Thanks for reporting on the changes!

At least CJ has come out with what I’ve been seeing as far as several adware applications for quite some time now and what I suspected was CJ’s stance (as well as some other Networks). It’s certainly a departure from the past. Affiliate’s should be VERY aware of this. What it’s saying is that yes their links can be overwritten if the end user says that’s what they want to happen. I talked about this very practice and showed it in Vegas during my presentation with SaveNDonate doing this very thing. But as an affiliate, what puts your commissions more at risk? A compliant application by the old COC where the adware remains completely inactive and doesn’t do anything on a click from your link to the merchant or the adware giving a prompt saying something along the lines of “Do you want to earn XX% rebate on this purchase? Click here” on a click from your link to the merchant? What if, as in the case of SaveNDonate, they explain about affiliate commissions, etc but give the option to the end user to not see those prompts each time but to set the software to automatically redirect? How many end users will do this to avoid the annoyance of the prompts? Then the software will automatically redirect on ANY manner in which the end user reaches the merchant, including any affiliate link regardless of how the link is coded. And such behavior will be considered compliant. This is the exact treand I’ve been seeing with loyaltyware and some shopping comparison adware for quite some time now.

Billy, it’s a big spin game. JMO of course.

I’m glad Kellie Stevens over at AffiliateFairPlay dug into and interpreted CJ’s new code of conduct so I didn’t have to. Kellie has an eye for these things and a knack for telling it like it is. Both ……

Oh! Nevermind. They need us to send the clicks to the overwriters.

CJ is seeking to avoid liability here, obviously. Clever lawyers have been hard at work, but not hard enough. What in the world does the consumer’s desire (or not) to install a piece of software have to do with CJ then leveraging that to interfere with their contracts with their other affiliates, not to mention CJ’s profiting from it as well? It is, after all, CJ that controls who may enter the CJ tracking data stream - placing blame on the consumers is an ill-conceived, weasly effort to escape culpability.

Why the changes CJ? Lawyers coming after you for disregarding your contractual agreements with the affiliates that don’t steal?

If you’re a merchant at CJ, you’re being suckered! And cowardly CJ is blaming consumers… as if they couldn’t stop it.

And the days when this was misunderstood have come and gone - many understand the game being played here.

CJ is addicted to the theft, they can’t stop themselves. And like an addict, they now seek to displace blame, pointing it away from themselves.

Cold turkey is the only cure.

Until then, merchants who let an addict control their income and growth / destiny are making a mistake - and it’s no longer a secret suckers.