in our program and people will choose you over a competitor who doesn't. The toolbar is not the problem that you see, because for all you know--let's say the toolbar doesn't exist--the shopper clicks on the Upromise link everytime anyways, the same problem still exists for you.

Let's not cloud the issue. The issue is not the incentive, it's the toolbar. Coupon, cashback, saving for college, it doesn't matter. If the merchant allows incentives then there's no issue. UP's incentive is not the issue. They found another angle to the loyalty segment. No problem there. There is some value in loyalty plans, they may push some users to the buy point.

You see it as making a sale but the toolbar diverts the sale. Big difference. If the user used the toolbar to get to the merchant, I doubt this would be an issue. Then you can say UP brought the user to the store and, therefore, earned the commission. You seem to think that since honest affiliates can't prevent parasites from diverting their sales then the sale is justified and parasites deserve the commission because they can take it.

Think about the buying process. If the parasite toolbar is a valid tool, the user would only have to think "I'd like to save some money for college, let's use this cool toolbar and see what I can spend my money on". I don't know, or ever heard, of anyone who shops like this. Most people want a particular item or are looking for a solution. Does the toolbar advertise the product or service? Does it convince or preselll the user? Does it bring people to the merchant's site? No, it waits until the person already decided to go to merchant X. Someone or something compelled them to go to merchant X and it wasn't the toolbar.

Again, it's all about the toolbar. No issues with saving for college, cashback, coupons, 72 virgins or friendly smiles. If they did such a great job promoting they wouldn't have to prey on everyone else's traffic. If they had such a great offer, they would tell the merchant they will snipe all their customers as they enter. Why don't they sell that part of their plan? Is it because nobody would want it? Is it because they believe it's wrong? If it's a great thing, they should sell the hell out of it. But they don't. They aren't telling merchants this, they don't advertise it, they don't even mention it. Why is that? It's good right? It's just, holy, adds value and is everything good but it's a secret. Hmm...

[chrischen]

Originally Posted by rematt

Perhaps there is room for loyalty sites. Networks allow them, some merchants embrace them (as misguided as that is) and obviously consumers use them or they wouldn't exist. What I'm not so sure about is whether they belong in the affiliate channel or not. My understanding is that affiliate marketing is designed to drive new business to a merchants site, helping the merchant grow their customer base and expand their reach. My understanding of loyalty sites is that they're purpose in life is to insure that shoppers return again and again to the same site to gain rewards.
...
As some have stated, loyalty sites aren't inherently bad. The problem is that they just don't belong in the affiliate channel.

Actually I can argue against that (and I have been if you've read my previous posts regarding this). I believe it is the regular affiliates who are misplaced. As I see it, they don't usually promote a specific merchant, as in give the shopper any reason to shop at a particular store (besides giving a link). Upromise does give reason to shop at a particular store, which is why Upromise, as a single affiliate, is of more use to the merchants than any one single normal affiliate.

Originally Posted by rematt

And the thought that consumers should make the choice of who gets a commission is absolutely ludicrous. When was the last time you signed an agreement with the consumers that visit your site? My agreement is with networks and merchants that agree to provide me with a commission when I provide them with a viable consumer that completes a purchase. Regardless of what the consumer wants (or what you THINK they want), when I deliver that consumer to the merchants cart, I have earned that commission.

If a consumer decides that they want the rewards that a loyalty site promises, that's great. If the merchant decides that they also want loyalty sites to insure that the customer returns again and again and are willing to pay for it, that's great too. As long as i get mine, I really don't care. But the consumer cannot nullify the agreement that I have with the merchant and network. When I deliver that consumer to the merchants cart as agreed, I expect to get paid.

Actually consumers are bound to the Terms and Conditions when they visit my site, so they do enter into an agreement. However that's besides the point.

Here is an excerpt from the Aeropostale affiliate program which I will use as a sample of such an agreement you (the affiliate) enter in with the merchant:

Performics agrees to remit to Affiliate an Advertising Fee ("Advertising Fees") payable in the amounts and on the terms as set forth in this Agreement as well as in accordance with all applicable Marketer Specific Terms for all Offers placed with Affiliate which result in the sale of Products to Qualified Customers (as defined below) or other specified actions completed by Qualified Customers upon the Marketer´s Web site. All payment obligations will be based upon tracking and reporting provided by Performics.

A "Qualified Customer" is defined as:

"Qualified Customer" means any individual or entity that is tracked by Performics´ proprietary technology, ConnectCommerce™, and who, within the period of time as set forth in ConnectCommerce™ and/or any applicable Marketer Specific Terms, clicks through to the Marketer´s Site via hyperlinks contained within any Offer displayed in accordance with this Agreement

As I have already argued, Upromise does push the shopper towards the sale. The shopper also chooses to place the sale with Upromise, the affiliate.

Further down it says:

In the event an individual or entity visited more than one Affiliate of Performics prior to purchasing Products from or undertaking some other specified action on a Marketer´s Web site, the Affiliate operating the last Distribution Medium from which such individual or entity clicked through to the Marketer´s Web site shall be the only party entitled to receive an Advertising Fee.

Note "Distribution Medium," not "Web Site." Clearly it states whoever becomes the last affiliate gets paid.

I see no where that the merchant is obligated to pay the affiliate just because they put a link on a site that took time and effort to build. Why not enter into a separate agreement (e.g. Gamespot.com and Best Buy) with merchant to promote them because this contract certainly isn't working out. The agreement states that YOU the affiliate will get paid for WHATEVER THE SYSTEM TRACKS. And whatever the system tracks is WHO PERFORMICS DEEMS TO BE THE REFERRER. Now when I said the consumer chooses, you obviously did not understand. So here is your quote again:

When was the last time you signed an agreement with the consumers that visit your site?

Precisely! When the consumer visits your site (the affiliate), and uses whatever services your site provides, they are NOT LEGALLY BOUND TO CLICK ON YOUR AFFILIATE LINK OR USE YOUR AFFILIATE LINK. As a result the affiliate network only tracks WHOEVER THE CONSUMER CLICKS.

[chrischen]

Originally Posted by Greg Rice

Let's not cloud the issue. The issue is not the incentive, it's the toolbar. Coupon, cashback, saving for college, it doesn't matter. If the merchant allows incentives then there's no issue. UP's incentive is not the issue. They found another angle to the loyalty segment. No problem there. There is some value in loyalty plans, they may push some users to the buy point.

Personally I think there is no issue, but I can't see why it would be the toolbar (assuming we ignore all the other features and just the "sniping" feature)?

Originally Posted by Greg Rice

You see it as making a sale but the toolbar diverts the sale. Big difference. If the user used the toolbar to get to the merchant, I doubt this would be an issue. Then you can say UP brought the user to the store and, therefore, earned the commission. You seem to think that since honest affiliates can't prevent parasites from diverting their sales then the sale is justified and parasites deserve the commission because they can take it.

Think about the buying process. If the parasite toolbar is a valid tool, the user would only have to think "I'd like to save some money for college, let's use this cool toolbar and see what I can spend my money on". I don't know, or ever heard, of anyone who shops like this. Most people want a particular item or are looking for a solution. Does the toolbar advertise the product or service? Does it convince or preselll the user? Does it bring people to the merchant's site? No, it waits until the person already decided to go to merchant X. Someone or something compelled them to go to merchant X and it wasn't the toolbar.

Again, it's all about the toolbar. No issues with saving for college, cashback, coupons, 72 virgins or friendly smiles. If they did such a great job promoting they wouldn't have to prey on everyone else's traffic. If they had such a great offer, they would tell the merchant they will snipe all their customers as they enter. Why don't they sell that part of their plan? Is it because nobody would want it? Is it because they believe it's wrong? If it's a great thing, they should sell the hell out of it. But they don't. They aren't telling merchants this, they don't advertise it, they don't even mention it. Why is that? It's good right? It's just, holy, adds value and is everything good but it's a secret. Hmm...

I will quote myself again because, again, I have already addressed this.

Originally Posted by chrischen

But I'm confused as to exactly how the toolbar is different from the loyalty part? Or am I missing one of the extra functionality of the Upromise toolbar? From what I understand, the user can go to an article for a product and decide at the last minute to click on a Upromise link instead because it gives them a specific discount at that store, or the user can install that toolbar that does that step for them. What if a third party released a tool that helps users and the tool's creator to better utilize Upromise's program. Would that person be unethical? In my eyes he is only producing a tool that is useful to the consumer, and shows that this tool might just as well be made by the consumer's themselves. Upromise's tool is something useful to the consumer, and to the best of my knowledge, doesn't offer anything the site itself doesn't itself already offer. And in effect it would probably be demanded by consumers if not already in existence. Yes I agree Upromise sees this and is exploiting it, but I don't think it would do anything to complain about it.

There is not much difference between the Upromise program online and offline. In the offline program, same thing. If I've been buying Cheerios my whole life and one day suddenly I can now get College savings on them, great! Now if I ever get tired of Cheerios I might be dissuaded from switching because, that's right, I get college savings from Cheerios. In another dimension, lets say I liked Coco puffs. One day Cheerios got Upromise savings! I just might switch to that. The merchant knows very well that some people might shop there anyways, WHY? Because for all you know they might have never even considered that store if it wasn't for that Upromise discount. The Upromise savings is offered by most merchant's online, so if I was so inclined to save for college, I'd LOVE A TOOL THAT COULD CONVENIENTLY TELL ME HOW MUCH I'D SAVE AT EACH STORE SO THAT I COULD COMPARE.

I agree that Upromise does not necessarily send traffic to customers, but that's not their purpose. And merchants know that (if they don't they should be told that). UPROMISE's, and other reward site's purpose is to give them AND EDGE WHEN IT COMES TO DECIDING WHICH STORE TO ULTIMATELY PURCHASE FROM. The toolbar is merely a pawn in this. It simplifies a process that would most likely happen anyways. It simplifies it because the consumer wants to. According to you it would be okay if the toolbar was gone and everyone instead clicked on Upromise's affiliate link manually? I doubt it, and thus your issue seems to also lie with the loyalty system.

[chrischen]

Originally Posted by Greg Rice

You see it as making a sale but the toolbar diverts the sale. Big difference. If the user used the toolbar to get to the merchant, I doubt this would be an issue. Then you can say UP brought the user to the store and, therefore, earned the commission. You seem to think that since honest affiliates can't prevent parasites from diverting their sales then the sale is justified and parasites deserve the commission because they can take it.

From what I've seen, the Upromise site generally just lists various stores along with college savings rate. Why would a merchant partner with a site that just links to a bunch of different stores? Because UP puts a little college savings % next to each one. That percent is the incentive, and is also why merchants partner with Upromise. The toolbar, similarily displays that incentive and clicks on behalf of the user.

Originally Posted by Greg Rice

Think about the buying process. If the parasite toolbar is a valid tool, the user would only have to think "I'd like to save some money for college, let's use this cool toolbar and see what I can spend my money on". I don't know, or ever heard, of anyone who shops like this. Most people want a particular item or are looking for a solution.

No, theyd be like "I'd like to save some money for college, let's use this cool toolbar so I can see WHICH STORE I SHOULD SHOP AT."

And yea, most people do want a particular item when shopping. If I want to buy a PS3, I'll go buy a PS3. Upromise then tells me where I would get the biggest discount from.

Originally Posted by Greg Rice

Does the toolbar advertise the product or service? Does it convince or preselll the user? Does it bring people to the merchant's site? No, it waits until the person already decided to go to merchant X. Someone or something compelled them to go to merchant X and it wasn't the toolbar.

You're looking at the affiliate marketing as if it's reserved only for advertising and exposure. Affiliate marketing is just as much making the push for the final sale, which is exactly what Upromise and other INCENTIVE sites do. And your argument also wandered from being about the toolbar to about Upromise and it's business model:

Does the toolbar advertise the product or service?

Upromise.com main purpose is to provide a list of stores with %s next to each one. Does that really advertise either?

Does it convince or preselll the user? Does it bring people to the merchant's site? No, it waits until the person already decided to go to merchant X.

Generally someone already wants to buy something, and maybe even already found the product on a specific site, then they go to Upromise.com to make sure, and get their College savings.

So here I catch you arguing against Upromise (in general):

I do not believe UP would be profitable if they had to get their own traffic. They are parasites because they feed off of other people's effort.
...I am confident that UP is NOT telling merchants they are taking their own sales away but selling them on this wonderful idea of saving for college.

So here you say Upromise is taking away portions of sales on this idea of saving for college (the idea applies to the Upromise site in general, not just the toolbar I might remind you)

So what is the problem? The toolbar or the incentive sites? Do you know the reason why Upromise/Upromise toolbar is bad or do you just have your heart set on it being wrong wrong wrong because it hurts your business?

And again, I don't care what UP or similar sites tell their merchants. I'm just saying that such programs offered by UP to merchants are actually beneficial to sales. However they are only beneficial because other merchants use UP.

[chrischen]

So if a customer really truly has his heart set at shopping at example.com, whether or not there was a Upromise discount, then that is just one of the costs of having the Upromise bump, as there would be if the transaction had taken place offline with a product. Cottonelle gets the Upromise bump. As a result Cottonelle would have to pay extra for college savings on loyal customers who would have bought Cottonelle regardless of the savings AND on new customers that buy Cottonelle BECAUSE of the savings.

[Greg Rice]

No wandering here. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the UP site. It's all about the toolbar.

You said it all

The toolbar, similarily displays that incentive and clicks on behalf of the user.

This alone is in violation of most program terms and even CJ's own code of conduct. This is just what this industry needs, affiliates setting cookies on behalf of the user. If all affiliates did this, God help the consumer as affiliates load thousands of cookies on their PCs all day long. It will be interesting to see how long the networks allow this after CJ pays their class action lawsuit:

From here

1. by unlawfully diverting earned commissions from legitimate affiliates;
2. by fraudulently causing merchants to pay commissions and fees for traffic that was not generated by legitimate affiliate activity;
3. by threatening the integrity of merchant affiliate programs; and
4. by exposing merchants to liability for breach of their contracts with affiliates

For the record, I'm not against parasites because they cost me money. If that were the case, the easy thing to do would be to allow them. Part of my fee is a commission on affiliate sales and it would be so easy for me to accept them and rake in the cash too. Keeping them out of my programs costs me money but is better for my clients and my affiliates.

Good luck with your toolbar.

[chrischen]

Originally Posted by Greg Rice

If all affiliates did this, God help the consumer as affiliates load thousands of cookies on their PCs all day long.

See that's not the point. Why would I install something that loads thousands of cookies? Only one affiliate can put cookies on my computer for me that I authorize. Because that one affiliate is the one that I think is motivating me towards a purchase. If they weren't setting the cookie for me, I might not purchase that thing from THAT store.

[chrischen]

Originally Posted by Greg Rice

It will be interesting to see how long the networks allow this after CJ pays their class action lawsuit:

From here

As I've said before, there's a distinction between Adware and Upromise toolbar in that the Upromise toolbar does not necessarily harm merchants. So I hope they win the fight against adware, as adware could potentially steal from legitimate Upromise purchases as well as legitimate affiliate purchases. Affiliates and Upromise share something in common, they both benefit the merchant, whereas adware's intention is to trick the user.

The Upromise toolbar, as I have already explained, does NOT do anything the user can't do MANUALLY

ADWARE, however, can ONLY exist if installed on the user's computer because there would be NO INCENTIVE for the user to go to the adware manufacturer's website and use their affiliate links MANUALLY.

Do you understand the distinction in bold? That is why the Upromise toolbar is legitimate.

[Boom or Bust]

Give it up! This thread is making me very weary. I've lost interest and am unsubscribing...

[rematt]

Originally Posted by Boomers

Give it up! This thread is making me very weary. I've lost interest and am unsubscribing...

I'm with you Fuzzbutt.

chrischen, it's obvious by your posts that there is a lot that you don't understand. That's OK, many of us are still learning too. However it also appears that you have a very closed mind as your arguments have degraded to the point of being ridiculous, or you're trying to justify your own anticipated behavior.

Now please, I'm not trying to be argumentative and I won't respond in this thread again unless you say something bad about my mother. But it appears to me that you are expending waaay too much energy defending practices that are frowned upon by the majority of the affiliates that have posted here and in fact most of the industry. Your arguments haven't justified the parasitic practices of some of the loyalty sites and the fact that you are willing to go to such great lengths to defend them raises some suspicion.

I won't repeat any of the previous posts or try to explain again how these organizations function. There are plenty of threads that explain these in detail and if someone here hasn't directed you to Affiliate Fair Play, then let me me the first. However I doubt that any of this will make a difference. You have already made up your mind and even if you saw UPromise stealing a cookie with gun in hand you'd find a way to justify the behavior (at least in your mind).

Now again, don't get me wrong here, I don't have anything against you personally. Not yet anyway. Once you make the decision to develop and distribute a toolbar, then in my eyes you will become the enemy just like the other scum-ware peddlers out there.

I would strongly suggest you do quite a bit of reading here, at AFP and around the web before you comment again on this topic.

-rematt

[2busy]

Simple math should tell crischen that no one ever went to college courtesy of Upromise. I quit wasting time on this when it became clear that crischen has a concept of parasites in general and Upromise in particular that does not live in reality nor waste time on mere facts. crischen is probably a CJ exec...or not.

[Greg Rice]

Originally Posted by chrischen

See that's not the point. Why would I install something that loads thousands of cookies? Only one affiliate can put cookies on my computer for me that I authorize. Because that one affiliate is the one that I think is motivating me towards a purchase. If they weren't setting the cookie for me, I might not purchase that thing from THAT store.

Exactly, who would? The point being that affiliates should not set the cookie on behalf of the user. Just think about such a scenario. UP is one affiliate. What if they "think" you may want to shop at 100 stores or 1,000. Multiply that by millions of affiliates and you have a nightmare for the consumer. No affiliate should be setting the cookie, the user must initiate the action.

Originally Posted by chrischen

As I've said before, there's a distinction between Adware and Upromise toolbar in that the Upromise toolbar does not necessarily harm merchants. So I hope they win the fight against adware, as adware could potentially steal from legitimate Upromise purchases as well as legitimate affiliate purchases. Affiliates and Upromise share something in common, they both benefit the merchant, whereas adware's intention is to trick the user.

The Upromise toolbar, as I have already explained, does NOT do anything the user can't do MANUALLY

ADWARE, however, can ONLY exist if installed on the user's computer because there would be NO INCENTIVE for the user to go to the adware manufacturer's website and use their affiliate links MANUALLY.

Do you understand the distinction in bold? That is why the Upromise toolbar is legitimate.

There is not much distinction between adware and affiliate toolbars. If a merchant is running PPC ads and a user clicks that ad, goes to the merchant's site and an affiliate toolbar sets their cookie, the merchant is harmed. They just paid for an ad and the toolbar affiliate got the commission. An affiliate can have a PPC ad, the user clicks through and another toolbar sets their cookie. That affiliate has just been harmed.

The merchant can spend many thousands of dollars on an SEO firm to get them good listings on search engines. A user see their listing, clicks and the toolbar affiliate sets their cookie. Merchant money wasted. Same scenario with an affiliate who spends a lot of time and money getting good SE ranks but their cookies are overwritten by the toolbar affiliate.

The Upromise toolbar, as I have already explained, does NOT do anything the user can't do MANUALLY

But, the rules for most programs and networks require the user to take action (click) before the cookie is set. UP "knows" the user wanted the cookie and sets it themselves. Again, imagine if all affiliates did this.

This is a waste of time. You want to create your own toolbar and, it seems, you just won't accept that the vast majority of affiliates, networks and merchants think this behavior is wrong and unacceptable.

[Chuck Hamrick]

Posted today by Ben, shows that Upromise not only effects affiliate links but is openly transmitting user data, including credit card information: http://www.benedelman.org/news/012110-1.html