ReveNews
Reason #4837 Why This Industry Needs an Association
I saw this headline today at MediaPost: “Report: Affiliate Marketers Use Adware Deceptively.”Great, yet another headline that paint the entire industry with a broad brush. Anyone not part of this industry will see the headline and confirm their misguided notions that Affiliate Marketers are scum who will do whatever it takes to take money from the merchants.
Why on Earth would any merchant look at performance based marketing as an option when they read headlines like this? Linda Buquet already addressed the actual issues with a much better titled post on her blog “VistaPrint VPRT and Hydra Allow Adware“, here also is a direct link to Ben Edelman’s report which includes extensive video Edelman Report.
One of the goals of an association that is a lot easier than lobbying is a PR effort on the behalf of our industry that can educate lawmakers as well as journalists about the industry. If journalists have a person who is the duly appointed spokesperson for the industry (as the director of a trade association is regarded), then they can reach out for comments when they have a juicy article like this - and that same spokesperson can make sure that they understand what is going on here.
The real headline is that a few Adware affiliates earns commissions deceptively, not that affiliates in general are using Adware to earn through deceptive tactics. The real issues are that this is going on with the full knowledge of pretty much everyone involved. Was one affiliate interviewed for the article? It appears not.
Every time I read a headline like this, or hear about a talk at a conference that disparages this industry that helps good honest people create a living for their families I just get really pissed off that we don’t have anything done yet. I can’t say if this latest attempt to start an association will work, but it is moving forward and perhaps the pace can be quickened. Let’s get something off the ground before the next article like this is written!
19 Comments
Leave a comment
-
We Support New York Affiliates
-
Subscribe to ReveNews
I see not a few affiliates, but many. And the dollars aren’t marginal, they are substantial. So while I agree that PR is needed, I see an even greater need for our community to ALSO act in concert to stop the stuff that requires PR to prevent tarnishment. Unfortunately, I don’t think any present association in our sector will have the chutzpah to take this on. The reasons for that are plainly evident for me as I look at the banner on this page for Hydra network, which was one of the network written up in the report.
Something like an association is needed, but properly organizing one is a challenge. Before a spokesperson can be appointed, a considerable about of discussion has to happen to determine just what exactly the PMA’s stance is on something. Without a clear set of guidelines and a unified stance, there’d be too many opportunists clamoring for the position, and it would become too politically sensitive.
That being said, the process of coming up with unified standards could be valuable in of itself. Generating online discussion around such a “manifesto” would probably help a lot of non-affiliate-marketers better understand what we’re all about.
Personally, I’ve been trying to demistify affiliate marketing for at least the marketing community (on sites such as OneDegree.ca), and so far the response has been positive. So hopefully, some of the marketing audience will ripple the message out (over time) to the general public.
This is a very interesting article, rarely do I read about this area of industry. I think an association would be very useful but they would need a higher power.
I was ready to post before I read the responses here and Pat already mentioned it. The article is talking about Hydra and you have a big 728×90 banner promoting them.
“I just get really pissed off that we don’t have anything done yet.”
Maybe stop promoting those you feel are giving this industry a bad name would be a good first step.
Also find it a little disingenuous to use this to promote the association. You said yourself about the PMA: “I’m not so sure if it can really “police” things. That gets sticky.”
So you want PR instead? Well this stuff is part of the industry, it’s real. You can’t put lipstick on the pig part of this industry
Hi Trust,
Glad to see our professional agent provocateur is still providing the usual subtle commentary with a spray can. Was almost worried you weren’t reading any more.
The difference between your comment and Pat’s comment? You’re both right. However, Pat is actually trying to engage in productive discussion while illustrating the irony of a situation…You? You, just get your kicks off of seeing people’s heads spin.
“Was almost worried you weren’t reading any more.”
There’s not much to read anymore.
“You’re both right.”
Thanks. No, I just getting tired of the talking but not the walking part. This has been brought before, yet you still accept advertising dollars from those you think hurt this industry. This wasn’t the first advertiser. Why? You pick and choose which advertising you use on this site. You said we’re both right, then why haven’t you done anything about it?
Trust,
“There’s not much to read anymore”
Then the weight of boredom must just be unbearable for you.
Although I would enjoy a comments version of the
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern debate, my goal is to move the discussion to something more productive.
There is always a risk for any writer/editor that their beliefs, values and ethics will be tarnished in the public eye by the advertiser. The fact that Brad’s article and my upcoming one are openly and honestly negative about an advertiser means that the content here at ReveNews is based on the reader’s needs and not the advertiser’s wishes.
The question for me is one of the separation between editorial and advertising. It is defined in the Editors Code of Preferred Editorial Practices as in essence a due to interfere clause. The best practice in this case is to let the advertiser know that negative content will be written about them and allow them the opportunity to remove their ad.
This allows editorial and advertising elements to be balanced while eliminating reactionary mob mentality.
“Then the weight of boredom must just be unbearable for you.”
No, conversation just happens on Twitter, forums etc. nowadays. Not bored at all.
I wouldn’t expect somebody like Wayne or Paperghost to have ads for adware companies on their site. And I don’t expect people in this business who should know about this stuff to accept advertising from companies that you think give this business a bad name. As an editor, you make that choice but instead you’re using Editors Code of Preferred Editorial Practices as an excuse. This isn’t the New York Times, it’s a blog. For me the choice would be simple. If you care about this industry, don’t put up advertising for companies you think hurt it. Won’t even get into the merchant in this article and the deal they have on the PMA site. And I really don’t think they’ll have a problem with it because if I was an advertiser, I wouldn’t advertise on blogs that post that kind of stuff about my company. That advertising and this site are just not a good fit. So I guess we’ll just agree to disagree on this one.
“Maybe stop promoting those you feel are giving this industry a bad name would be a good first step.”
Who am I promoting? I just write this stuff. Professional publications have a wall of separation between editorial and advertising. Or are you suggestion that the two should be linked?
“Also find it a little disingenuous to use this to promote the association. You said yourself about the PMA: “I’m not so sure if it can really “police” things. That gets sticky.””
And at what point in the post did I mention the letters you refer to? And where did I mention policing this kind of activity in the post? Perhaps you should read the post before making your comments.
Yes, I’m suggesting Revenews not accept advertising from companies you feel give this industry a bad name. I think my position on that is pretty clear on that.
“And at what point in the post did I mention the letters you refer to?”
The title of your post? and “I can’t say if this latest attempt to start an association will work”
You don’t have to mention the letters to know what association (alliance) you’re referring to.
When I read your post it seems you’re more upset that this stuff was exposed. Like I said, you might not like that it is, but it’s real. It seems instead of actually dealing with it, that you would rather throw some PR at it. I applaud Ben and what he does to expose it, it should be brought to the light.
And if you read the article, even just the very first sentence:
“Adware researcher Ben Edelman published a new report Tuesday saying that some affiliate marketers use adware to get commissions on sales they’re not responsible for.”
It says SOME affiliate marketers and you took that as:
“Great, yet another headline that paint the entire industry with a broad brush”
The entire industry.
I’m sure Revenews can find companies respected in this industry/give this industry a good name, to fill up your advertising slots.
And I think this “separation between editorial and advertising” is being used an excuse. Revenews can pick and choose which advertising they have on this site. Like I said earlier, this is an issue we can just agree to disagree on because my position is not changing on this one. And I’m not the only one who feels this way. Pat posted that earlier, I agreed and Angel himself agreed with both of us. I’ve also gotten some messages elsewhere that agree as well.
For the record I want to say that the research Ben Edelman does is great. People like Ben and similar researchers like Kellie Stevens or the folks at the Center for Democracy and Technology are a boon to our industry. Merchants and networks should hire them more often. With every report and video capture they publish our industry becomes a tiny bit cleaner.
Hello, SVP of Marketing for Hydra here to throw in my 2 cents… or fuel for the fire. First off, we aren’t going to pull our ad just because the discussion puts us under a harsh spotlight. We really truly have nothing to hide. The fact that people use adware is not news. It is not illegal. Some advertisers even request it. And for the record it represents just a small fraction of our overall business.
Does allowing adware by some affiliates hurt all others? In theory, It could. Is it truly a widespread problem in reality? Frankly, we hadn’t thought of it before - as I said, it’s not a big part of our business. But now that our attention has been called to it, we’re looking into it.
If you recall, Hydra was the first to eliminate cash incentivizers due to shadiness. We have made heavy investments to provide rigorous compliance - in fact we are widely regarded as exceptionally aggressive in that area. We also spend legal and research dollars to vet claims by advertisers. And more.
I don’t bring these points up thinking they can counteract the this whole adware brouhaha. The point is this: Hydra does not wish to engage in shady black or grey hat practices - NOR do we feel it is in our economic interest to do so. Do you think we want to jeopardize the inroads we have made with major brand name advertisers in order to score a quick buck? (the answer is no) We have had great success playing by the rules… and we want to be even more successful.
So we welcome any efforts to set professional standards, monitor and police, and generally clean up the affiliate marketing space. The better advertisers understand how reputable affiliates and networks work, the safer they will feel, and the more ad dollars they’ll pump in. That would be good for affiliates. That would also be good for us. Our interests are totally aligned on that one!
Anyway it’s end of day Friday so I will stop for now. But i do look forward to continuing the discussion.
Not trying to derail your post Brad, but since the topic has already shifted.
This issue seems to come up every so often: does accepting advertising dollars imply endorsement and does it facilitate bad players.
This is a question that I’ve thought about quite a bit more than once. And to some degree I still have mixed feelings about it. I don’t particularly like seeing a Hydra ad when I come to RN. Do I think that the banner means RN endorses Hydra? No, it’s an ad not an endorsement. As marketers, we all should recognize that.
Is RN supporting practices which aren’t good for the industry by having Hydra as an advertiser? Facilitating might be a better word than supporting..but regardless…Hydra may well benefit from the ads if the ad campaign is successful. Whether or not is perpetuates adware usage depends I suppose if RN demographics are folks inclined to that marketing approach.
But I get the concern being expressed. It’s my knee jerk reaction as well. I do have ambivalent feelings about it though. Who decides where the lines should be drawn? What companies? What practices? That type of censorship can work both ways.
And if it’s the standard for RN to turn down advertising for all adware companies and companies connected with adware usage, then that standard should apply across the board to everyone in our industry.
So do we kick Shawn/Missy/AffiliateSummit because MediaTraffic has had a booth there for the last several Summits?
Is Haiko supporting bad practices because there is a VistaPrint subforum on ABW in the Direct Agents Forum (I won’t even get into connections between DA and adware)?
For that matter do affiliates who promote merchants with known parasitic relationships not really care about the industry?
Maybe some would answer “yes” to the above questions, but I can’t respond “yes” with a clear conscious. I would be happier and feel better about the industry if none of those 3 things above were happening, but they all are.
I’ve finally come to the conclusion a long time ago that on this general issue, that normal economic principles need to dictate. So…
If RN viewers don’t like Hydra’s practices, then there is no response to the ad. It becomes an unproductive campaign for them. Advertisers who fit with the demogrpahics of the RN viewership have successful campaigns. Over time, those are the types of ads viewed. If enough viewers don’t like a particular type of advertiser, then they email into RN stating so. It then potentially becomes a business decision of bringing targeted advertisers to the readers.
Same applies with Summit and MediaTraffic.
And ABW.
When we exert ourselves in our roles as consumers witihn our industry, then we can influence through business dynamics and not personal attacks.
I doubt Trust would expect to see an ad for Zango on my site any more than on Wayne’s or Chris’. And yes, I have had questionable companies want to advertise on my site (which usually shows me they haven’t actually gone to my site!). Do I not accept those advertisers because of my own personal ethics or business reasons. Probably both. But from the business perspective it’s a no brainer. For what *I* do, it would undermine what my business is. So that trumps the ethics considerations. Of course, not everyone does what I do. But it is about what my visitors *expect* on my site.
Brad I promise to comment tomorrow on topic to your post.
I agree with Trust. Don’t give the bad players space. Angel, remove their ad. Shawn, dismantle their booth.
BUT, to me, CJ = ebates and Linkshare = uPromise. So we’d need to stop promoting them also.
When I first learned bad players existed, I was floored. What? Really? This stuff happens?
Then I discovered Kellie, Ben and Haiko - and thought “Great! The industry now knows what’s happening. It will be cleaned up by Thursday!”
TEN YEARS LATER, we’re still continuing the discussion!
There will always be bad players. As long as there is vast quantities of money to be made, the networks will continue to allow them in.
I think we need to shift our focus to the merchants. Devote ALL our efforts to one major retailer at a time, like Sears, and if we’re lucky, it will have a domino effect. If not, learn from what we did we Sears, and move on to WalMart.
The problem with an association is it soon evolves into a regulatory body
“I agree with Trust. Don’t give the bad players space. Angel, remove their ad. Shawn, dismantle their booth.”
I have thought about this alot lately. Doesn’t this situation smack familiar of the McCain campaign pointing a finger at Obama over the Ayers’ relationship? (In my eyes it is rather obvious mud slinging by McCain and he loses all credability in my eyes.)
I have turned down advertisers or relationships over the years because of spyware. When it comes to ad quality though- Billy or Trust (or anyone) have you ever ran an Adsense slot? Either way you must realize that Google is not a spyware pusher (depends on how technical you want to be) but offers up a stream of valid relationships to help a content creator monetize their relationships and/or inventory.
If e.g. zango or any other questionable operation advertises through Google Adsense does that mean
a) Google should terminate them immediately?
b) The affiliate should ban them immediately by blocking the URL? How often does the affiliate patrol the ad inventory?
c) The affiliate should already have offending URLS of dubious operations pre-filtered before running Adsense? This ensurins a reduced risk in running any sort of low value or risky advertisement i.e. self-serve adverising, as they are cut off before they can penetrate ad inventory.
d) drop Google Adsense because of the risk inherit in not being able to personally certify every single relationship as ethical, legal and squeaky clean?
I think option C is impossible on a pragmatic scale and option A is covered by Google’s TOS. Of course Google has the resources and scalability that smaller, indy publishers do not. Publishers simply do not have the resources to be dedicated anti-adware staff. It would be a full time job that requires alot of technical expertise and deep experience and to date I have not seen many people who possess this level of experience. They don’t offer college courses on it and therefore the anti-spyware industry has produced probably less than 100 or so people who are experts and even less if you factor in understanding how intricate the advertising and affiliate industry has become.
Option B might work but who decides the criteria? Afterall adware is not *ethical* by many people’s criteria, but not illegal. However, many people feel cookies are unethical and deceptively cloaked tracking mechanisms designed with the primary purpose of making someone else money.
Option D is viable but you have now cut off a major revenue stream for many sites and they may not survive, or be able to operate. As Billy says “BUT, to me, CJ = ebates and Linkshare = uPromise. So we’d need to stop promoting them also”
Exactly. Plus there is still ongoing debate over what is ethical, what is illegal and what is just fine. Depends on who you ask. See argument over classification of cookies above.
Did I miss any major options here?
“Doesn’t this situation smack familiar of the McCain campaign pointing a finger at Obama over the Ayers’ relationship?”
That’s a bit of a reach. We’re not talking politics/terrorists here, we’re talking ad space. I think a more applicable comparison would be -
“I have turned down advertisers or relationships over the years because of spyware.”
Which I agree with.
I had a couple of problems with the post. First, writing about what you think is harmful to this industry right under banners advertising the company. Then being “pissed off” but it seems the anger was towards the article pointing this problem out instead of what the actual problem is, what’s causing articles like this to be written.
The part about adsense I don’t think applies either. With Adsense you give up a little control of whats shown on your site, there are ways to filter some things but you still give up some control. Which is much different from looking directly at an ad/company and deciding if you want to take their money and provide ad space.
“As Billy says “BUT, to me, CJ = ebates and Linkshare = uPromise. So we’d need to stop promoting them also””
As far as that, I would never put links to adware on my site. And I don’t promote networks either. I promote merchants which is left out of what I just quoted.
We’re just talking about ad space here. What would people’s thoughts be if Revenews decided to have a blogger tied to adware here? How would people feel about that? Would it be giving everybody a voice so we can discuss issues? Would it be kind of legitimizing them because you’re giving them a voice at a respected place? Because there was one here years ago. One that was overwriting affiliate links. One where some affiliates took video of violations. One video where you (Wayne) looked at over at the now defunct Affiliate Boards and said, Yes, they were violating network rules. Would that be ok? You can make arguments on both sides but for me, it’s shut the door on them. And at a place like Revenews, you can pick and choose which advertising you accept. If somebody wants to advertise here and you truly feel they are a negative to this industry, you can say no.
“That’s a bit of a reach. We’re not talking politics/terrorists here, we’re talking ad space. I think a more applicable comparison would be -”
Hang on. I was talking about the guilty through association dynamic. This is very important. McCaine INFERS shady ties to the terrorist world because Obama sat on a board with a domestic terrorist..well Obama was 8 when the guy committed the act but that is enough to charge him with being a shady guy…
You have to draw the line somewhere. IMHO a conclusion like that is ad hoc fallacy (I think) It is not logical and not fair. They are seperate people and so far as I know there is no evidence that Obama is a “terrorist” or has dealings with them.
“I had a couple of problems with the post. First, writing about what you think is harmful to this industry right under banners advertising the company.”
Doesn’t matter. One space is for ads. The other space is for blogs. There are not affiliate links in the copy. people blog out of their own skill and will. Seperation of church and state. People wanted to read it.
“The part about adsense I don’t think applies either. With Adsense you give up a little control of whats shown on your site,”
Little? How about alot of control. Either you have total control or you do not. The question was do you have adsense? If so have ads for companies that might be offensive to others (doesn’t matter- whatever they or I find offensive) ever popped up? Either yes or no. Shut the door on this as you say. Time to draw battle lines.
“there are ways to filter some things but you still give up some control.”
Yes. You can filter out a few hundred I think. Still not enough and you can’t be there 24-7 so you can’t say you are adware free if you run Adsense. I would think it is reasonable you would be, but cannot validate it all the time.
” Which is much different from looking directly at an ad/company and deciding if you want to take their money and provide ad space.”
What is the difference? What if the advertising at Revenews were self serve? Would it be different then?
“As far as that, I would never put links to adware on my site.”
Either you know what is going on or you don’t. See my point? You are saying- because you are conscious of it you have total control. (Also keep in mind if you edit out ads or filter content you change legal parameters)
“And I don’t promote networks either. I promote merchants which is left out of what I just quoted.”
OK Do any of those merchants use adware? Because support is support whether we see it or not (the support) if every affiliate would drop their dealings with merchants who use adware it would go away because of market dynamics.
Obviously I don’t think this is so, but I am making a point. My side of it is that this is ad space not article inventory. I honestly think an affiliate link in the copy would hurt Revenews more than an adware banner. Afterall, if they can’t tell the diffence they aren’t playing on the expert level.
“We’re just talking about ad space here. What would people’s thoughts be if Revenews decided to have a blogger tied to adware here?”
I have no idea- what is the tie? At first blush I guess they would get to see a contrasting view?
“How would people feel about that?”
I think it is a great idea. Personally I wouldn’t worry about their feelings so much. I think people can think for themselves and can clearly see at Revenews there aren’t even affiliate links (do you disclose every link as commissionable or not?) in the copy.
Do you use text affiliate links? Do you disclose the fact it is commissionable, the rate, etc?
If you do that is very cool and forward thinking. If not, then let me make the argument that you are being deceptive because ultimately the user has total control over what they click on…well except if you use undisclosed affiliate links- that changes the game as many people don’t know about affiliate marketing, cookies as tracking, etc. Granted they would be pretty green then but I think clicking or not clicking on a banner is an easier decision then a text link with cloaked or even uncloaked hypertext is a big jump in sophistication.
“Would it be giving everybody a voice so we can discuss issues?”
Sounds smart. Let them have a fair shake and give their position let readers decide for themselves. Afterall, technology changes so fast yesterdays adware will probably be totally different in the not so far off future.
“Would it be kind of legitimizing them because you’re giving them a voice at a respected place? ”
Would it? The space is bought and paid for. That is why it is an advertisement. Why we call it something else other then an article. see above. Don’t tell me you can’t tell the difference?
Or do you mean the guest blog entry from the one guy. Hmm I don’t know. Only in what I test and analyze myself or someone i know has been in the analysis space for a long time. e.g. Kellie Even then I would prefer to look at the Ethereal myself. Obviously a guest blog spot to get their reactions is completely different. That way the reader gets more education. The people who don’t use adware aren’t going to do anything put give them so flammage
“Because there was one here years ago. One that was overwriting affiliate links. One where some affiliates took video of violations. One video where you (Wayne) looked at over at the now defunct Affiliate Boards and said, Yes, they were violating network rules.”
Point me to it. Who took the video? Did you take the video? if i said they were breaking the TOS they were breaking it.
So whose job is it to police the TOS at a network? (i.e. until I am hired on to do 3rd party work it isn’t me. They should do their jobs! Granted adware analysis is very hard work, but not my job.
“Would that be ok? You can make arguments on both sides but for me, it’s shut the door on them.”
I am fine with that. That is your right. I try not to overstep my boundaries and force my opinions on others (I am not infering that you are.) Like my little sister who thinks cookies are spyware! Crazy huh? Try to tell her that. LOL.
Well get rid of Adsense and you should audit for any merchants who might be connected to adware. As you said shut the door on them. Either you support them directly or indirectly. That is my side of the argument, at least now so we could get some good communication flowing. (Actually for years I refused them, however I am not in charge of that anymore. I am a blogger here and not anything else.)
“And at a place like Revenews, you can pick and choose which advertising you accept. If somebody wants to advertise here and you truly feel they are a negative to this industry, you can say no.”
And choke off the great conversations that it sparked? Not me. True- Revenews management can vet advertisers as they wish and they render the final decision.
I am a big boy though. I know the difference between an advertisement and a blog entry and I can read bios and render my own judgement. I don’t assume they are together or working in consort, etc. I am honored you would think a brand I co-founded a decade ago can transfer influence like that. That is a compliment. Thank you. btw not sure who was pissed? I am not. I am having an argument for the sake of debate.