homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.159.11
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Ecommerce
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks

Ecommerce Forum

This 51 message thread spans 2 pages: 51 ( [1] 2 > >     
"No right click" costs vendor a $40,000 sale
I just got really mad...
Wlauzon




msg:3154267
 2:00 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

OK, maybe this is not the right forum, but since it just cost one of our vendors a $40k sale, I thought it might belong here.

Among other things, we sell a lot of fuses. Big fuses, in the $2 to $200 range.

I was in the process of adding another line of fuses so I went to one (of two) vendors that we get wholesale fuses from to get some pictures for our site.

The first one had that stupid no right click code. So I cancelled the order and re-placed it with his competitor.

Now I realize that most are a little (ok, a lot) less hysterical than me about this issue, but I just thought I would post it as a warning that anything that might upset your browsers and/or buyers should not be on your website.

 

coopster




msg:3154270
 2:09 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Did you let the non-right-click vendor know?

sharbel




msg:3154302
 3:03 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

I still dont understand why some webmasters put that silly script on their pages. Honestly, I think I would pick another vendor too if I saw it. No particular reason why, it just screams idiocy when I see that crap on a page.

I mean, seriously, do they honestly think they are protecting anything by putting that in there? Use the menu to view source.. disable javascript to stop the script from running.. take a screenshot of the page to grab the pics... and if you are real geek capture the request stream and do whatever the hell you want with it.

Wlauzon




msg:3154324
 4:00 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Did you let the non-right-click vendor know?

Yes I did - sort of. Their site has a couple of other problems also (I suspect related to IE6 hacks), and that was one of the 4-5 items I emailed them about - while of course mentioning that because we were on a tight schedule we had to order from their competitor...

Yes I know I could easily have defeated the NRC, but I just did not feel like messing with it when the other site was a favorites click away.

[edited by: Wlauzon at 4:01 pm (utc) on Nov. 12, 2006]

wsmeyer




msg:3154397
 5:36 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

The webmaster almost certainly put it on there at the insistence of someone else. It won't even slow down anyone who is internet savvy.

I hope you don't have the same passion for the no imagetoolbar tag as I do use that one, not to keep the images safe but just because I don't like the intrusion of the silly toolbar.

William.

Steerpike




msg:3154571
 9:43 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)


Did you ask their permission "to get some pictures for our site."

Just because you spend $40k with them to buy a product doesn't give you the right to take their images whenever you feel like it.

RailMan




msg:3154666
 12:22 am on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

i hate the no right click thing - i like to right click and open pages in new windows - and no right click makes sites a pain to use so i shop elsewhere instead

Just because you spend $40k with them to buy a product doesn't give you the right to take their images whenever you feel like it.

i can't think of a single reason why a wholesale company would object to their customers using their images - most wholesalers i know of provide images and product info on CDs etc ..........

[edited by: RailMan at 12:25 am (utc) on Nov. 13, 2006]

jwolthuis




msg:3154714
 1:58 am on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

can't think of a single reason why a wholesale company would object to their customers using their images...

Perhaps their concern isn't with their customers. They might have original photos or artwork that they don't want their competitiors to have.

sniffer




msg:3154733
 2:40 am on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

I had the right click disabled when I first started about 4-5 years ago. At the time i considered taking images and stuff from our site s stealing. Now, I consider that anything published at all is likely to be taken...

bcc1234




msg:3154744
 2:51 am on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

To all the webmasters who just don't get it about the right click and how easy it is to get around it:

It's a legal thing.

Of course, a lot of people who disable right click do it out of stupidity, but others do it for a good reason.

No matter how weak the "protection" is, it's still protection. So if you are in court suing your competitor for using your images, an argument that they "deliverately circumvented the copy-protection system" is one that's hard to defent against.

What are you going to say in response?

Oh, it was so easy to "hack" your system, I just pulled the source with a download app or used a menu or disabled javascript or something else?

Any way you respond, you are screwed since you not longer can claim that you didn't think those images were protected against copying. And you show that you knowingly and willingly put effort into getting around that protection.

It's not about actually protecting your content, it's about having a good argument in court, if it ever gets to that.

jwolthuis




msg:3154757
 3:09 am on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's not about actually protecting your content, it's about having a good argument in court, if it ever gets to that.

The only surefire way of protecting your content is with watermarks.

My watermarks are small, and in the center of my images. I've received zero comments or complaints from customers. I also add my © to the EXIF metadata in my JPEG images.

Hoping I never end up in court over website images :-/

KenB




msg:3154802
 4:31 am on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

The watermark solution is a much better way of "protecting" one's images than disabling the right mouse click as it doesn't disable any functionality of the web browser. I use the right mouse click all the time and rarely is it to save images from a web page. Normally it is to do things like open links in new tabs etc.

It does my heart good to hear of a company losing a big order because of a stupid stunt like that.

[edited by: KenB at 4:32 am (utc) on Nov. 13, 2006]

Steerpike




msg:3154817
 5:10 am on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)


It disappoints me that people have such a casual disregard for other peoples work.

Blocking right click is a stupid thing to do and does absolutely nothing to protect your images from copyright theft. That said, if you're popping along to someones website to try and take their images I have to say you really have NO right to get all upset when they take steps to prevent you from doing so.

It's your choice to take your business elsewhere, but please, don't think you have some moral high ground here.

Wlauzon




msg:3154968
 10:40 am on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just because you spend $40k with them to buy a product doesn't give you the right to take their images whenever you feel like it.

Actually, in this particular case it DOES. The manufacturer of the items specifically states that authorized dealers (that's us) are allowed to use product images for selling their products.

This is not artwork - these are pictures of fuses. Unfortunately the manufacturers site does not have good photos online. They are sending us a CD with images, but that won't be here for a week. The distributors pictures are from the same CD, so not like it is original works.'

If you go to almost any website selling any product, 99% of the photos are manufacturer-supplied images specifically made for marketing. That is what the images in question are. If we had the items in hand we would just take our own pictures, but that won't be for 2-3 weeks.

Any way you respond, you are screwed since you not longer can claim that you didn't think those images were protected against copying. And you show that you knowingly and willingly put effort into getting around that protection...

Actually not a very good legal argument. All I have to do is browse on my computer to the temporary cache file and all the stuff is there if I want to sort through hundreds or thousands of cached images. It is not required to use any "hacks" or workaround.

[edited by: Wlauzon at 10:49 am (utc) on Nov. 13, 2006]

TravelSite




msg:3154993
 11:28 am on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

I hate sites that disable right click.

Personally I browse using it. I do a right click on a link and open it up in a new window - for later reading - then continue reading the original document. This way I can open up several interesting likes without abandoning the current page I'm reading. It makes things nice and easy.

Equally I hate sites that use Javascript links - these stop me from doing my right click. I have no idea why IE can't overcome this javascript issue and still allow me to right click - surely this should be possible.

I too abandon sites that don't allow right clicks - whether it uses Javascript or disables right clicking - it just isn't worth it when there are so many competitor sites that aren't designed to get on my nerves!

Jimmyco




msg:3155269
 5:34 pm on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

If you upload anything on the web, you should expect people to take or use the said media. Why do people post original artwork online when you really can't protect it? I like to take a no-right-click image, photoshop it, and email it to the site I took it from. It feels good.

bwnbwn




msg:3155380
 7:17 pm on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

I won't use a site with the nrc enabled either, tells me they are hiding something in their code so I won't have a thing to do with them, even though it only takes me a sec to get it anyway.

keeps the less experienced users from viewing their code so why hid it anyway unless "up to something" is my thoughts. Seeya.

bunltd




msg:3155416
 7:50 pm on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Disabling right click is a big turnoff. I constantly open pages in new tabs or windows. I do it without thinking. (I know I can use Ctrl+Click to get a new tab, but I've been right clicking for much longer) When I get an alert about nrc I just laugh <chortle> then disable javascript support and go on about my right click browsing. Hmmph, disrupt my surfing, will you?

This will be a good example to use when someone asks about doing this on their site.

LisaB

Wlauzon




msg:3155561
 9:34 pm on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

I constantly open pages in new tabs or windows...
That was the 2nd thing that made me mad :P

The website has a couple of other problems related to bad and/or amateur programming, but I just blew a fuse (!) when I ran into that after a very long day of trying to get this mini-project done before Monday.

But the main reason I posted that was not so much just the NRC, it was that it made me also realize that if users get frustrated for ANY reason, they might go elsewhere. So I am also taking a 2nd look at our own ecommerce site to see if there are any glitches. I enlisted the aid of a couple of total amateur web surfers to look around for a few things, place dummy orders etc to try and catch things that the more savvy web user might never notice.

KenB




msg:3155909
 5:38 am on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Wlauzon's last comment and this thread in general is a good object lesson to web developers. The little things do matter and it is much easier to loose a prospective customer online than it is in a bricks and mortar store. In a physical store a customer might just work around some annoyance, online it is extremely easy for them just to go elsewhere.

Beyond not doing things that break a browser's functionality (e.g. disabling the right mouse click) sites need redundant and easy to use navigation and they must be fail safe in all modern browsers (which is easiest to accomplish by coding to W3C web standards).

Hiring a cheap/inept web developer, taking development shortcuts or putting in stupid/useless/annoying web tricks are quick ways to lose customers.

climb512




msg:3157223
 1:52 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I own several eCommerce websites, selling many different products. I do all the images and product artwork for my sites. It takes a whole lot of time, but I believe, based on supporting feedback from customers, that my product images are a main reason my sales are good.

I have several competitors who apparently have no access to the actual products, whether they are affiliates or are getting the item dropshipped...in my opinion, they simply cannot know the product as well as me or provide the same service which I can. Most competitors use just a single photo in bad lighting of just one type of widget, while I can have custom images of 40 or so different colors and styles of each widgit type that I sell.

If someone takes the image I labored over and uses it to compete against me, I call this stealing. I can see no logic to the "if it's published it's ok to scrap" argument at all. It's "possible" to steal most anything, but that doesn't make for a good defence.

Using the "no right click" image protection is meddling with the client's browser behavior, so I don't like it or use it...but if it's intended to protect an image that anyone has spent any time at all optimizing, then I believe that should be respected.

pageoneresults




msg:3157230
 1:59 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

What percentage of visitors do you think are even aware of this issue?

yulia




msg:3157399
 3:41 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I use NRC feature on my site and have no decrease in sale, site popularity or increase in customerís/visitorís complaints.

It is unlikely that my visitors and customers use RC feature to view my website and to make a purchase. NRC feature is for sneaky competitors and Internet thieves. It serves it purpose.

I supply my partners with high resolution of the product images by their request. It works great for both parties.

KenB




msg:3157419
 3:59 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I use NRC feature on my site and have no decrease in sale, site popularity or increase in customerís/visitorís complaints.

Most of us would never complain, rather would simply go elsewhere. No one can claim they have no decrease in sales, because there is no way to measure how many people are turned off by such idiotic tricks as NRC. Breaking the browser isn't a feature, it is an impediment.

If people are worried about misuse of photos, the best way to deal with this is to simply put a copyright watermark on the photo. Done creatively, this "watermark" can look integral to the photo and provide an extra branding opportunity. For instance I will often use the company logo and web address as a watermark in a corner of an image much like the TV networks put their logo in the corner of a TV screen. This way if a legit customer saves an image for future reference they end up keeping the address to my website.

People saving images as theft, look at it as a marketing opportunity.

Philosopher




msg:3157425
 4:04 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I use NRC feature on my site and have no decrease in sale, site popularity or increase in customerís/visitorís complaints.

How exactly do you know this? I would be willing to bet you have lost plenty of sales from it and upset quite a few visitors.

It's simply that most of us have better things to do than waste additional time writing an email etc. to let you know. You've already wasted enough of our time. The visitor will simply head to another site (read your competitor).

I'm with many here. I use the RC feature a lot to open new windows/tabs etc. If a site stops that, I simply move on.

***Looks like Ken's a slightly faster typist than I. ;)**

[edited by: Philosopher at 4:12 pm (utc) on Nov. 15, 2006]

yulia




msg:3157691
 8:04 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am not going to argue with anyone. You have a mentality of highly educated well trained computer professionals.

(Just our of topic, last year I was working at the factory, where engineering department employees did not know that is Google Ė true story.)

I sell specialty products (not high tech). I bet, if you need the product I am selling Ė you are more likely buy it regardless of website features that might irritate you.

Wlauzon




msg:3157805
 9:33 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

IMO the best method by far for pictures that you don't want stolen is to watermark them visibly with your URL.

We had some pictures stolen a while back, and the idjut posted them "as is", so he was advertising our website on his...

Demaestro




msg:3157821
 9:45 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Love that you did this. This really should show why keeping things simple and people happy is a good thing.

For future browsing though....... there is an option in Firefox that will disable the ability for people to even do this. You won't even know they tried.

In Firefox goto tools....options....content... under the javascript settings goto advanced..... There is an option to "allow scripts to disable or replace context menus" uncheck this option and you won't ever have to deal with that again.

ispy




msg:3158199
 6:06 am on Nov 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

You can always find a reason to goto a competitor if you look hard enough. There was probably something else brewing there if you chose to go somewhere else rather then communicate about the issue to your current supplier. Then to tell them afterwards that they lost the 40K sale, give me a break.

amznVibe




msg:3158201
 6:22 am on Nov 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Why aren't you using the firefox extension to get around
no-right-click code if this is that important to you?

This 51 message thread spans 2 pages: 51 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Ecommerce
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved