 | Click For Cookies Or Use Forced Clicks & IFrames? |
I must be very old school affiliate marketing as I was always under the impression that the role of an affiliate was to direct traffic to the merchant site. On click, a cookie is set and if a sale made you got paid. Setting cookies via any other means (e.g. spyware or iframes) was not within the terms and conditions of the networks.
But that doesn’t seem to be true!
We’ve recently been promoting The Book People’s Lucky Dip promotion. A nice little promo that attracted a couple of my users to post that they also had a free delivery code. Being a good affiliate the code was deleted (this results in users getting upset and going off to use other sites btw, so merchants please manage your codes!), but I was intrigued to go and look for where the code was being advertised.
And then I discovered something that caught my eye… Iframes!
The following is a screen shot from a discount code website called pricedash.com! Not only do they show the free delivery code for The Book People but also open the site via an iframe. Now, I’m pretty certain that by opening the iframe a cookie is being set….
.. but surely this isn’t right? Looking at the site there are programs from Buy.at, Affiliate Window, Webgains and Tradedoubler. Another popular site that also employs this is myvouchercodes. Here you select a merchant, and sure enough the window opens automatically.
Let’s see what the network’s publisher agreements say about forced clicks:
Tradedoubler: “If a link is opened automatically on an affiliate site, regardless of the size of this window or the manner in which it is done, this is not defined as a valid click. Affiliates that generate illegal clicks, leads and sales will be denied and lose all commissions previously earned”
Paid On Results: “The Affiliate must not in any way generate or contribute to generating Artificial Traffic to Linked Websites”.
Unfortunately as far as publisher agreements go, that was it! I couldn’t find the publisher agreements on Affiliate Window or Buy.at!
So, is the use of an iframe a forced click? Well, it’s not even a click, and is something that networks should clamp down on if they’re to follow their own terms. Tradedoubler specify it’s not right so why are their affiliates allowed to use this method? At a guess if TD have this clause, the other networks also have it… so again why are some affiliates being allowed to employ (and get away with) this kind of linking?
Is there a valid case for it? Well, let’s say there is an argument (and if there is please can someone post it in comments) that the use of the iframe in the cases above are valid - well then based on absolutely any argument for, it must be therefore equally valid that when promoting any product, competition or promotion for a merchant an affiliate can show that product, competition or promotion in an iframe. If networks allow one affiliate to use this, they must allow all of them!
BUT, it is a forced click and any affiliate doing this activity should be stopped by the networks - without exception.
And what happens if networks don’t stop clamp down immediately on this activity?
Well, what it means is that as a rule abiding affiliate I go and change Discount Codes and Hot UK Offers into iframe instant cookie generating sites! Heck, let’s go a step further and replace all promotional text and affiliate links with mini iframes of the merchant sites and start setting cookies left right and centre.
But that would be cookie stuffing - and that’s not right either!
Note for Merchants: Most discount code affiliates will work with you within the rules of your program and the terms of the network. However, how can anyone expect affiliates to continually act appropriately when networks allow their terms to be run roughshod over through activity as outlined here?
Popularity: 4% [?]
on August 14, 2007 at 2:19 pm Sam wrote:
Very well said, it’s all too easy for affiliates to scam networks.
Imagine this scenario, you buy PPC ads on the ADSL niche, instead of redirecting the end buyer directly to one merchant you use an iframe to open up 10 merchants in a 1pixel by 1px iframe… So the buyer who is comparing company is going to buy anyway and you’ll end up with the lead saving you 10 clicks on Adwords…
Do you see where i’m coming from ? Do you think many people use this technique ?
on August 14, 2007 at 2:59 pm David Fiske wrote:
I certainly agree with this and would be very interested on what the reaction is from the networks. It’s not fair that a minority are using unethical tactics and potentially making an awful lot of money.
Having said that, Tradedoubler validates all applications. They’ve denied me from programs because my site content isn’t suited to the merchant. So why has no one picked this up before.
Incidentally, I did wonder whether My Voucher Codes was run my a merchant, perhaps abusing their power with the networks. It’s owned by Roses by Design, which runs an inhouse affiliate scheme so no luck there.
I’ve bumped this and urge other’s to do the same. We could do with some answers here!
on August 14, 2007 at 4:01 pm hero wrote:
Just to clarify the Webgains stance on this: dropping impression cookies within iframes is not tolerated. Framing a merchant’s site is fine under specific circumstances (not a pop up/under, not a 1×1 pixel frame, etc), provided the merchant has also approved, but dropping an impression cookie is not.
When we identify cases where this happens, we contact the affiliate and ask them to stop this activity immediately giving them a deadline; if they don’t comply they are suspended from the network.
For myvouchercodes, we contacted the affiliate and he complied. For pricedash, we will be doing the same.
This is something extremely difficult for networks to police and monitor. Whenever we have come across it, or we have been notified by other affiliates, we have immediately taken action. We very much appreciate our affiliates notifying us when they come across activity of such kind, as we are able to step in and resolve the situation efficiently.
on August 14, 2007 at 4:12 pm Mally wrote:
I agree these programs mislead people. The funny thing is alot of them claim to have discount codes, but when you click on the merchant theres no voucher discount to be had, but by that time the cookie is already stored!!
on August 14, 2007 at 4:14 pm 10k wrote:
“it’s all too easy for affiliates to scam networks”
I don’t think it’s the networks that are being scammed, they get their override whichever affiliate gets the commission. It’s mainly the merchants and other affiliates who have their hard earned cookies overwritten by ‘dropped’ cookies that really suffer. There’s good and bad though - I do know that some networks are proactive when it comes to fishing this sort of thing out, but I also know of one network specifically who actively encourage this sort of cookie dropping. (Not naming names obviously!)
on August 14, 2007 at 5:01 pm jason wrote:
Thanks for outlining Webgains’ stance on this Hero
10k - any chance of naming names? The only way things get changed is if affiliates bring these issues out into the open.
on August 14, 2007 at 6:12 pm hero wrote:
“I don’t think it’s the networks that are being scammed, they get their override whichever affiliate gets the commission”
10k - there is nothing good from getting override on unscrupulous sales - it only creates bad precedence and destroys the reputation of the industry.
Networks are here to help affiliates and merchants make money in the correct way, which will ensure fruitious long term partnerships for all parties involved.
on August 14, 2007 at 7:34 pm Dan Morley wrote:
Hi Jason,
Great article and im 100% behind you. It’s a cheap way of setting a lot of cookies and wiping out genuine cookies set by traffic driven by affiliates working within the rules.
Alpharooms are involved with these sites but it has not previously been brought to my attention. I will be issuing their warning first thing tomorrow and if action is not taken sales will be reversed in line with our terms and conditions. Im fairly confident that the sales made would have otherwise been accredited to another affiliate who worked for the click.
On another note: do you know the site owner of myvouchercodes? Have a dig, that makes interesting reading…
on August 15, 2007 at 12:23 am Raymond Theakston wrote:
The same myvouchercodes currently has one code for Samantha Lingerie. It is instantly recognisable to me as it’s branded SHOPCODES. Come on Mark, if you’re going to frame merchants and get all that cookie juice, at least put some work in and get your own codes.
This is why I’d prefer commissions to be paid to the affiliate the code was sourced too rather than using cookies, particularly in this multi platform age.
on August 15, 2007 at 8:32 am Fraser Edwards wrote:
Great post Jason and a really important issue to draw attention to. Some of them must make a decent earning from advertising vouchers that don’t exist.
The consumer might visit a merchant through a genuine affiliate link, they get to the checkout stage with everything in the basket and then see a text box for a voucher code so they hope over to google and run a quick search to see if they can find one and make a saving. Click on one of these pages which at times advertise coupons that don’t exist and then the sale is in effect stolen from the genuine affiliate just seconds before it’s completed.
on August 15, 2007 at 3:17 pm David Fiske wrote:
It’s good to see Dan from alpharooms taking an interest. It’ll be interesting to see how many merchants jump on board and start taking action against sites like these.
Incidentally, my voucher codes is still displaying their ads so perhaps it’ll take a few warnings.
On another note, what can merchants do to highlight this problem? Can they go to the network involved and ‘report’ this incident? Given that my voucher codes has quite a few hundred retailers on there, surely the only way to eradicate their foul play is to give them a kick up the bum from the networks?
On the flip side, will networks take any involvement as essentially, don’t they make more money as sales increase? For all we know, sites like my voucher codes could be making an awful lot of (unjustified) revenue.
on August 15, 2007 at 3:27 pm David Fiske wrote:
hero - My Voucher Codes have agreed but I presume there’s a time frame in which they have to change the site as the link below shows nothing’s changed yet:
http://www.myvouchercodes.co.uk/Historic-Newspapers-3613-1129.html
on August 15, 2007 at 3:31 pm jason wrote:
Affiliate Future have been in touch re: this post and hopefully they’ll also be taking action to stop this kind of thing.
Who know’s what stance Buy.at, Tradedoubler, and Affiliate Window will take, but as above, any argument for this kind of linking means that they have to allow every affiliate to do it…. interestingly those three networks are the bulk of the iframe generating code sites I’ve looked at.
Jason
on August 15, 2007 at 9:02 pm Steve wrote:
I’m still seething over Tour de France this year. So what’s that got to do with anything?
If you let the cheats in consistently because they get great results and everyone around them are impressed, it lasts a while, then the whole house of cards comes crashing down and everyone gets tarred with the same brush.
Good post Jason, and well done for naming names. Dan, go on, lift the curtain!
Sod it, check my blog later, I’m in there.
on August 16, 2007 at 9:05 am hero wrote:
thanks David, I’ll investigate further and speak with the affiliate again
on August 16, 2007 at 1:46 pm Barry Wright wrote:
It def the merchant that is being scammed and not the network, but that not to say that networks are always aware of the situation and are going along with it to profit, infact far from it in my experience. Most networks have replied to my complaints over issues around other affiliates using iframes to drop ‘impression’ cookies. Lets face it if a merchant wanted to give a reward for an ad impression they would be using a network that employed PI cookies (which are normally set at a much lower rate)
I am in two minds over how strict it should be though. If myvouchercodes stated in its ‘call to action’ links that it would open a merchants site and display the codes (and also place a noarchive meta tag in) then I think it would be a fair deal. However the sites links make no effort to inform the user that they will be taken to a merchants site, infact most the links imply that it will just take you to a page where you can find the information on discounts and promotions - no mention of a merchants site being opened and planting a cookie.
The worst example on myvouchercodes is the page previously mentioned:-
http://www.myvouchercodes.co.uk/Historic-Newspapers-3613-1129.html
This page may look as though you have to physically click on a link to go to the merchants page - however if you dig deep there is a hidden iframe still operating on the page to plant a cookie. Its this that should be absolutely stamped out.
And Raymond, yeah its annoying in’t it mate. I now have a filter on submitted codes for anything shopcode related, so I dont nick your codes - however I get annoyed when people keep nicking the ‘dvcouk’ custom codes too.
on August 16, 2007 at 2:21 pm jason wrote:
Good spot there - the code is right at the bottom - that is plain wrong and should be stamped out.
But will it? I had a discussion with a network this morning where they claimed use of iframes wasn’t all black and white and it’s 50-50 whether it’s ok or not. They got told in no uncertain terms what I thought of that nonsense.
They based this “50-50″ on “well they have links to the merchants on the side” - er, surely that means every affiliate is then entitled to this - makes a mockery of that networks’ ts&cs if they can even consider the use of iframes/forced clicks as valid in anyway.
They have since gone away to look into this in more detail.
on August 16, 2007 at 4:44 pm David Fiske wrote:
Just had an email from Wulfric Light-Wilkinson of Tradedoubler:
“I have looked into their site. The user has to select a merchant they wants to view before the merchant site is loaded in the IFRAME. As the user has to makes a conscious decision to view the merchant, we don’t deem this as unfair practice.”
on August 16, 2007 at 6:06 pm jason wrote:
The user is making a conscious decision to view the codes for that site… not visit that site! Typical TD - provide terms and conditions for good affiliates to work within and then flannel around when they’re broken.
By that reckoning as I list competitions for TD merchants, if my user makes a concious decision to view information about the competitions on offer… I can open up sites via iframes or pop ups regardless?
Similarly, if as many affiliates do have reviews of merchants, if a user has conciously chosen to read a review… the affiliate can thrust open a forced click window?
Similarly, if I write a review of a product, and that product just so happens to be available via a TD merchant… and it just so happens they’re the only merchant I’m promoting … as the user has conciously clicked to read about the product… i can open the window?
Would TD like to clarify which of those scenarios is fair and unfair?
Is the practice of iframe cookie setting something they’re ok with - even though their own terms spouts forth “If a link is opened automatically on an affiliate site, regardless of the size of this window or the manner in which it is done, this is not defined as a valid click. Affiliates that generate illegal clicks, leads and sales will be denied and lose all commissions previously earned”
Shocking!
on August 16, 2007 at 8:31 pm Barry Wright wrote:
Shocking indeed!
What if the user arrives to one of the pages via a search engine? They have no choice or idea that the merchants site is going to be opened and a cookie planted. You may as well allow pop-ups in my opinion, infact pop-ups are probably less of a problem as most users can block them - unlike iframes.
Oh well I suppose its up to TD but it does leave them wide open to people optimising iframed pages or even doing PPC to their own urls with merchants in iframes etc etc
It must also mess with their stats something terrible with them being so saturated with un-qualified click throughs and the such. Its also got to leave their merchants who offer PI cookies at a lower rate, why the hell they bother when the affiliate can just put an iframe with their full commission links in somewhere on-site.
I can however offer something to myvouchercodes (as it has been used as the example), it is essentially a good idea to have the frame around the codes and merchant. It also makes it so users cannot just nip to the site and copy and paste the code and nip off. However I do think that it should be more clearly defined on the site that the merchant site will be opened.
Essentially have no pages where the iframe is automatically loaded with user input ie a forced click.
on August 16, 2007 at 10:02 pm jason wrote:
“It also makes it so users cannot just nip to the site and copy and paste the code and nip off”
That does happen - except I then see users come back with codes they shouldn’t be finding on affiliate sites. So not only are they setting a cookie without knowing, and picking up a code I can’t tell them about, but then getting miffed at me for doing as I’m meant too.
I can understand why the iframe is used… but the mechanics of the site are wrong (and any others using the same format) as a cookie shouldn’t be set until the user has clicked on the affiliate link.
on August 17, 2007 at 10:48 am jason wrote:
Have spoken to TD and am happy to say that they’ve now looked into this a bit more and won’t allow this kind of linking.
So good news there.
on August 17, 2007 at 2:18 pm Raymond Theakston wrote:
Barry is right regarding search engine traffic. For example a search for “the gift experience voucher code” in Google returns MYVC as the number one result.
As soon as you click the link, the MYVC page opens with the merchants page.
TIP: If you want to find the ’sneaky’ iframes (on any website), I recommend using the Firefox browser and installing the “Web Developer” plugin.
Then you can visit any web page and click “View Source” and then “View Frame Source”. And if it’s got a merchants site or network url listed then you know there is an iframe being used no matter how small.
on August 20, 2007 at 2:50 pm Brett wrote:
There is a case for IFRAMES for discount code sites. I have discussed my approach with Kier at WG and he was ok with it.
The benefit to the end user is they don’t have to start writing down codes because they are visible alongside or above the merchant site. But it needs to be done right…..
Basically in my directory it clearly states “Choose a voucher to see the code and the retailers website” (which other sites also do)
Which means the user has chosen to see the site and the voucher code above it.
The offer.php page then opens with the details at the top and the website in an iframe below.
However……if a user arrives at offer.php via google or another method which means they didn’t choose to see the website then they will only see details of the voucher code and not the iframe containing the merchant site.
The iframe is substituted with a link saying - click here if you’d like to see the ‘Dixons’ website.
Brett
on August 21, 2007 at 9:33 pm uVme wrote:
I agree you should only need to click on a link to get the offer. Many voucher sites don’t actually have vouchers that you can use..
on August 21, 2007 at 11:08 pm Adam Ross wrote:
Hi Jason
Excellent article. Allow me to take this opportunity to clarify Affiliate Window’s position on this issue.
Our terms and conditions , available from our affiliate signup page clearly state in clause 4.4 that
“Any
Link placed must not mislead any Visitor and be placed with the Intention of
delivering Valid Clicks to the related Merchant for that Link.”
We do not advocate the use of any post impression cookie dropping and affiliates found promoting this way are asked to change to a method compliant with our terms and conditions or have commissions withheld.
We do our utmost to police this sort of activity as part of our ongoing effort to protect legitimate affiliate earnings and our commitment to merchants to deliver incremental growth through affiliate marketing.
For the time being, we rely on affiliates to inform us when they see this happening and this has achieved positive results so far. We are working on an adaptation of our Spyware monitoring tool, which will help us to automatically detect this in the future.
Thank you for bringing these sites to my attention. One has already been spoken to and committed to a change, the other will be contacted on my return to the office.
If anyone wishes to report similar activity, give me a shout using my details below and we will investigate immediately.
Adam Ross
Client Services Director
Affiliate Window
Tel: 020 8269 4852
Email: adam@affiliatewindow.com
MSN: adam_ross31@hotmail.com
on August 22, 2007 at 12:54 pm Stephen Pratley’s Online Marketing Blog » Leakage from Roses by Design back to rogue affiliate site wrote:
[…] was just reading a post over at Loquax’s blog about forced clicks, and a comment from Dan Morley piqued my […]
on August 23, 2007 at 11:02 am Forced Clicks & Iframes - Part 2 | One Little Duck - Affiliate Blog wrote:
[…] I wrote Click For Cookies Or Use Forced Clicks & IFrames? earlier in the month I really didn’t expect it to generate as much interest as it did. So a […]
on August 27, 2007 at 11:32 am mike wrote:
Was just over at my friends blog and found this post linked in - http://www.imjuk.com/2007/08/25/ever-got-the-feeling-youve-been-cheated-by-your-affiliates/. Apparently it was cited in a response from some guys at buyat. Well impressed with the threads going on and the discussions going on. Almost seems like self regulation
on September 3, 2007 at 2:39 pm Affiliate Code of Conduct by Fraser – Affiliate Marketing Blog wrote:
[…] Frames are not the problem, it’s how they are used as highlighted in Jasons blog post recently. […]
on September 11, 2007 at 6:50 am Bill wrote:
More sites using this method - get it stopped..
http://www.everydaysale.co.uk/shop-merchant_id-661-discount-voucher-UKsoccershop.com.htm
It seem no sooner are some sites stopping this method, others are starting
on September 23, 2007 at 10:36 am Bill wrote:
Still a very bad offender..
Using iframes to force clicks on EVERY retailer on this site. Needs to be stopped!
Jiemin Gu at www.everydaysale.co.uk
COME ON MERCHANTS and NETWORKS - Sort it!
Do we need to do all this work for you?
Jiemin Gu, founder, Everydaysale Tel: 07876 335 918 / 01926 311 239
Email: jiemin@everydaysale.co.uk
on October 1, 2007 at 6:27 pm Stealing Exclusive Codes - Page 2 - Affiliate Marketing wrote:
[…] Re: Stealing Exclusive Codes He’s also mentioned for cookie stuffing in Jason’s blog at Click For Cookies Or Use Forced Clicks & IFrames? | One Little Duck - Affiliate Blog. Merchants/Networks why do you tolerate this type of behaviour? This is what gives us ALL a bad […]
on December 15, 2007 at 3:27 pm uvme wrote:
It is poor form to cover the codes with ads and ad publishers should take a much closer look at how their ads are displayed on websites and dealing with obvious offenders appropriately.
on April 4, 2008 at 9:47 am Discount Code Sites and Forced Clicks & IFRAMES - Affiliate Marketing wrote:
[…] that some affiliates go to to wipe the legitmate cookies of content/search affiliates? His post is Click For Cookies Or Use Forced Clicks & IFrames? | One Little Duck - Affiliate Blog if you want to review it. __________________ My blog is here - sometimes its worth a […]
on April 8, 2008 at 6:41 pm Affiliate Marketing Tips For Beginners wrote:
This just makes me worry about the future of this business. If this practice of forced clicks via i frames continues, enough surfers will start to notice and complain. That will just result in government bodies jumping in with their big regulations boots on.
Cookie stuffing, via iframes or whatever else, shows evidence of desperation on the affiliate marketers side. There are those who are in affiliate marketing to build a business, and then there are those who just want to make a quick buck
In the long run, black hat just does not work
on April 9, 2008 at 11:10 am A Brief History Of Voucher Codes, Cookies & Clicks | One Little Duck - Affiliate Blog wrote:
[…] my Click For Cookies Or Use Forced Clicks & IFrames? post back in August 2007, things have moved on significantly in sorting out the issues raised in […]
on April 17, 2008 at 6:06 pm Carl wrote:
It’s good to see that 6 months on this post has had an definate effect on forced click behaviour by affiliates as the more responsible ones look to take an ethical approach.