Let’s compare high level statistics on Commission Junction versus Linkshare versus MyAffiliateProgram (Kowabunga).

1) How many advertiser clients does Commission Junction have?  Around 66,930 or so versus 4,590 at Linkshare and 930 at MyAP.

2) Unique affiliate ID’s?  34,718 versus 21,336 at Linkshare and 2,072 at MyAP’s Kolimbo.

3) Number of affiliate domains?  51,625 versus 28,613 at Linkshare and 5,905 at MyAP’s Kolimbo.

4) Number of raw links floating around out there pointing at its network?  On the high end, CJ has 1,461,655 versus 41,414 pointing at Kolimbo.

So says Project Black Book, a “monthly print journal focused on interactive marketing and the affiliate space.”

Oh no… not again!  But wait… not so fast.  This publication promises DATA and hard-hitting commentary and so far they’re holding true (case in point its article on marketers “shaving” numbers—cheating affiliates).

The company claims it can us its proprietary data (which it harvests) to infer things like marketers’ footprint based on the popularity of its domain among affiliates—raw “affiliate count.”

Surprised to learn that Azoogle’s biggest link and domain king is Smileycentral.com?  How about CJ’s big advertisers? 

Here we see #10 ranked Zappos and #12 ranked Shoes.com.  Hmm… seems as if Zappos has put a hurt on Shoes in terms of active affiliate base AND distribution of raw product data feeds.  Then again, Shoes.com might just suggest it’s fine with having Zappos in this position since managing (controlling affiliates within) that kind of size and scale of an affiliate program can be costly and burdensome.

Not to rain on this publication’s parade (who me?) but, in the end, do marketers care enough about affiliate programs to Project Black Book publication like this for $350 to $500 (starting August 1) per year?  Is this kind of data combined with the type of content they’re showcasing enough to compete with the likes of Revenue Magazine?

ClickZ reports that “after searchers type in a brand-name query on a search engine, only 85 percent end up at that brand’s Web site, while the rest are diverted to competitor’s sites, comparison shopping engines and affiliates.”

This news comes from a new study released by Hitwise who warns marketers to watch their affiliates, affiliates of competitors and competitors.  Why did they bother researching it?  They noticed that 75 of the most popular 100 searches in February 2006 involved trademarked brand names.

Clearly, Hitwise’s report puts to bed the notion that one can rely on their affiliates to effectively squelch adversaries.

Search engine Yahoo! recently changed its policy... allowing only brand owners, resellers (specifically defined), information sites and comparison shopping sites to bid on trademarks.  Google allows bidding on trademarks but bans trademarks from ad copy.  Who helps advertisers enforce the policies?  Neither although Google has been known to help out when pressured.

None-the-less, many marketers remain comforted by allowing affiliates to bid on their marks… for fear of competitors or affiliates of competitors occupying the search results. 

Hosted by: Jeff Molander

Guests:
Wayne Porter, Sr. Dir. Greynet Networks
Chris Boyd (PaperGhost), Dir. Malware Research
Facetime Communications

Wayne Porter and Chris Boyd (aka PaperGhost) get paid to spend their days infiltrating rings of real life cyber criminals… all the while risking they’ll get caught by the thieves themselves.  How must it feel to gather evidence on such bottom-feeders and then turn it over to States’ Attorney General’s offices and/or Federal Authorities?

Press PLAY button to listen now or download as MP3. 

DOWNLOAD

00:01 - Introduction
02:38 - What does Facetime do and for whom?
04:09 - What is a botnet network? (Boyd)
05:20 - What are hackers and e-criminals motivations? (Boyd)
06:11 - Things changing for the worse; paradigm shift (Porter)
07:55 - The story of RinCe, tipster on major bust (Boyd, Porter)
10:20 - Anatomy of a good tipster; motivations (Boyd)
11:44 - Changing vectors & new dangerous hacker tactics (Porter)
12:54 - Instant Messaging no longer safe (Porter)
13:24 - Botnet criminal motivations (Boyd)
13:44 - New perspectives (Molander)
14:34 - Attack complexity increasing, vectors changing (Porter)
16:24 - Dark Economy: Organized crime moving online (Porter)
16:59 - Cloak & Dagger: How to penetrate a botnet (Boyd)
19:03 - Gathering intelligence from ‘the underbelly’ (Porter)
22:54 - Fallout from adware, spyware & Web crime (Porter)
23:34 - Warning to e-commerce executives (Porter)

Be alerted of next episode by email…

Subscribe to this series with RSS. 

The masterminds at Google have successfully dropped another red herring feature into the advertising ocean. They’re calling this one Position Preference but I like to call it IDIAT - Injecting Demand Into Auction-based Traffic.

This latest attempt to inject demand into the already frenzied PPC search auction is more chum in the water intended to attract branding budgets from the big fish. Not only is Google brilliant at extracting money from clients they’re also brilliant at spinning it as advertiser demand. 

Interestingly enough Yahoo is rumored to be releasing their version of Yield Rank Ad Serving this very month. As the two leaders in the space start to amalgamate their Ad Serving algorithms it leaves me wondering what do these two know that we don’t? (CPC X CTR x Branding) = more money for them.

Ironically these announcements come dangerously close to April Fools - but don’t be fooled by Google’s Trojan fish it’s going to change everything.

Could some retailers and service marketers, through participation in common affiliate programs, be aiding so-called “bot nets” that glean bank account & credit card numbers, passwords and other personal information from consumers’ computers?  Perhaps so says Wayne Porter of Facetime Communications which has identified a “large scale and sophisticated attack” on consumers using instant messaging technology. 

According to Porter, marketers need to pay attention to who their affiliates really are and not just because the FTC is interested.  Why? 

Porter says, “Large scale and sophisticated attacks like this have the potential to have a ‘chilling effect’ on shopping, buying and banking online and in general eroding the very e-commerce infrastructure that merchants, affiliates, networks and customers take for granted.”

How It Works
According to Facetime, consumers get passed the privacy-invading software from a link in what appears to be a friend’s instant message (but is in reality an automated program posing as their friend).  Once on the computer the process is repeated until, Facetime says in one instance, up to 150,000 computers are infected. 

What It Does to Consumers
Once infected the software really gets to work—scouring “desktop and back-end systems to obtain credit card numbers, bank accounts, and personal information including log-ins and passwords” says Facetime.  According to the company, the operators could launch these scans from any computer on the network of infected computers so as to mask their actual location… making catching them difficult.

How Your Affiliates Might Be Involved
Some affiliates will do anything to earn a commission and extend their “creativity” far beyond that of bidding on your brand in search engines.  Indeed, they’ll go further than paying an adware company to pop an advertisement at your checkout page and, thus, set themselves up for an un-due commission. 

In order to achieve the same result, some affiliates will actually create their own software applications (like browser bar plugins… similar to Google or Yahoo’s Toolbar) that install when a consumer downloads games or other software.  This “bundling” of software feeds on consumers who assume they’re only getting what they clicked on and can be a “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” business.  When an already dubious affiliate gets even more greedy and bundles serious spyware with its own software, the financial payoff goes up (they earn cash on every installation of the thieves’ spyware). 

Wait… bundles of bundles that are distributed with bundles?  Confused?  Darn right you are… that’s the point. 

The Bottom Line
Some affiliates will try to place their software on consumer’s computers, netting themselves un-due commissions.  Some of those affiliates will, when presented with a lucrative financial opportunity, bundle their software with that of others (operated by serious criminals) when distributing their dubious software.  In all fairness to dubious affiliates they may not even understand who their doing business with (phishing criminals).

You read it here first—DirectRevenue is agreeing to ground-breaking settlement terms in bringing the class action brought against it (March 2005) to closure.  The embattled spyware/adware company is agreeing to, among other things, the below terms in a settlement with class representative/plaintiff Stephen Sotelo in Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court:

1) Destruction of personally identifiable information “to the extent that DirectRevenue possesses any such data, said data will be destroyed.”

2) Giving equal prominence to 2 choices when displaying the End User License Agreement to consumers considering installing the software:

“I have read and accept the agreement” or “I do not accept the terms of the agreement” (EULA)

The “accept” option will NOT be the default option.

3) In addition to providing computer operators with its EULA, it will “disclose, separate and apart from the EULA” that users will receive ads while online along with a description of the ads; its collection of information about Web sites visited by users; its intent to provide adult ad content ads if users visit adult sites; any bundling—the fact that its software will also be included with any ad supported software being downloaded.

4) Not installing its software using Microsoft ActiveX or any other security exploits or in any way that does not require users’ consent.

5) Un-installation information to be displayed in the EULA and supported with an array of consumer resources such as a link at DirectRevenue.com as well as telephone and e-mail assistance offered to consumers (including special help for the visually impaired) wishing to rid their machine of the software.  All messaging will be detailed in how consumers can remove DirectRevenue’s software.

6) Not using sites aimed at children as distribution partners.

7) Not using the word “free” in banner ads describing the program being promoted (by the distribution partner such as a screen saver or video game) unless the ad also discloses that the program is ad-supported.

8) DirectRevenue ads will display a “?” button on the title bar or text link indicating further information is available to consumers. “This information will include an explanation of why the user is receiving the ad; the identity of the consumer application the user downloaded with the software; an instruction that the user can uninstall the software using Windows ‘Add/Remove Programs’” (to be found “under the exact same name used in branding the ads").  The company will limit its “name changes” used on ads (i.e. Best Offers) to once per every two years.

9) No re-installation unless the user performs a re-install.

10) No deletion of other software tools or modification of the consumer’s security settings will be performed.

11) Limitation of advertisements served to 10 or less (per computer per 24 hour period).

12) Purchasing sponsored links, if Google is willing to sell such links, that provide links to help consumers remove DirectRevenue software. 

Unfortunately, the settlement’s chief weak point is a critical one: affiliate control and enforcement of rules.  The company agrees to hold its affiliates responsible for terms agreed to as part of this settlement but makes no warranties beyond its commitment to “closely police its distributors.” It promises to “take appropriate action based on the circumstances of the violation, potentially including termination of the distributor.” The use of sub-affiliates is also not prohibited.

-------------------
EDITOR’S NOTE
3:25 PM CT
3-13-06

In a note to me this afternoon, David Fish (of The Collins Law Firm, P.C.) wished to make something very clear regarding DirectRevenue’s control over distributors.  That being…

“One of the main reasons that we agreed to the settlement relates to the ability of our law firm, the Class of Illinois residents, and a Federal court to hold DirectRevenue accountable for any misconduct that may have been aided by one of its distributors.”

In the same email Mr. Fish said, “The bottom line is that if there is a violation the terms of the settlement, we don’t care whether DirectRevenue is going to try to ‘pass the buck.’ We will seek to have DirectRevenue held accountable… If DirectRevenue (or its distributors) violate the settlement agreement, we have the right to ask a Federal judge to hold DirectRevenue in contempt of court for violating a court order.  This is why we insisted on DirectRevenue agreeing to ‘injunctive relief.’”