Affiliate Links in iFrames. Ethical or cookie stuffing?

[Barry]

Tweet

I have been doing a study on sites using pop ups and have been noticing more and more sites using a 'preview' frame (ahem) or in other words an iframe with their affiliate link to 'preview' the merchants site within their own page. (And I dont mean the ones with the removeable side or top bars but right in the middle of the page where the merchants site is hardly visable within the frame)

I must admit to trying it once but was soon asked to remove it by the merchant and the network after 2 days, which I promtly did (which is why I started to research other sites doing it). Was it just that my one merchant disagreed with it or is it just another 'unseen' problem. I mean it must lower the CTR of a merchant on the network stats if people are triggering a 'hit' to their affiliate link everytime one of their pages are shown.

In short:-
Do people think this is ethical to use iFrames or is it just as bad as pop ups or 'cookie stuffing'?

Ta

[pricethat]

It's cookie stuffing, although when you report some one for it they will defend it with multiple excuses/justifications of one form another.

[MarkCo]

If the Iframe window is not of a size that it enhances the user/visitors experience when using your site then yes, its wrong and only there for just one purpose! But if it actually introduces a new customer to a retailer, because they like what they see, then is this not the whole aim of affiliates??

What about the sites with removable side or top bars ?

This can enhance the users experience of shopping with the use of the bar to display any information such as offers, or discounts or reviews of products.

Overall I think if the IFrame enhances the users experience its ok. Surely, if a user has came from your affiliate website and makes a purchase - you have the right to earn the commission via a click or auto cookie via an Iframe?

[Ballswinger]

Its not always ethical reasons that a merchant will ask for you to remove iframe cookie drops - remember that if you have a high traffic site they have to take the brunt of the page calling from their server(s).

Andrew

Tech Enterprises

[Barry]

Andrew thats true. Never thought of that.

MarkCo, yeah the sites that I find acceptable personally are the ones that enhance the user experience as you say - for an example the discount sites or comparison sites that have a side bar/top bar with the codes/comparisons on and have the 'whole' of the merchants site viewable either to the side or bottom . They also mostly also have option to remove the frame easily by the user and also help the user because they dont have to keep going back for their codes or look at a second shop.

The iFames I find offensive/abusive are the ones that are just sqeezed into the page and IMO are only there to 'drop' a cookie as a user could never navigate round the iFame because of the humungous scroll bars.

I know one network that is dead against it but it seems to go unnoticed on other networks.

[hpops]

Cookie stuffing all the way, wholeheartedly against it

[drivetowin]

Absolutely agree - 100% cookie stuffing - and should be outlawed by all networks and merchants.

However you argue it, an iframe is a forced click - if your presell is good enough then people will click without the need for iframes.

Only exception I would concede is where a visitor has to click on a normal link on the affiliate site which then opens a window with a small bar at the top/side to enable easy navigation back to the affiliate site.

[Supercod]

A guy I know (and so do many of you as he used to post in the form) used many, many moons ago launch loads and loads of tiny little 1 pixel by 1 pixel iframes of Merchants sites via iframes and would ask others why don’t you do that also? He made a lot of money. It was simply genius, he believed that if you where looking for a credit card then your probably going to get one, so if he set the cookie for all the credit card companies that had affiliate programs then he should be quid’s in when you actually get one. Was this ethical, was it hell.

I know a network that plants a cookie for some of its advertisers simply by looking at a banner, they call it Post Impression. Is this ethical? Yes because the Merchant knows about it and agreed to it.

What is the difference if the Affiliate doing 1 pixel by 1 pixel iframes would have done it via PI instead, well not very much other than one important thing, PI would have been above board and legal, where as the 1 pixel by 1 pixel stuff was underhand and clearly a method to set cookies covertly to make money.

I may on Friday when I am awake to think about it, post examples of why is this ok and this not ok. Not to support the topic, but to maybe get some debate going to open it up to and give people ideas to think about.

Anyway next we will be talking about cookie canon balls, or the art of redirecting users via every single cookie going before landing them on the page they are looking for so fast they won’t even know 2,000 cookies just got set... but then I probably better not give the criminal element reading this any more ideas.

[Mogga]

What should we do to report these iframe cookie monsters?

It'd be nice to have an email for each network to fire off these urls to so that the offending rule breakers don't get paid for it.

[leec]

100% cookie stuffing in my eyes as well. Have to admit one of the networks i have been speaking to about it have done well to get some sites to remove these iframes.

TBH if site owners want to use an iframe to enhance the users experience this is fine but dont do it using an AFF link!

[Shane]

100% cookie stuffing you say... I don't do it, but is there another way to look at it ? :

if I've paid a £1 for a click on the phrase "credit card" to my site and send it to a page about cahoot and only cahoot.. should I have to play the russian roulette gamble of them clicking through and applying there and then or should I be able to (ONLY FOR CAHOOT !!) be able to set an impression cookie in case that user doesn't click through to the cahoot site there and then .. but goes direct to cahoot later, perhaps after comparing more cards and then deciding cahoot was the best option ?

There are plenty of reasons people don't apply or buy straight away, school run, surfing when they should be working only to buy/apply at lunch time, coronation street's just started, friends come round, dog's dancing to go out for a dump.. ..yada yada

should I be forced to play the "has to click through to merchant site there and then or you surely can not have influenced the buying decision" game..

have a think about this example from my own experience :

I used to send around 600 users a day at an average of about a £1.50 each direct to merchant and they converted at around £2.35 a click, google stepped in and changed the rules on us, so we simply (with the merchant's consent) cloned their landing page, google didn't block it (not straight away) so we continued to send the 600 ish users a day direct to exactly the same page as before, but it was now on my site.

the epc dropped to £1.85 pretty soon, did my traffic suddenly stop converting ? of course not.. it was a case of people hitting the landing page and then for whatever reason applying direct later, this had clearly always been happening as sometimes for differing reasons the campaign would be paused for a day or two but we'd still make sakes as the cookies had kicked in as they were set on the way into the merchant site.. but after google changes were no longer set unless the user clicked through upon landing on my site.

so in this case I'm spending around £900 a day and am now £300 a day worse off due to not setting all the 600 cookies a day

the merchant is still making the same number of sales overall so would it be out of order to set an impression cookie in this instance for (and this is the important bit.. JUST that specific product.. not it's 50 credit card cousins)

Due to the fact it's against network T&C's I couldn't set a cookie on my page but who's the loser in this scenario ? ME.. !! sure I'm still making money but the merchant is on a win win deal, he's making sales and not paying me for them even though I'm the last line of influence before the sale.. I've done my job and paid the marketing bill at £1.50 a click but due to timing and going direct I don't get paid for every action I've influenced and been involved in.

I certainly don't condone the stuffing of multiple cookies, that's just wrong pure and simple, merchants shouldn't have to pay for sales that an affiliate hasn't been actively involved in, but in some instances, PPC where we can no logner send direct to a merchant especially, I think there is room for use of a SINGLE Impression cookie if pushing a specific merchant on a focussed page (and not setting multiples just hoping one will convert !) and it's about time all networks came up with a fraud proof solution for it.

until then, hardworking straight PPC affiliates will continue to lose revenue whilst the merchant's get free sales (although no doubt shelling out to some dodgy affiliate where they don't need too that is stuffing multiples) from direct traffic with no cookie set bouncing off an affiliate landing page, cookie stuffing crews continue to make cash they shouldn't be due to.

personally I just want paying for what I do, nothing more, if I'm the last link in the chain before an application then I expect paying regardless of how they buy or apply, nothing more.

I see some very naughty things going on and people getting away with it so find it hard to see how it can be said setting a specific impression cookie for a specific product on a specific page is wrong if I've paid for that traffic to that page and am setting ONLY that cookie... but like I said at the start.. I don't do it (que networks scouring my sites lol).. but I can see a clear argument for the need for impression cookies in specific instances

[Hero]

should I be forced to play the "has to click through to merchant site there and then or you surely can not have influenced the buying decision" game..

em, isn't that what affiliate marketing is all about? Isn't the basis of this industry the "user's action"? Where is the action if they are dropped a cookie just because someone served them a banner, which -in all fairness- they might not even have had a look at?
I appreciate what you're saying about being able to drop only one impression cookie, rather than 500, and that your sites might be influencing the customer's decision to go directly to them, but that's not directly measurable. How about doing a CPM deal with that merchant, to take advantage of your impressions?
Also, and I don't know your site TBH, why do the customers not click on your links but leave and go to the merchant directly? If your previous site was generating a better EPC than the new cloned version, why would that be?

[Supercod]

Shane's point is if he sends them direct to the merchant’s site he gets the cookie set, if he sends them in this example to an exact clone of the merchants site approved by them he doesn’t get the cookie set, so what is the difference in this case. The valid point he is making is the user is being exposed to the same message and they should be treated the same. However the issue is the problem of exploits and abuse of such a system. I would like to know for example what effect Post Impression banners have had on Merchants sales, and the amount of time the cookie changes hands before the sale happens, anyone got any stats on this they are willing to share?

As I said late last night I was going to post examples where it could be seen as “ok”, Shane have already done this.

Back in early 2000 it was very common to see Affiliate pop-under Merchants sites, many merchants actively asked affiliate to do this as did networks, however times have changed and this practice is no longer seen as good mostly because users are hacked off with pop-ups and pop-unders. I am not saying pop-unders where wrong or right, it was at the time just another way to get viewers on sites at the time.

p.s. please don’t mistake my want for this issue to be fully explored and for all sides to be listened to as either approval or disapproval. I believe cookie stuffing is wrong but accept that certain things that could be seen as cookie stuffing may actually not be or exists in the grey space of neither right nor wrong, but person choice of Affiliate, Merchant and Network to agree.

[drivetowin]

Have to say I can totally see Shane's argument on this one - but for the life of me I can't see how it could be effectively policed to prevent fraud.

Definitely one to ponder though.....

[Shane]

"why do the customers not click on your links but leave and go to the merchant directly? If your previous site was generating a better EPC than the new cloned version, why would that be?"

the previous site was the merchants site, they obviously used to land and leave that one too, then return direct later which wasn't a problem as the cookie set initially was in play, after the forced google changes they continued to do that via my site, land.. read.. leave... go direct later, the major and costly difference being when they return later they don't type in www. show-me-that-credit-card-site-I-was-on-earlier-that-sold-me-on-the-cahoot-credit-card.co.uk.. they just type in cahoot.co.uk and go direct.

Where is the action if they are dropped a cookie just because someone served them a banner, which -in all fairness- they might not even have had a look at?

not saying that.. just showing a drive by banner is as bad as stuffing, I'm saying that if I buy targeted traffic and send it via a targeted ad to a targeted page for that merchant alone then I should, if I'm the last link in the chain get paid even if they go direct later for some reason, after my site sold them on the idea.... is this not the same as we are always screaming about telephone numbers ?... we generate the buying action but often don't get paid for it.. snap exact same situation.. I don't want or expect paying for any sales I have not actively influenced.. that just shoots down the affiliate marketing model of pay for performance marketing

"but for the life of me I can't see how it could be effectively policed to prevent fraud."

me either keith but surely some technological solution could be out there and available at some stage... works out beter for us and better for merchants in the long run if we get paid for ALL our work as we push harder then.. instead of dropping some that don't perform well enough.