Quote:
Originally Posted by confuscius
A Merchant needs to take a stance against this particular practice by terminating their relationship with barefruit and reclaiming all previously paid commissions OR explain to all other affiliates that such practices are acceptable. Time to get off the fence for someone.
|
As well as merchants it is the Networks and the IAB who should take a stance against this.
But of course it's not in the best interest on the networks if they get a slice of this (possibly) illicit action.
To be honest it's probably not in the best interests of the merchants to drop barefruit. They have got you by the *******.
The Barefruit website showed examples using the domain ipods-r-us.com. For both the http errors (404) and the dns errors (ipods-r-us.con) the "Barefruit solution" displayed sponsored links to competitors sites but no link back to ipods-r-us homepage which was the site that the user wanted. Perhaps if ipods-r-us had an affiliate scheme things would have been different.
If a merchant opts into the Barefruit scheme (or is it scam?) at least they
may have a small chance of getting some of their traffic back.
It took a while for the industry to get to grips with zango(180 solutions) and other adware. How long will it take the industry to sort this out.
Naomi
I guess zango didn't
Quote:
|
ask express permission for their actions
|
. If they are working on (or even beyond) the boundary of what is acceptable affiliate practice they are unlikely to advertise it when applying to a merchant. If they believed there scheme was beyond reproach they would (or should) have outlined it in their application.
Bob