"Scumware"

Leeching off of affiliates...

[weisinator]

Think of Gator and how it places ads on websites. I've read that they sold advertising on sites they didn't own. Hotbar does something similar, but they only serve up ads specific to a category.

I've been reading about WhenU and several other "Affiliates" that track a customer's order, then give a quarterly "rebate" check to people who purchased anything online. The "rebate" is anywhere from 2-15% depending on where the customer shops.

In order to receive money to offer a "rebate", WhenU has to add their affiliate code, and get the commission. In doing so, they take any legitimate affiliate code out and replace it with thiers.

Gator is harmless by comparison.

Why does this bother me? Because I spend about 5-10 hours a week making new websites, developing content for existing sites, and placing related products on my pages. I don't want to work and not get paid. I'm not making much (Only been serious for a short time), but I'm seeing a steady increase in commissions from week to week (thanks to all here who share their knowledge on traffic building).

WhenU does nothing to drive traffic to these online stores and yet takes credit for the sales, sending out a fraction of the affiliate fees to the customers (who think they're getting something for nothing), and pocketing a majority for themselves.

There's a couple of scripts to detect scumware and redirect to a page illustrating the problem, but those don't catch WhenU (though they do find other parasites).

I'm almost ready to give up.

[buckworks]

One thing that helps is for affiliates like you and me to voice our concerns to our merchants, because there ARE merchants out there who understand that parasitic link placement methods amount to theft, plain and simple, and refuse to have anything to do with parasites. It's sometimes hard for merchants to keep up with who's doing what, but ethical merchants will refuse to work with parasites after they understand what's going on. It's up to other affiliates to police this stuff, unfortunately, but together our voices DO have an effect.

Invest some time to share these concerns with the merchants you promote, if you haven't already.

[Mike_Mackin]

buckworks:

Where is that list of educated merchants?

[weisinator]

Some affiliates have their own message board, and other people there have taken the time to tell the people how they feel.

My "big performer" makes products for a niche market without broad-based appeal, so it comes in under the radar, for now at least.

Mike: sending you a sticky of a site that's putting together a list of educated merchants, though the list is not published yet.

(Edited by Weisinator: more friendly choice of words.)

[Travoli]

Speaking of..

An affiliate manager I spoke with recently said he was considering ways to counter the scumware problem. He suggested that each affiliate with a certain level of sales would get site reviews by him personally. My worry was that scumware developers could put up a couple of legit sites to fool the affiliate manager. Other, honest top affiliates would remove themselves from his program, or be removed after refusing to reveal their affiliate networks, because they worry about merchants stealing their traffic ideas.

What would you do if you were the affiliate manager?

[DrCool]

Combating scumware would be very tough for affiliate managers. I don't know of a foolproof way they would be able to nail them. Once they block them once the scumware people will figure out a way to get around it. The best thing an affiliate manager could do is heavily research their bigger affiliates. I think by digging deep enough they would be able to block most of the scumware and not harm the real affiliates. The couple affiliate managers I have spoken with have had no problem finding the recent problems with scumware but they are worried that the scum will become more and more complicated and tougher to block.

[buckworks]

The issue is starting to hit the mainstream press. Some merchant and affiliate networks are working to set up a meeting to (maybe perhaps hey-we-can-hope) agree on some standards.

[news.com.com...]

Cogent quote: "The goal is to be able to quickly identify and act against software that credits the wrong party when online stores tally commissions for Web referrals."

The issue is a large and growing problem for affiliate managers who want to Do The Right Thing, and some industry standards about what is or isn't considered acceptable business practice on othe internet woudl help. Putting some teeth into the standards would be another whole layer of issues, but enough people are starting to recognize the problem that we might see some progress.

Forgive me for being just a wee bit cynical, though: Amazon affiliates have been asking Amazon since at least last January to drop the likes of WhenU etc. for actively intercepting other sites' traffic. Amazon finally got around to taking action and making a statement in late September, the week the New York Times was around asking questions. Hmmm ...

[Travoli]

So, affiliates...

If an affiliate manager asked to see your network of sites with the purpose of eliminating scumware cheaters, would you still want to participate in their program?

Would you start from scratch with a program that already employs these tactics? Would it be a draw because of their desire to be honest, or would it deter you for fear they would steal your network ideas?

[DrCool]

I would have no problem letting them see my sites. If I didn't trust them I would find another merchant to work with.