The widget will allow people play Extreme Racing 2 through the widget for free. Of course it’s free…it’s Zango. Guess what though? Users won’t have to install Zango software to play the widget game. WOW!

So how is the widget ad supported? There will be a text link at the beginning and end of the game. What is the text link for? More free games on Zango….which does require the Zango software to be installed.

Zango also said that this “inaugural” widget will not require the installation of Zango adware to play the game through the widget. This leads me to possibly expect more widgets from them in the future. It also makes me wonder if future widgets might possibly require Zango adware installations.

I do so love following Zango’s blog.

There’s a thread over at ABW right now announcing Pets-Warehouse launch on Performics. In that thread, Bob Novak of Pets-Warehouse made the following post:

Bob was responding to some comments by a couple of affiliates regarding possible adware coming into his program moving from an exclusive SAS merchant to running on Performics as well.

The part of his post I’d like to comment on is:

“I had Kelly work with us a while back on suspicious activity.”

First of all it’s Kellie not Kelly. More importantly………….

AffiliateFairPlay has NEVER had any type of business relationship with Bob Novak nor Pets-Warehouse.com.

In case anyone is not unsure, I’ve never worked with Bob on any suspicious activity in his program. There has never been, nor do I doubt there will ever be, any association between myself and Bob.

I can’t even imagine how he came up with posting such or why. Except maybe that he got so caught up in his own spin that his head wound up his ass.

The extent to which I may have assisted Bob along these lines would have to be from the public information that I’ve posted over the years on ABW regarding “parasites” and adware. Of course that information is freely available to any merchant to educate themselves. It’s why I’ve posted there in the past. Maybe I found something in his program years ago and pointed it out in a thread??? That is something I’ve done on ABW numerous times over the years and I doubt I remember each incident. Certainly it wasn’t anything to stand out in my memory.  Either of the above certainly doesn’t warrant the implied relatlionship in Bob’s post.

I have never talked to Bob in person.
I’ve never emailed Bob.
I’ve never IM’ed Bob.
I’ve never talked to Bob on the phone.
In fact, my only contact with Bob has been to the extent he has periodically participated on ABW. I *do* recall slapping a temporary ban on him over at ABW when I was a moderator for his persistence disruption of any thread discussing another pet merchant by pimping his own program and bashing all other pet merchants.

To whatever degree affiliate’s may have a favorable perception of a program because they work together with AFP, this should not hold true for Pets-Warehouse, since no such relationship has ever existed. It’s nothing more than spin, and it’s bad spin at that.

I do have very open lines of communicatlion with both SAS and PFX. I expect those to continue. It has absolutely nothing to do with Pets-Warehouse.com however. I’m sure Bob has indirectly benefited from my relationship with SAS. He may well receive some indirect benefit on PFX. But that holds true for all merchant’s on those networks and other networks as well.

Slap me silly, but it seems that if you are trying to boost affiliate’s confidence in the integrity of your program, maybe being honest and not lying about actions you’ve taken to keep your program “parasite-free” (aside from the fact anyone who really does understand the issues recognizes that parasite-free doesn’t exist) is a good way to begin.

But regardless of the marketing approach you take for your program, under no cicumstances try to use my reputation to spin affiliates. Even the merchants I really do work with don’t pull that crap. Every single one of them has honored the tight controls I put in place on how the relationship can be depicted. Controls I’ve put in place to protect against people like Bob.

But fear not, I do see hope on the horizon that maybe Bob will stop pulling this kind of nonsense. Afterall, I see he’s now using his real name over on ABW instead of Henri.

Listed as defendants in the suit are:

Access Development Corporation
bCorner.com, Inc.
Belcaro Group, Inc. (ShopAtHome)
Big Co-Op, Inc.
Intefral Technologies, Inc.
77BlueLLC (David Lewis)
Ebates Shopping.com, Inc.
Electronic Scrip Incorporated
The Ezshoppen Company
FatWallet.com, Inc. (Tim Storm)
iGive.com Holdings, LLC,
JellyFish, Inc. (recently purchased by M$)
Jet Set Joe Corporation
Little Grad, Inc.
MBC Direct, LLC
Mall Networks, Inc.
Misermart.com, Inc.
Mezl Media, Inc. (owned by ValueClick)
Mothers Work, Inc.
OC Rebates
Pinnacle Communications International, Inc.
Qdeals, Inc.
QuickRewards Network, Inc.
Shop.com
Simplicity Group, LLC
Spree.com Corporation
Tricordia, LLC
Tuition Fund, LLC
Webloyalty.com, Inc.
Zions First National Bank
Alliance Card, Inc.
Family Network, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Golden Retriver Systems, LLC
Summit State Bank
Nietech Corporation
U.S. Bancorp
U.S. Bank

I’m sure many will recognize several of the thirty-eight defendents on that list. Source Inc may not be done with the list of defendents yet as there is mention of “similar programs whose identities are not yet known”.

Source Inc is also seeking an injunction against each defendent.

Ok, so patent cases are filed, won and lost every day. But “wow” was my initial reaction.

I’m not sure if they are naming any loyalty/rebate program which tracks across multiple merchants or just ones with certain technology or what.

I haven’t read through the patents yet, but this is certainly going to be interesting.

References:
The SouthEast Texas Record (the content on this page may change. Scroll down to Source Inc vs Access Development Corp. et al)
Justia
US Patent Office Search Returns

I’ve noticed in the last year or so that several of their adware applications have been dead in the water so to speak. Installation web sites owned by ExactAdvertising were still up and had downloads available, but the adware did not function when installed. I wondered what was going on. Did they decide to pull out of the adware business or was something else happening?

“Something else going on” came to mind as I remembered a personal experience with ExactAdvertising. Several years ago I recieved an IM from a friend who is an affiliate (I’ll call my friend Joe). They had received an email from ExactAdvertising wanting Joe to distribute the ExactAdvertising adware through one of Joe’s web sites. Joe asked if I was interested in talking with the ExactAdvertising Rep. Of course I was and I was in the mood to play.

So I gave myself an executive position in Joe’s company, some title such as Director of Strategic Partnerships. I then called the ExactAdvertising contact from the email and listened to the pitch. Silly folks never verified *who* they were really talking to and what followed was a conversation over an hour where I asked somewhat leading questions. The short version of their proposal was for Joe to use ActiveX installations (provided by ExactAdvertising) to perform drive-by installations of their software on Joe’s site (a forum community). Although ExactAdvertising provided other promotional methods, such as banners, the ActiveX installation provided a much higher conversion rate (installation on end user’s computers). Obviously because the end user isn’t actually agreeing to the installation. Duh??? Not only were conversions higher but Joe could inject the ActiveX code into any of the banners he normally ran on his site allowing Joe to two possible revenue streams with each banner display. Woohoo!!!!!! The Rep actually spent quite a bit of time explaining the benefits and technical aspects of doing ActiveX installations (aka drive-by installation).

After asking and being told exactly *all* the different ExactAdvertising adware dumped upon the end user with each installation, I had to ask why would Joe want to distribute something that would potentially interfere with his revenue down the road? Afterall, Joe had a loyal community and those users would then be infected with ExactAdvertising’s adware. Adware which could then interfere with his other marketing efforts. Ahhhh……Joe’s site would be whitelisted in their software and his site wouldn’t experience any pop-ups, etc from ExactAdvertising. Amazing considering how often I had heard that ExactAdvertising didn’t interfere with other affiliate’s traffic or commissions.

The final memorable moment from my conversation with ExactAdvertising had to do with why they thought Joe’s site was such a good match for distributing their software. Apparently by that time P2P users had become “too sophisticated” with regards to removing adware bundled with free software. They would install the free software and then immediately remove the bundled adware, such as ExactAdvertising’s software. On the other hand, Joe had “less sophisticated” users on his forum site who wouldn’t necessarily remove the adware as quickly. They might take up to five days to remove it. Woohoo…again.

So what does my flashback have to do the current goings on for ExactAdvertising? This notice which can currently be found on the various ExactAdvertising web sites:

Imagine that…it seems ExactAdvertising had a class action filed against them over their installation methods and are now in the settlement phase for the lawsuit.

You can find the proposed settlement here. As is pretty standard in most legal settlements, ExactAdvertising admits no wrongdoing. The settlement seems to primarily restrict ExactAdvertising from engaging in all the questionable installation practices. And pay the attorney’s fees of $300,000. There is no financial reward to end users who had ExactAdvertising software installed on their computer.

The class includes any persons or entities who had the various ExactAdvertising software installed on their computer on or after September 30, 2002. If the settlement is approved by the Courts, then such persons will be included in the settlement unless they submit objection to the settlement in writing as outlined in the document. This is signficant because of another standard clause in such settlements which protects ExactAdvertising from any future claims by the class. The Courts will hold the Fairness Hearing for the proposed settlement on March 13, 2008.

I have to say this isn’t the greatest settlement I’ve ever seen. Was ExactAdvertising already planning on exiting the adware business or did they pull back because of this lawsuit (or the possiblity of such from somewhere not civil in nature like an AG office in NY)? I’ve no idea of the answer. It would seem a prudent to remain directly removed from the whole adware picture now that ExactAdvertising’s parent company is InnovationInteractive, which also owns 360i, SearchIgnite and LeadGeNetwork.

It will be interesting to see if their adware reappears down the road. Regardless, a $300,000 finanical payment going only to attorneys seems like a very small slap on the wrist for the past practices. After all I know the phone conversation I had with an employee of ExactAdvertising.

Eh? You won’t store my login info or contact anyone without my permission? Damn tooting you won’t because no way in hell am I about to give a third party my login info, for my email or AIM account. Even my ISP doesn’t *know* my password for my email account. I’m certainly not opening up access to my whole account just so you can see my address book or BuddyList. And I sure the hell hope none of my “friends” on FaceBook who have me on their contact list does either. I mean not everyone necessarily puts their IM info in their profile. And I may have more than one email addy in someone’s address book which may or may not be the addy I’m using on Facebook. “Without your permission” is ALWAYS a big red privacy flag for me. It’s a long shot away from saying “We do not/will not store or contact anyone.”

The recent issues regarding FaceBook and privacy doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy like it is. For those who haven’t heard, the tracking of user’s activity on other web sites via the FaceBook cookie, even if you were logged off of FaceBook. Heck, I’m not too terribly thrilled with their overall Privacy Policy in general. I’ve already stopped installing many FaceBook apps because the developer automatically has access to some of profile info, what info being somewhat nebulous in the Privacy Policy. When I started trying to utilize the Privacy Settings for Apps, I was taken on click circle, the end result being to restrict access to personal information seemed to be remove the app. Although, it seems the developer would have already had access. Hell, when someone sends a message I have to install the app just to see what they sent. I’ve already stopped that in many cases when I have no clue who the developer is. I’m sure some think I’m anti-social, but that’s why. I just don’t think I should have to give some unknown party, who can be anyone, access to an unknown amount of my personal informatlion just in order to “see” what a friend has sent me.

Back to FaceBook’s attempt to grab my email/aim login info. The form isn’t even on a secure page. Ok, so I viewed the source code and the form does Post to a SSL URL. Still, it’s not something I like to see. I much prefer such information being tranmitted on a page that is already on the “https://” domain. It’s also the usual accepted method in terms of security. But I also saw other coding tags in parameters such as “autocomplete=off” and tags which referenced storing. Not saying anything neferious is being done by FaceBook, but not things that made me feel warm and fuzzy. Why are they even there? On the side, I NEVER use any autocomplete things for my username and password to anything for security reasons. Call me paranoid, but I see the kinds of stuff that does go on out there.

FaceBook has a lot of potential. But are going to have to take privacy and security issues, even the appearance of such, more seriously for the long haul. The newness and coolness will eventually wear off for the people who are blindingly clicking any link that comes through FaceBook. Reputable companies take such things seriously.

To be blunt, the first thing that went through my mind when I saw that box was…damn that looks like something you’d see on a damn phishing site.

So yeah..WTF FaceBook? I’m no I’m not thrilled that you may be accessing PPI on me from my “friends” who aren’t as security conscious which *I* haven’t given you.

AdultFriendFinder and the FTC have reached a settlement over consumers being “pelted” with sexually explicit ads. The short story is the FTC says AdultFriendFinder delivered sexually explicit ads to it’s network of sites to consumers who weren’t looking for such and that’s against the federal law. AFF can’t do that anymore, either themselves or by their affiiates. From the FTC press release:

“Such ads were displayed to consumers who were searching online using terms such as “flowers,” “travel,” and “vacations.” In some cases, defendant’s sexually explicit ads were distributed using spyware and adware.”

Oh my…AFF was advertising through adware and spyware??? Yes, extensively. Those in the adult industry or even those who just promote mainstream dating, you may have caught wind of the AFF/Zango fiasco last year.

Some adult affiliates all of sudden realized about Zango and commission diversions. Some of them installed Zango and started seeing AFF pop-ups with affiliate IDs in the links. It got posted on the GFY forums (a high traffic adult affiliate forum) and quickly spread to other adult forums. Affiliates were very outspoken about Zango and the AFF pop-ups (at the time AFF was paying out around $130/sign-up). I’m not sure where some adult industry affiliates had been for Zango to be new news for them but regardless….

It was the usual heated “discussions” about commission theft from adware with a mix of the usual misunderstanding of what actually happens.. AFF was questioned about the problem repeatedly and gave the usualy song and dance. Then the real fun started when some adult industry affiliates decided to start a movement against Zango.

Next thing you know, Zango has sent out a mass letter to many of their own affiliates in the adult industry who promote Zango for installation. It seems that many affiliates were under the assumption that Zango was the affiliate partner with AFF and responsible for the pop-ups. Zango decided to set that record straight in the email explaining it wasn’t THEM overwriting affiliate links, but it was AFF themselves just using affiliate links. Yes, I lauged rather hysterically over that one.

Of course, Zango wasn’t the only adware applicatlion AFF was using as I’d seen those ads for quite a long time through many adware applications. AFF finally came out as stated that they were running the ads as protection to keep competitors from popping on AFF sites. Like they were doing affiliates some type of favors and of course they certainly didn’t have to use an aff id in the links. And there was the reality check problem that AFF sites weren’t the only places those ads were being displayed.

If you want the nitty gritty play-by-play action on this one, then just do a Google search for “AdultFriendFinder Zango” with adult content filter off. It is rather amusing at times, except affiliates were getting shafted.

A “mainstream” response to AFF practices happened when Rosiland Gardner found them popping on her site. And her continued posts here, here, and here. Nope, Rosiland didn’t seemed impressed.

Well the FTC has now said AFF can’t being doing those adware pop-ups, at least when consumers aren’t expressly looking for adult content. It will be interesting to see if AFF drops adware use altogether or just curtails the use. If they continue utilize adware, they’ll need to have a high level of confidence the adware company is delivering the ads under the FTC Settlement Guidelines.

It’s actually good to see that AFF caught some FTC love over this one. I’ve seen many of their pop-ups and it’s not content children should be exposed to. Or even adults who don’t want to see such for that matter. They had no business having those ads displayed for such general search terms.

I wonder if Kerber had anything to do with all those pop-ups of Roo.com I was getting through adware? Adware inventory buys can be a pretty quick and cheap way to get a site’s traffic figures up when setting those good ole Rate Card prices for advertising on the site. Anyway, back to the Friday fun provided by Larry….

It seems a reporter from TimesUnion went to the offices of Roo, as a good reporter should, and those offices were located in a “nondescript building” with a locked front door. They did have a couch and Christmas tree in the front lobby behind that locked door though. Eh….Merry Christmas.  

Evidently, the Saratoga District Attorney’s office is still being a bit tight lipped on the specifics of charges brought against Kerber and Saxton. According to Times Untion, Assistand Distric Attorney of Saratoga did say

“The grand larceny and money laundering charges center on “certain financial transactions that occurred” related to the distribution of the proceeds from the sale to ROO earlier this year, Wendling said……Wendling would not say where authorities believe the proceeds ended up, although he said it was another entity separate from Wurld.”

My curiosity is piqued. I wonder if it ended up in the Lexy Foundation? No, that’s not news only me being tongue in cheek because it’s Friday. But those who were in affiliate marketing back in the early days of WurldMedia, Morpheus and Buyersport should remember about the Lexy Foundation. Just in case something changes on the site in the future:

Formed by the founders of Wurld Media….to assist the sick, disabled, downhearted, and poor. It was also used to justify the Buyersport software claiming the traffic of other affiliate’s as their own. Even when the software was just getting installed by users of Morpheus who were really just interested is being able to download free music, movies, software, etc. That downhearted part always did make me laugh. All those halos in the logo and with mouse-over of the menu seem pretty funny right now as well.

I do hope that during all this investigating going on that some official probing has happened or will happen into the Lexy Foundation as well. All considered, just to be sure that everything is on the up and up with the nonprofit.

I’ll continue to be watching as all of this progresses and more specific information regarding the charges become public record.

Those who have been in the industry a while should remember Wurld Media, who ran a P2P network way back, Morpheus, and bundled this with their adware, Buyersport. Buyersport is still around and Wurld Media markets their charity loyalty shopping platform (including the adware) through the Grow Hope Network. Wurld Media provides turnkey solutions of their shopping solution (adware included) for such reputable charities as Special Olympics, Arthritis Foundation and United Cerebral Palsy.

Much of the opposition to revenue generating tactics of adware applicatlions within affiliate marketing began with the Buyersport software. I think of them as the “grandfather” of adware. There were also several people who were outspoken against the practices who received personal “visits” on behalf of Buyersport, myself included. Personally, I was told Wurld Media was considering criminal and civil action agains me for views I had expressed publicly. So these charges hold a bit of irony for me.

I have to wonder what the charities response to this will be. Allegations of money laundering, even for a contracted third party, just doesn’t seem the type of thing such reputable charities would want to be associated with. I have the same thoughts about some of the big brand merchants partnered with Buyersport. What will their response be? And how will merchants feel towards networks who have recommended Buyersport as valued affiliate partners?

Of course, all of this is alleged at the the moment. Kerber and Saxton have a right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. But then branding is about image. This one will certainly be interesting to follow.

To all those who have served their country your sacrifices are remembered and honored today and always.

Jango is a new social music site where you can listen to your favorite music, share it with friends, rate songs…all the usual social site type of stuff. The site is in beta right now and membership is by invite only.

The CEO of Jango is Daniel Kaufman and according to their web site “was founded in New York City in November 2006 by a group of old friends from Vermont, Sweden and other music hotbeds” Daniel Kaufman? Now that sounds familiar…someone who has been around the Internet biz for a while.

Staying with the theme of social sites, Kaufman’s LinkedIn Profile gives a bit more info.

Oh yeah, he was one of the founders and CEO of Dash.com. Remember them? It was an AllAdvantage type of thing. Install a toolbar and get paid to watch ads while you surfed. Like all the other such companies, they went belly up.

But there’s a bit of a gap in employment experience. What was Kaufman doing between January 2001 and November 2006? Well he was busy being the co-founder and executive over at DirectRevenue. Along with his friend and co-founder from Dash, Joshua Abram. Of course DirectRevenue is now a thing of the past between the actions of the FTC and NY Attorney General. For those who may not be familiar with the illustrious histories of Kaufman and Abram’s past Internet businesses, this article from MSNBC will give you at least a look at the tip of the iceberg. I really don’t see why the DirectRevenue days were omitted from is LinkedIn Profile.

But there you have it…the path of Direct Revenue…you get the idea. I do wonder who his other “friends” are involved in this venture.