Since we’re talking about loyalty sites and their use of browser plugins, I thought it would be a good idea to review the current network rules governing this behavior.
As you watch the screencasts that I’ll be doing, you should probably be familiar with what the networks have to say about this and what they consider legitimate.
Commission Junction
Commission Junction published their latest version of their Code of Conduct in May of 2007. I didn’t do a comparison with the previous version from 2004, but pertaining specifically to the behavior of browser toolbars there is this:
“Interference with referrals. No Web site publisher or software download technology provider may interfere with or seek to improperly influence the referral of an end-user to the Web site of an online advertiser unless the end-user knowingly and explicitly consents to that behavior by taking an affirmative action.”
Linkshare
Linkshare chose to go their own route on this issue and incorporate it more tightly into their legal language. Here’s the pertinent section our of their Network Policies and Guidelines (bold is mine).
Downloadable Technology Compliance Standard (“DTCS”)
In order to use Downloadable Technology to promote qualifying links, that technology must not “interfere” with:
- Any functionality of any Network Affiliate’s or Network Merchant’s Web-based links or other Web-based advertisements, sites or other commercial offerings;
- Any engagement tracked by LinkShare between a Network Merchant and any Network Affiliate with which such Network Merchant has entered into such engagement; or
- The tracking technology or network resources offered by LinkShare to its Merchants, Network Affiliates and other participants or users.
Subject to the above, and solely with “an end user’s express and informed consent,” any Downloadable Technology used by you may cause the presentation, to the end user, of special offers or proposals, so long as the end-user is offered, in connection with each and every instance of such offers or proposals, the options of both (i) rejecting such offer or proposal and (ii) deleting, terminating or opting out of the Downloadable Technology altogether.
Google Affiliate Network
It appears that CJ and Performics, now Google, have parted ways on their joint Code of Conduct. The Google Affiliate Network Agreement and Terms state the following (bold is mine):
(b) Affiliate agrees and warrants that it shall not engage in any of the following prohibited activities: … (viii) interfere with or seek to improperly influence the referral of an end user to a Marketer’s Web site; (ix) automatically replace or alter any component of the Performics Technology that results in a reduction of compensation earned by Performics or another Affiliate; (x) use invisible methods to generate impressions, clicks, or transactions that are not initiated by the affirmative action of the end user; (xi) utilize the Performics Technology in any manner that alters, changes, substitutes or modifies the content of another Affiliate’s Web site; (xii) use the Performics Technology with other software, whereby the installation and de-installation is not obvious, easy or complete. Licensing and terms of all software downloads and applications of any type must be clearly presented to and accepted by the end user. Software that utilizes the Performics Technology must be clearly marked in such a manner that the end user can identify the Affiliate’s software with an associated behavior that occurs on the end user’s computer, and receive visible notification of such behavior.
So this means what?
It’s pretty clear that CJ’s code of conduct states that it is ok for software to be used and overwrite other affiliate links as long as there is user consent.
It’s not so clear when reading the Linkshare’s and Google’s terms, but their actions demonstrate clearly that they allow the same.
The bottom line is that it is ok for one affiliate to have software that resides on a user’s computer that effectively gives them infinite, self-refreshing referrals for that user, and allows them to overwrite other affiliate clicks as long as the user agrees to that action with some sort of affirmative confirmation of visible notification.
In short, the networks condone what amounts to an infinite super tracking cookie. One that never expires and that almost always wins when up against other affiliates.
But why is it ok for the end user to decide who gets the commission on a sale? That simply shouldn’t be the case.
This might be a good time to remind you that I was involved in the creation of the original code of conduct in 2002 when Be Free was the third company in that consortium. While the concept of one affiliate being able to employ technology to overwrite another never sat very well with me personally, Be Free wasn’t really a network. So in our case, it was truly up to the merchant to dictate what happened in their program.
When it comes down to it, I still feel that way. In the end, it remains up to the merchant in all cases to allow this or not. No matter what the network says, they have the power to accept or reject any affiliate from their program to allow or disallow this behavior.
The networks have too much money at stake to be expected to do anything that deviates from status quo. Inertia will keep that body at rest until a really strong force moves it. A few angry affiliates certainly doesn’t do it.
In the meantime, merchants need to take more responsibility on this issue and do the right thing for their affiliates. One by one.
