Where to even start.
There are a few things that are missing from the big picture in Ben's article. However, those things may wellnot have been the focus for Ben or supportive of the message he was wanting to drive home. The issues can become complex and sometimes it is hard to address everything in one article without boring the reader to death or overwhelming them. I do think some assumptions were made by Ben that might impact his conclusions.
So my attempt at the bigger picture regarding VistaPrint and contextual adware. I'm going to try and just bullet points that may factor into what is being seen with this end of VP marketing.
- I have observed the same issue with seeing VP displays through adware via affiliate links myself. This has been happening for quite a long time.
- VP is an aggressive online marketer. They operate through many networks and many channels. Their approach seems to lean towards "volume", that is getting their site in front of as many users as frequently as possible.
- VP generates revenue from their site not only from the products they sell on their web site, but do aggressive co-reg lead gen once a consumer has purchased from them. I experienced this first hand yesterday when I made a purchase from VP. I was presented with page upon page upon page of lead gen offers both at the beginning and end of the checkout process. In fact, with the final submit click to place my order I eventually ended up on the EverSave web site and never did get land on a confirmation page on VP. The point is VP monetizes their site aggressively through marketing for other themselves. This impact thier own ROI for their advertising costs. They can spend more on marketing (including affiliates using adware who are popping on their own site) and it still be cost efficient for them.
- Affiliates do not only target the VP for these types of pop-ups. I've seen the pop-ups repeatedly for other merchants. They are not restricted to just other business card merchants but also target merchants who are complimentary, such as merchants selling online checks. So it is possible that when VP is being "highly analytical" with their marketing efforts, they are factoring in the ROI, customer aquisition costs, etc from consumers pulled from their competitors and other merchants by their affiliates (and the affiliate assuming the risk of buying such ad inventory vs. VP buying it themselves) and it is cost effective. So they are willing absorb the cost of those pops on their own web site because other stuff is coming from other places as well.
- Affiliates are not the only ones who buy contextual adware inventory. Merchants do as well. There are merchants who use contextual adware themselves. In fact, I've been getting more direct buys by merchants vs. affiliates for a while now. Of course that impression may be skewed by the particular sites I go to during testing. The thing is there are merchants who are OK with this type of marketing whether or not they do it themselves or allow affiliates to do it.
All that above leads to a couple of points from my perspective. It's only fraud if the merchant doesn't allow it. For some they not only allow it but like it. It's a corporate mentality that focuses only on the bottom line ROI and/or customer acquisition cost. It doesn't matter how the traffic is generated as long as it's not illegal or the benefits outweigh the potential risks. This
could be the case with VP. Ultimately the company feels the first obligation is to their stockholders and if they are being profitable then they feel they are meeting that obligation. I don't agree with mentality, but that doesn't make it not exist.
There are Networks who allow contextual adware usage as long as it's "compliant". Compliant meaning FTC guidelines for installation methods. Now some of adware applications listed in Ben's article focus on the marketing themselves as being "compliant". Zango and WhenU are two examles of that. So we end up seeing comments like those made by Hydra. It's the marketing end and consequences of "compliant" software. Hydra is not the only network with that type of policy.
Yes, affiliates other affiliates with VP can be financially hurt by the practices. So can other affiliates who don't partner with VP (in the case of pop-ups on competitors). So can other merchants.
Unfortunately, the practice of using someone else's web site to trigger and display your ad is not illegal. Personally, I strongly feel it should be, but it's not. It would still happen to some degree if it was illegal. It will certainly happen more since it isn't.
Until there is enough finacial incentive for companies to not embrace this type of marketing, it will continue.
For affiliates and merchants, the lesson is to know the practices/policies of who your are partnering with and if those practices match with your own values and business objectives.
Even more importanly, learn to separate out the marketing spin from actual fact and practices.