Damn good thread lets keep this going :thumbsup

Will76: This is the bottom line and the answer to the problem. If you want to recover your income and other affiliates then you should be changing your policy regarding first cookies. You can't stop the problem, but maybe with your clickcash influence you can solve it by changing the cookie policy.

ummm... this is what ZANGO said...
 

here is the response from ZANGO and below that is the e-mail I wrote to them yesterday:

Thanks for your note, Mr. Hoffman.

I certainly understand your concerns with the rumors that you mentioned. When we heard these same rumors more than two years ago, we hired an outside auditing firm to analyze our program's behavior to ensure that such activity was not occurring. After reviewing our programs, the IM Services auditing firm confirmed that our programs indeed do not interfere with affiliate commissions.

If you have any further questions on this or any other matter, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks,

Cory Magnus
Senior Manager of Industry Affairs
Zango
E: [email protected]
P: 425.279.1205 | F: 425.279.1199
www.zango.com

Read our blog at http://blog.zango.com



From: evulvMEDIA [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:51 PM
To: Steve Stratz; Cory Magnus
Subject: a concern regarding Zango software


Dear Mr. Stratz and Mr. Magnus:

I am an adult webmaster. Part of my business is advertising adult websites and enticing Internet surfers to click on advertisements for my affiliated business partners ("Sponsors"). I am paid a commission when Internet surfers purchase products and/or memberships from the Sponsors sites.

It has been rumored that your software ("zango"), when installed, interferes in the contractual relationship between my Sponsors and I, specifically by intercepting the communication that occurs when a user clicks on a Sponsor link on one of my websites and then redirecting that communication through a link set up by your company with that same Sponsor. The end result of that interference would be that your company is paid the commission that is due to me.

I have investigated your website and have seen no disclosure that your software operates in this manner. As I am sure that your company would not interfere in the contractual relationships between others, I would like you to kindly set the record straight.

Specifically, I would like for you to confirm that your software does not interfere in the business relationship and flow of commissions between other Internet companies.

Sincerely,
Ray Hoffman

--
Ray Hoffman
evulvMEDIA, Santa Monica, California, U.S.A.
ICQ 301-031-384, on myspace
www.evulv.com

very interesting thread I will just bump it

I'm not surprised and that's exactly what I would have expected from them.

I wish Kellie had permission from other sponsors to post videos that show how it's done. You'd see that cookies DO get replaced and zango claims the sale every time.

Ben's site is huge but let me go fetch some links from his site. I know he's got many videos there, I hope he has some from 180.

Missie

I deleted all the links because it still won't let me post them, even in a quoted post.

Unfortunately all I can find is stuff from February of this year. But it's still self explanatory. Ben has been more involved in research for lawsuits against spyware. If that's what you plan to do, he might be the one you want to contact. Although Kellie from affiliatefairplay dot com can do the same for you.

Here's the link to Ben's site, sorry for the broken link but...

benedelman dot org/news/022006-1.html

Scroll down to read about 180solutions and how they operate. They haven't changed a bit over the years, it's just the story of the spin they give you that changes. But results are always the same. They love to play the "victims".

Missie

Hi Chipmunk!! Good to see ya again.

I feel your pain Will. The main reason I posted the distinction is for 2 reasons. First is in response to the email claims by 180 posted by islopath that Zango doesn't "1. they don't alter, manipulate, or delete 3rd party affiliate referral tracking info". Zango is being very careful in their terminology. And they are doing this intentionally.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct the end result for you is the exact same. But from Zango's prespective, how they defend their business publicly they are taking the serious public relations spin road. And I have to say that Zango has a very good public relations company working for them. And they have been quite successful in how they spin. So when I have the chance to debunk their spin, I do. :) Because you are right in that you still got to the #2 didn't you?

The second reason I posted such detail is because of some of the prior posts talking about possible solutions and those were based what seemed to be the assumption the cookie/tracking itself was being altered by the adware. Those solutions wouldn't work because that's not how the adware works.

Come on Missie... 4 more posts! lol

So how much does Kellie charge to test your sites?

Hey please forward me that letter. I would like to start collecting all documention that any of you here receive from them, please include headers, etc..


rumors LOL thats sad he is trying to spin it.

"our programs indeed do not interfere with affiliate commissions. " :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I have a video documented here that says otherwise and several other people that have experienced the same thing.

Who can get info on this company. I want to know about this "other" kawsuit.

I'm trying!!!!!!! LOL Once I reach 30 posts I can relax. :)

That's really for Kellie to answer. Contact her directly or if she reads this (and I'm pretty sure she will - I hope I didn't get her addicted to yet another forum! LOL) she might contact you herself.

Missie

i dont think you have enough post. not sure how many you need though to post links,,,, anyway if you have icq or email see my sig i will post anything you have if you can't.

Glad you guys have video as well. From what I can see they are feeling the heat and they have changed a few things since i first reported this here. Too bad for them they can't change what i recorded. the more evidence we have the better. video doesn't lie.

Will,

Contact Ben via his site. I know he's got tons of stuff that he doesn't publish. Give him links to this forum related to spyware. He might be able to provide you with a lot more information on 180.

Missie

You would think so no? But that hasn't seemed to be the case necessarily. It would seem that laws and rules that apply to offline commerce don't necessarily carry over onto the Internet. Or at least law enforcement agencies feel they need separate laws. When I found WhenU popping on my own shopping cart back in early 2001 (I think it was), I immediately picked up the phone and called the CyberCrimes division of my AGs office. They didn't like it, but felt there was no existing laws for them to do anything. They were waiting for the laws.

There have been several lawsuits over the years now. The lawsuits approached it from several different legal avenues. Many cases were settled. The cases that didn't settle have had mixed results going both ways. There hasn't been any clear cut legal precedent set at this time.

Several states have since enacted antispyware legislation. What is covered in these laws varies from state to state. The first state to pass such a law was Utah. It addressed true spyware (i.e. collecting PPI and things like credit card/banking information), but it also tried to address the commerce end of the adware problem by basically saying they could have their software pop on someone else's web site on computers in UT. When the law was signed, affiliates in mainstream were overjoyed. They need the other site to pop on, so if they can't do that then problem solved! Or at least to a large extent. WhenU immediately sued the State of UT, the governor of UT and whoever else saying the law violated their Constitutional rights. They said it violated their...get this...First Admendment Rights. And well they won. UT revised the bill removing that clause from the bill. The law is a strange place at times.

Lawsuits are a sticky wicket. Especially when there is not clear cut law in place. I will say from my own discussions with attorneys that class actions are not necessarily easy suits to bring forth. IANAL, but from my discussions with attorneys their opinion the best possible winnable case from the affiliate's perspective was not against the adware company and it was civil in nature. I've actually been involved in more than one attempt at a class action. At the end of the day, when it came down to the knuckle knocking as to what is involved (with such issues as disclosure by both parties) and who the best case would be against (sponsor/merchants), affiliates were not willing to follow through. That's all just my own personal experience though. ;)

A fascinating thread here.
thanks for starting it Will, and thanks to the others who have posted all the detailed info as well. :thumbsup

I find it very interesting and extremely troubling that more of the major sponsors haven't made any kind of statement in this thread, I appreciate those that have and I am an affiliate of 2 of them so thats a plus, but obviously sponsors being attentive to this issue is only a portion of the solution, we have to find a way to overcome this either through legal action or/and some type of technology to combat these thieves and their methods.

Missie, you have reached the 30 post mark so you should be able to post links now :)

That's a real shame. I wouldn't care who I go after, sponsors, merchants, affiliates, or adwhores (love that Mike!) themselves. Hell, I'd sue them all if I could! :)

If affiliates start suing merchants/sponsors for breach of contract because of spyware applications and win, it sure would send the message real quick to others who are doing the same.

You sue another affiliate and win and you could financially ruin them for life. That would scare other scumbags who are too lazy to do their own work and find it easier to just steal the sales. Is it worth the risk?

Missie

oops double post!

also in light of the fact that there seem to be quite a few posters here on GFY spamming zango's aff program to unsuspecting webmasters, I think we should work on getting Lens and TD to block their ability to do that here.

Topbucks has been on this issue for quite a while and did it long before affiliates were even aware of the problem.

:thumbsup

OK, folks, here is a plan of attack:

FIRST:

The best bet with a court case is to have major sponsors as Plantiffs and the issue be PPC hijacking. It's pretty hard to see where there is any gray area here, and the major sponsors who do PPC on Google will be very eager I'm sure to stop this. Especially since it is likely going to become a bigger issue.

So sombody needs to step forward and research this, but with a particular focus: Get video documentation of how PPC clicks were hijacked from major sponsors. Then approach the sponsors (or maybe one of the sponsors takes this initiative) with this information. Try to get them all to go after ZANGO in court to recover damages directly related to the PPC hijacking.

SECOND:

Get in touch with Too Much Media / NATS, CCBill, and the major adult dating and webcam sponsors. This will not cover every sponsor in the industry, but it will cover most of them. Make them aware of the problem. Here is one possible solution that doesn't solve the problem but makes it less easier for affiliates and owners to get screwed:

Insert a random delay, say between 30 seconds and 1 hour, into visitor tracking. During this delay period, a tracked visitor cannot be reassigned.

There is likely a better solution from a technical standpoint, though- in particular, I could imagine a "spyware filtering" mechanism that would look for affiliates who attempt immediate visitor assignment changes. The technology could simply disable affiliates who do this.

THIRD (and this is a big one):

Demonstrate to Sponsors the magnitude of the problem and the fact that it is likely to quickly get worse. Show them that if they take a stand against this sort of spyware, they can use the fact that they are "SPYWARE-PROOF" (or a like term) to their competetive advantage. That would be a wonderful thing to hear from an affiliate standpoint,


On a larger-scale note, we really need a trade group to handle issues like this. That same trade group should have also distanced the industry from ventures like Red Rose Stories and furthered the image of adult as a law-abiding and up-and-up business (if not a respectable business).

The closest thing we have is the FSC. I would be in for abandoning the FSC for a trade group with a more encompassing focus like this.

Get Larry Flynt to speak up on this. After all, Hustler did find spyware in their program. He's vocal enough on issues related to this industry.

What about Playboy?

Vivid?

Penthouse?

Lexington Steele - Peter North - BrainCash

Get big names involved that are easily recognizable in the real world. Not talking about affiliate managers here, but the owners of the programs.

Missie

Those, in most likelihood, are not all affiliate IDs belonging to 180Solutions. I think Missie mentioned from Ben's report 176 IDs for them found. That information in Ben's report has been widely misunderstood. Those were 176 IDs (or however many it was) he found coming through their software for BF, LS, CJ and PFX. All most all of those IDs belonged to affiliates who were running ads through 180Solutions software and not 180Solutions themselves.

Even when an affiliate just uses their affiliate link as the pop up URL so all I really have is an unknown aff id, I'd say 85% of the time I'm eventually able to track down who really belongs to that ID. :) And it's usually not 180Solutions. Even when you see tags referencing 180 in the URL, many times it's just the affiliate using a parameter to track the traffic source for their own internal stats.

The problem would be much easier to control if all those Ids did belong to 180 themselves. But when it's a revolving door of any affiliate with $50 being able to open an account with 180 and run campaigns, it's entirely different beast to monitor.

IMO, 180 has intentionally severely cut back on what they are doing as an affiliate themselves. If you read the 180Solutions Advertiser TOS (you got to dig on their site to find it), you'll get a clue. The upshot, and I'm definitely paraphrasing here, is that if the shit ever does hit the fan from a legal standpoint it's the advertiser using their service and not them who is responsible. Their stance seems to be along the line of what the P2P apps did. They just provide the technology and their advertisers not them who is responsible for how it's being used.

Well not 100% of the time. They have alogrithms and timers built into the software for when an ad will pop and what ad will pop. I won't necessarily get a pop up every test just because a kw is being bid on. They also allow day targeting now, so an advertiser can stipulate certain hours of the day they want their ads to pop. A very rough estimate is about 5 minutes has to pass before another pop up will happen for the same kw trigger. But again there are many factors that come into play. Neverless, it can be a significant impact.

What happens to the cookie is correct, but Zango software didn't do it. The affiliate Network changed the IDs. Because that's the way affiliate networks track. If you did the same thing except clicked on an affiliate link from another web site, you'd see the same thing with the cookie. Is that just semantics? Maybe, but it's a very important distinction from a legal standpoint. And again from how Zango is able to publicly defend their business practices. Because to say Zango themselves altered the cookie is factually not correct from a very technical standpoint. What is accurate however is that whatever affiliate that ID belonged to used Zango's software to exploit the affiliate tracking system to record their 'click' when no actual true end user physical click happened. And Zango's software and business facilitates such exploitation. And last time I checked Affiliate Marketing is still performance based, so that true physical click is key in a performance based model. All that doesn't mean you weren't scooped out of your sale.

Thanks Kellie for explaining the 170 ID's. I remember posting something about this on the Regnow forum a few years ago when I had found MetricsDirect as one of their top affiliates. Shit had hit the fan on their board and they had threatened to ban me. I reposted this from memory today.

That's right and all TOS say that a sale is payable to you if it originates from a click on one of your links. The wording is different in most programs, but that's what they all say. In cases of the cookie being overwritten without a physical click from the surfer and replaced by the cookie of affiliates who use adware, this becomes a legal issue because the sale came from a physical click YOUR link.

That's my opinion anyway. :)

Missie

I remember that audit. :D It came on the heels of them catching a lot of public heat originating from the mainstream affiliate community. They came out very publicly saying they were hiring PriceWaterHouse to do the audit. Then silence for a couple of months. The audit came out much more quietly and it wasn't done by PriceWaterHouse. :) I don't think I ever saw them same publicly why the change from such a reputable auditer. I also never saw actually what was being audited and the criteria which was used to show the no interference with affiliate commissions happened. What exactly was considered interference? Zango spin. Gotta love it. Kind of like their move when they were taking a lot of heat for stealth installs of Zango by CDT through CDT's porn sites. Zango's reaction to it? To 'control' the rogue affiliate (CDT), they bought the company. ROFL.

I remember Cory also. I was engaged in a public Q&A with him on another forum to discuss 180's practices a couple of years ago. He wound up admitting some things their software was doing at the time that he probably really shouldn't have. They since stopped that particular one.

Well I can do whatever I want with my own videos (eg those from my own research outside of private consulting). :) My policy is not to publicly post such videos (particulary on high traffic sites) involving affiliate's web sites. That's just out of respect for affiliates. Many affiliates are very particular about the knowlege of their web sites. ;) Also, there have been more than one case where the victimized affiliate experienced retaliation from the offending affiliate after some public 'outing'. So I tend to lean towards caution and respecting the privacy of the innocent affiliate. I've always only posted videos and such that contained aff web sites with the express consent from the owner of the web site. Don't know if you've noticed or not Missie, but on my service I blur out the URL's and any other identifying elements on the affiliate's site in the screen shots I post. Some of these companies don't play nicely in the sandbox. I know from first hand experience. I had someone literally knock on my front door who was sent by an adware company because they were 'displeased' with posts I'd made about their software in a forum. Never did tell me exactly what they had an issue with. But somehow I don't think that was the real point of the visit. I wasn't the only one who got the visit either. So I just don't post vids of aff traffic being popped on without expressed consent from the affiliate receiving the pop and they understand the full possible implications of such a public posting.

I remember reading about those visits on ABW.

Years ago, I used to have a site that exposed online business/affiliate program scams and sites that downloaded spyware. I named them and reported the outcomes of my conversations with them. I had run-ins with quite a few of them. I had my phone number on the site. I started getting calls, some were threatening, at all hours of the day and night. It's all gone now.

My fight against spyware has never stopped though. It still affects MY bottomline.

Missie

Everyone always says there is no money in porn. If you make any money at all from selling porn on line you know that that is complete bullshit. There is money to be made but there are only so many people willing to pay for porn anymore.

When I tell some people what I do they say "people really pay for porn?". These are the people that understand computers and the internet. They know that they can go to any torrent site or p2p program and download whatever they want for free (which is another problem in itself). It's too damn hard to get these people to buy anything. This is not the target market.

The people that are willing to spend money on porn are either honest people that don't want to steal from anyone or people that can't figure out torrents or "all that high tech stuff". They just want good porn and are willing to get out there credit card to avoid all the crappy free sites that just don't show the good stuff. The problem lies with the second type of person.

The people that don't understand computers and the internet all that much also don't understand spyware/adware. These people are the ones who are willing to pay for porn because they don't know how to steal it, but they are also the ones who won't realize that they have been infected with spyware. These are the best costumers and they are being stolen from us.

There is obviously money in porn or none of us would be here, but there are only so many people that are left to sell it to. These people that are left are also the people more likely to get infected with this shit and therefore there is even a smaller piece of the pie for all of us to compete for. The small slice of pie we are all going after is slowly shrinking. This is why everyone says there is no money in porn anymore.

Stop these thieves and we will all have a bigger slice of the pie to try and get a piece of.

actually, my zango rep was pretty upfront about it and gave me straight up answers to my questions... in a nutshell, what kellie claimed above regarding 180/zango popping up the exact same site, thus superseding the first referrer's info server side, is absolutely true.. he didn't deny it.. (i guess the difference between my zango response and evulvmedia's letter may be that my questions were exact and couldn't be misconstrued)

and as i alluded to above, this adds "interesting implications" because zango permits sponsors to bid on their own sites!!!... doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's wrong with that picture.. :disgust

as for a solution, i can see kellie's perspective that nailing them in court may be difficult for a number of reasons: burden of proof, lack of unity/resolve on the part of affiliates/sponsors, immature internet regulations/laws (likely stemming from ignorance), etc.. while not necessarily impossible, i think a more probable solution would be self-regulation.. similar to how many sponsors utilize NATS because of their 'no shave' reputation, i believe something similar may surface for this "piggy-back-cookie-stomping" issue.. (pssst NATS... u guys listening?)

will, seems like we're playing a lot of icq tag... give email a try, might have more luck.. with regards to legal action, u gonna set up a mailing list for those interested? i don't check gfy religiously, unfortunately..

ok, i'm off to remove all my zango promotions now and do a little surfer education.. :upsidedow

I think your zango rep will be fired after this.

Like Kellie said, 180Solutions isn't stupid and they know how to give a good spin on things and turn things to their advantage. They've been doing it for years. They have a lot of experience behind them...

You have to read between the lines. Unfortunately, someone who does NOT understand how it works to begin with, will believe what they say because they're not really lying, they're just twisting or dancing around the truth. Good for you for asking the right questions.

I talked about that in one of the threads. Some sponsors justify stealing sales from their own affiliates to minimize the amount of payouts they have to pay.

Missie

For a civil case you don't have the burden of proof you need for a criminal case so that plus the criminal laws being unclear I think it would be best to go at them from a civil suit, class action. I know they have been sued from users but I don't know of any lawsuits where they have been sued by other advertisers. Regardless if there is a law on the books or not, if it smells like shit looks like shit taste like shit, it's shit. Their intent is clear as day. I don't see how they could defend themselves and win from this type of lawsuit.

thats just a bandaide IMO. as long as these sponsors keep sending the spyware advertisers checks in the mail, they will keep doing it.

You can change, they will find a way around it. If you cut off the money, it will stop. Thats true for everything.

there is a big difference here. Sure cookies are designed in a way that they are overwritten, ONLY to be fair to the next advertiser who promotes that site to the same surfer, usually weeks, months, etc... down the line.

In those cases the USER is going to another site, of their own free will, and clicking on another ad, which in that case the cookie should be over written. THE USER is not given that ability here (with zango) and cookies are being overwritten seconds after the orginal one is being set. That is not the way they were intended to be used. It doesn't matter that it is the way it works, if it is being missed used, intentionally it is still wrong and something I think they can be legally liable for if nothing else at a civil level.

Will, is this problem occuring with clickcash?

Exactly, the people who have spyware on the computers are our target market unfortunetly. Like you explained plus in most cases these are people who are new online. People who are new haven't already signed up to that sites you are advertising so you will get credit for the sale... well if zango isn't on their pc.

The " no money in porn" comments are tongue-in-check I don't think anyone who says that really believes it. Infact I bet the people who say it are making a lot of money from porn.

yes and they are working on it as well and I have been sending them Affiliate ids so if you are paying spyware companies like zango / 180solutions to advertise your clickcash account, you might want to stop. (not you, just making a statement to everyone.)

this is the nail in the coffin IMO. It is one thing to use this "advertising" in the first place and to pop up windows for cams.com when a surfer clicks my ifriend's link. But when you intentionally target your ifriends cookie on my ifriends pages, you are stepping way over the line. You guys are not realizing, there is a huge difference between proving civil and criminal cases.

Wow thats interesting... I guess that would be a form of shaving not too many people realized even existed.

I think suing one adware company is an even worse bandaid. It's not going to stop the problem.

Every affiliate knows that sales often take place on a users 2nd,3rd,4th visit to a site. I'm much more concerned with how easily the programs allow the sales that should be mine go to some adware company because of their cookie policies. Granted there are ways they could eventually work around it, but it would be a very effective short term solution.

If the cookies lasted longer a lot more checks would be going to us, not adware companies, and we would rightfully get credit for sales that occur on secondary visits.

When i say cut off the money I am talking about the affiliate companies stop sending checks to them and start banning them. If they don't get paid to do this they will stop doing it. If all sponsors (either by their own choice or by pressure from affiliates) stop supporting these spyware companies, they would be forced to push their own programs or stop. Cutting off the money is always the best solutions IMO.... technology is always changing.

I agree with you as well about the cookies, i just dont think that is the best solution to the problem here, but i am sure it would help.

Someone started a post a few months back pointing our cookie experation times... some companies here were setting 1 day cookies, that sucks. IMO that is stealing as well.

Always follow the money trail...

Stop funding the programs that fund spyware. Without affiliates, spyware would have nothing to feed on.

Missie

Bump for the best biz thread I've seen in a long while.

I'm taking notes and definitely going to be examining what we at Homoegrown Cash can do to take steps to protect our affiliates from stolen sales.