Network and Merchants stance on Phorm?

[Paul Wright]

Hi,

I'm starting to see Phorm apply across a number of our clients programmes and wondered if there has been any kind of network wide stance on their involvement in affiliate marketing or if any networks would care to comment?

If not, should we assume it's simply down to the discretion of each merchant?

Everything I've read suggests that Phorm has the potential to impact a large range of affiliates across our programmes and would therefore like to hear all sides of the story before making an informed decision.

The threads I've read here on a4u focus more on an end users point of view (privacy issues etc) so I'd like to steer this back to the impact it may have on affiliate marketing programmes if possible.

Have other merchants welcomed them with open arms, kicked them to the curb or simply not noticed?

Cheers
Paul

[John Jupp]

I second the request for clarity. With the ability to produce server side replacement pages I am concerned that Phorm will be used to (it certainly is capable of) replace affiliate id's with replacement id's through the replacement of the displayed page.

[Greavsie]

I do not know much about it to be honest, but Phorm will not be approved on any merchants until we know exactly how it works and exactly what the impact on affiliate commissions might/could be.

The fact a listed company with significant backing is opening affiliate accounts on all the major networks, implies at least to me that they are expecting to generate significant revenue from this space.

I'll feedback LinkShare's stance once we've seen the presentations etc.

[John Jupp]

Webwise reduces the amount of irrelevant ads users see, making browsing more relevant and enjoyable.
Webwise assigns a unique, randomly-generated number to a user's browser to preserve anonymity, then matches the categories of browsing activity with advertising. When the user's interests match an advertiser category, the user can see a relevant ad in place of a generic, untargeted ad. The user doesn't see more advertising, just more relevant advertising.
Phorm | Webwise

Consumer research indicates that the best way for companies to improve Internet advertising is to make it more relevant to their interests. A user may dislike banner ads in general, or they may just dislike irrelevant banner ads. Webwise doesn't eliminate banner ads or popups, but can replace generic, irrelevant ads with ones that match user interests, automatically.
Phorm | Webwise | Fewer Irrelevant Ads

[Donk]

As the title say's it would be interesting to here the networks' stance on Phorm (also on Barefruit).

Linkshare (and Awin on the the Barefruit thread) have taken a wait and see aproach.

Phorm may be in the pipeline but Barefruit is up and running on Tiscali (at least). They wouldn't have started without the affiliate revenue so they must already have signed up to the networks. So is the wait and see attitude of the networks - wait and see the reactions from merchants and other affiliates- meanwhile we have a nice little earner.

It would also be interesting to hear for IAB too.

Bob

[Paul Wright]

I haven't heard anything back from any netoworks however I have chatted this through to conclusion with several clients and in most cases we have decided to refuse the application. In other cases the application will remain in pending but I imagine it going the same route.

[John Jupp]

I have had discussion from networks. Will not post here yet but have sent response to comments received. I will say that networks need to seriously sit up and take note here.

[cclapper]

Why there needs to be any stance?

I see it pretty clearly with 2 options>

1. Any Phorm advertiser (or Phorm itself) signs-up with affiliate networks. The banners from merchants are being served on Phorm publisher websites - that is a network of sites that signs-up to the ad exchange. Every impression needs to be booked and paid for to Phorm just as with any other banner advertising network. If there are any sales throughs these banners then Phorm/Advertiser profits. No stealing of commision just regular advertising. how is it different from any other online marketing channel?

2. Phorm starts to replace affilate links on other sites with its own - how different is it from any other spyware that is already forbidden by all the networks?

[KevinEdwards]

Hi,

I met with Phorm on Friday and made them aware of this thread on the forum.

They will hopefully be posting a statement in due course.


Thanks,

[Donk]

Originally Posted by KevinEdwards They will hopefully be posting a statement in due course.

I await not just a statement filled with "PRspeak" but a rebuttal of some of the suggestions in this thread.

I would also like to further question of Phorms attitude to RIPA. On Phorms website they have a link to The law of Phorm | OUT-LAW.COM which they claim is "a very thorough, realistic and ultimately positive assessment of Phorm’s system from an informed legal perspective" To quote from the out-law article "In most cases, the other party involved is a website, not an individual. Can you imply the permission of websites? In most cases I think you can."

In most cases I would have thought you can't assume permission.

The article goes on to cite Google's claim to implied consent to trawl webpages as an implication that Phorm should be allowed to do so also. But there are three major differences between Phorm's intrusion and Googles indexing.

1/ Google does not alter the contents of the webpage.
2/ A webmaster can opt out of Google by adding google to robots.txt
3/ Google drives traffic (revenue) to a website - Phorm steals traffic (revenue) from a website

At a meeting between Richard Clayton (Treasurer of the Foundation for Information Policy Research) and Phorm http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf Phorm claimed "we work on the basis that if a site allows spidering of its contents by search engines, then its material is being openly published. Conversely, if the site has disallowed spidering and indexing by search engines, we respect those restrictions in robots.txt"

I contend there is a great difference between a site being indexed and a site being cannibalised. I'm sure the Phorm's technological expertise could pick up the use of a pseudo-user agent to explicitly disallow Phorm robots.txt just as I would disallow any other spybot.

RIPA states that both sides of a communication must agree to an interception of the communication. I'm sure that the majority of internet users are unaware of the interception (BT makes no mention of the "service" in their T&Cs) and if they are aware the opt-out system is not at all easy. The majority of webmasters remain unaware of the way Phorm works and the opt-out system is nigh on impossible.

Bob