Question about Cookie Stuffing, Hat Color, and Bad Gas...

[David McKee]

Okay I am asking some questions with regard to the use of dropping cookies for your affiliate links within you own site. Lot's of sites do this, very big ones such as Amazon and others.

But whenever this discussion comes up I hear that it takes on one of these following aspects... It is either:

1.) White Hat.
2.) Grey Hat.
3.) Black Hat.
or...
4.) Blue Fart.

So, my first question is usually - I know what the various "hats" are - white is by the book, good guy, Mr. Clean. Not many say that Stuffing a cookie is white hat, but then if you are doing it on your own site for products you are promoting, that seems legitimate.

Some say that it is in the grey area - therefor grey hat. I wold say that depends on your strategy.

Some say that any cookie stuffing at all is illegal, completely ignoring the fact that large companies do it - and call it black hat or worse.

Finally, and this one continues to make me scratch my head, some say it is Blue Fart... WTF??? What exactly is "blue fart" and what distinguishes it from "black hat"???

At any rate, what is considered "ethical cookie use" and what is not in the opinion of the forum. I ask because I am looking at all options in the set up of various affiliate sites, and frankly to make money you need this information.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

DTM

[Catalyst eMarketing]

Originally Posted by David McKee

Not many say that Stuffing a cookie is white hat, but then if you are doing it on your own site for products you are promoting, that seems legitimate.

At any rate, what is considered "ethical cookie use" and what is not in the opinion of the forum. I ask because I am looking at all options in the set up of various affiliate sites, and frankly to make money you need this information.

Hi David,

I'm extremely white hat (in case you couldn't guess by reading my posts) and think any cookie stuffing is potentially STEALING from other affiliates.

I'm not really an affiliate myself so am not worried about my own wallet, but I'm an affiliate advocate and try to encourage best practices.

Even if you cookie stuff on your own site it's stealing AND is against the TOS of most of the big networks like CJ. It's considered a forced click, if the consumer didn't actually physically click the link themselves.

Let's turn the tables and think cookie stuffing this way.

Let's say you are an affiliate and do PPC for the XYZ product. You get a valid click, you PAY for that visitor, they visit the review page or landing page that YOU took time to create. The visitor is sold on YOUR copy about XYZ, clicks your affiliate link to check out the product on the merchant's site, but isn't quite ready to buy yet.

YOUR visitor is surfing around and somehow ends up at affiliate #2's unrelated site that just has a bunch of banners up. There's not even anything on the site about the XYZ product. YOUR visitor leaves the site as soon as he sees it thinking "yikes what an ugly banner farm!"

Affiliate#2 did nothing at all to try to sell your visitor XYZ, in fact the site was so bad your visitor ran away, never even clicked a link or banner and there was not even an XYZ ad on the site. But guess what? Affiliate #2 was dropping cookies and an XYZ cookie was one of them.

So that visitor you PAID for was stolen by an affiliate that did no legitimate work to get that sale.

So in my mind there is no white or black or gray hat and no gray area either.
Just don't cookie stuff, not even on your own site.

So now I'll just climb back on my white horse and ride off into the sunset before someone wearing a black hat decides to shoot me down.

[David McKee]

Ok 5-star, I see your point, but if I had stuffed on my own site (say, I stuff only when they click a link) Affiliate #2 with ugly site is then not able to re-stuff (AS I understand it), so I do get the sale in that case. That seems fair.

But what I really want to know is: What the hell is Blue Fart?

[jjthomas]

Bluefart is simply because the phrase "black hat" (without a space) was automatically replaced with that word. Black hat methods are not generally approved of, and if 'you' get 'found out' so to speak, you risk not only have your funds withheld (from sales generated), but also your account deleted. Many people frown upon it, and if you actually start getting 'rich quick' from it, you will quickly find a number of jealous individuals trying to shut you down.

Long term its probably best to go white hat, plus it's less stressful.

[David McKee]

Here is the issue - I have a nice clean brick and mortar store with advertisements about a new fangled gadget. You go in my store, look at my gadget, read up on the reviews, demo the gadget. You then go home to "think about it".

Later that week you buy the gadget, but you buy it at a corner store that does not spend as much on advertising, does not have the nicest looking facilities, but makes up for it in bulk sales, but you are happy because you got the same gadget for less money.

Guess what - there is not a shred of difference between cookie stuffing and this real world example that happens everyday.

Google may not like it, but who cares? It is part of doing business. Theft is when I go into your store and steal your products (or on the internet this would be using fraud to actually get your products for free) but if I find a way to "get your customers" to essentially come to my store, well...that is tough. Nobody calls it "Black Hat" in brick and mortar stores and it happens all the time.

Just my observation.

[davtom]

The ethical way of using affiliate links is to use them within the confines of the terms and conditions of the merchant in question, and also to use them as they were meant to be used. Usually, that means you get credited with the customer if they click through your link.

Generally speaking, it won't get you into trouble with a merchant or an affiliate network if you use this approach.

Approaches where you get credited for a link just because someone visits your site are obviously not ethical.

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by David McKee

Finally, and this one continues to make me scratch my head, some say it is Blue Fart... WTF??? What exactly is "blue fart" and what distinguishes it from "black hat"???

This forum.

See, I can say "black," and I can say "hat." And I can say "black hat."

But if I say "blackhat" all as one word... oop, look, it's "blue fart." All as one word.

Which is the admin's way of saying we do not like black hat methods, we do not condone black hat methods, and indeed we openly ridicule black hat methods.

[seasoned]

It has already been said, but I try to make it clearer.....

White hat doesn't really mean "GOOD", but PROPER! It doesn't try to deceive or cheat. In Marketing terms, it is WHITE market, or just the market. This could be likened to a jewelry company in the US being authorized to sell ROLEX watches, buying them through PROPER channels, and selling them. ROLEX honors it 100%!!!!!!!

Grey hat means TECHNICALLY legal, etc.... But NOT proper! It uses techniques the site probably didn't detail in their TOS. USUALLY they eventually become BLACK HAT! In marketing terms, it is called GRAY MARKET! It is CHEATING even if not necessarily deceptive. This could be likened to a person in the US buying ROLEX watches through IMPROPER channels, like from abroad, and selling them. ROLEX usually DOESN'T honor them!
BTW US customs now has a LIMIT on how many rolex watches you can have because of the grey market volume!

Black hat means NOT PROPER AT ALL! It is often common knowledge, and may even be in the TOS, that it is NOT allowed. In marketing terms, it may be called BLACK MARKET. This could be likened to a person selling a ROLECS watch as ROLEX!

blue fart was probably done to do things like foiling linking plans. A LOT of black hat sites may have seen their positions on google, etc... DROP when allen did that! And WHO woulld look for "blue farts"!?!?!?

Steve

[Catalyst eMarketing]

Originally Posted by David McKee

Here is the issue - I have a nice clean brick and mortar store with advertisements about a new fangled gadget. You go in my store, look at my gadget, read up on the reviews, demo the gadget. You then go home to "think about it".

Later that week you buy the gadget, but you buy it at a corner store that does not spend as much on advertising, does not have the nicest looking facilities, but makes up for it in bulk sales, but you are happy because you got the same gadget for less money.

Guess what - there is not a shred of difference between cookie stuffing and this real world example that happens everyday.

Google may not like it, but who cares? It is part of doing business. Theft is when I go into your store and steal your products (or on the internet this would be using fraud to actually get your products for free) but if I find a way to "get your customers" to essentially come to my store, well...that is tough. Nobody calls it "Black Hat" in brick and mortar stores and it happens all the time.

Nope that's not the same at all.

In your example the customer knowingly and purposely WALKED INTO the 2nd store, actually PICKED UP THE PRODUCT, walked up to the cash register and bought. The 2nd store got the sale because they DID have a better price and because they had a physical location for him to walk into.

And the big key here is that the customer DID CHOOSE to walk in to the 2nd store.

In the cookie stuffing example the customer never did purposely walk into the merchants store via the cookie stuffers link. He didn't even know the merchant's store was there, it was invisible. He never opened the front door to the merchant's store (never physically clicked a link) he never even SAW the store (because there was no visible ad) AND he didn't buy via the 2nd store because of a better price - because there was NO price that he could even see.

Make sense?

[sbucciarel]

There is no ethical cooking stuffing. It is black hat no matter who does it. If you are caught doing it you will be banned from the ad networks and lose any commissions you have.

Blue Fart is what this forum automatically makes any mention of black hat without the space between black and hat. Example, blackhat. Allen, I can only assume is opposed to big discussions about blackhat techniques. Certainly, if you want a discussion on blackhat techniques and cookie stuffing, you will have a more positive conversation at BHW with marketers who don't take ethics into consideration for anything they do.

[David McKee]

Originally Posted by 5starAffiliatePrograms

Nope that's not the same at all.
In the cookie stuffing example the customer never did purposely walk into the merchants store via the cookie stuffers link. He didn't even know the merchant's store was there, it was invisible. He never opened the front door to the merchant's store (never physically clicked a link) he never even SAW the store (because there was no visible ad) AND he didn't buy via the 2nd store because of a better price - because there was NO price that he could even see.

Make sense?

Okay, I see your point here - with regard to your example of the bad site that sneaks a cookie into the browser of the unsuspecting customer.

I am still not convinced that it is bad for a legitimate site to do this however. Now, I guess you could make the argument that such a cookie in the real world would be like going into a "Food Lion" grocery store to buy "Miller Beer" (Food Lion being like the affiliate marketer), but suddenly when I take out my wallet, a Publix cashier magically appears (Because I once went into a Publix) and takes the money for the beer. Miller does not care because they get their cut, but here I am standing in the Food Lion, and Publix is getting the commission.

This is an interesting thought experiment, so here is another question - which cookie wins if both sites are dropping them? if it is the last site, the one that is currently being visited, then the whole problem goes away.

-DTM

[David McKee]

To CDarkLock and to sbucciarel - Thanks for the explanation of the word "blue fart" - It has gained such acceptance that now you can actually see sites advertising using that name instead of the aforementioned "hat of no color".

It is an interesting discussion of ethics in what is essentially still a "new Frontier".

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by David McKee

I am still not convinced that it is bad for a legitimate site to do this however.

This hinges on the definition of a "legitimate" site.

Affiliate programs that track referrals via cookie ALWAYS have explicit terms of service that FORBID cookie stuffing.

If you are cookie stuffing, your site is by definition not legitimate.

There are differing points of view on this, but the fact is, the overwhelming majority of affiliates OBEY those terms of service... and the affiliate program themselves expect YOU to obey those terms of service... and every single one of them will agree that your site is, in fact, NOT legitimate. That's a landslide vote from your peers and an edict from on high.

Call them stupid and short-sighted all you want, but when you start saying everyone else has the problem... especially the people in authority... it's generally time to take a long, hard look at what you're doing.

Personally, I cast my vote in favour of cookie stuffing. I think you should be allowed to stuff cookies. But regardless of what I think, you are not allowed to do this, and you agreed to follow the rules.

So when you stuff cookies, I also cast my vote in favour of the program kicking your cheating arse out of it - and even though I think I'd be perfectly within my rights to stuff cookies, I'm not going to do it, because it's against the rules.

[David McKee]

Originally Posted by CDarklock

So when you stuff cookies, I also cast my vote in favour of the program kicking your cheating arse out of it - and even though I think I'd be perfectly within my rights to stuff cookies, I'm not going to do it, because it's against the rules.

Makes sense, a contract is a contract.

-DTM

[Catalyst eMarketing]

Originally Posted by David McKee

This is an interesting thought experiment, so here is another question - which cookie wins if both sites are dropping them? if it is the last site, the one that is currently being visited, then the whole problem goes away.

Depends somewhat on the program or network, but in the great majority of affiliate programs, last cookie in wins.

But no the problem does not go away, it makes it worse. In my PPC example above, the honest affiliate was the 1st (and only one) to cause a legit click but then the customer visited a cookie stuffer who stole the sale because his invisible forced click was the last cookie in.

[David McKee]

So your advice to ethical affiliate marketers is to just eat it when other less scrupulous marketers do this. Seems like there could be a better solution, like maybe the affiliate company (ClickBank and others) would simply not accept cookie based links but only legitimate affiliate clicked on links, unless of course, the browser is not capable of discerning one from the other, then I guess there is no real solution to the problem.

Seems like there could be some sort of scheme where the affiliate company gets the link and compares it to the IP address or sends a call back like "hey did you really send me this" all behind the scenes, using SSL for protection, etc. They should have some motivation to do this as they are going to lose out on good affiliate sales people who won't want to do business if they are getting their commissions stolen.

-DTM

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by David McKee

So your advice to ethical affiliate marketers is to just eat it when other less scrupulous marketers do this. Seems like there could be a better solution, like maybe the affiliate company (ClickBank and others) would simply not accept cookie based links but only legitimate affiliate clicked on links, unless of course, the browser is not capable of discerning one from the other, then I guess there is no real solution to the problem.

Seems like there could be some sort of scheme where the affiliate company gets the link and compares it to the IP address or sends a call back like "hey did you really send me this" all behind the scenes, using SSL for protection, etc. They should have some motivation to do this as they are going to lose out on good affiliate sales people who won't want to do business if they are getting their commissions stolen.

-DTM

Yeah, that IS a thought! An API where it could check against the IP, if the value is wrong, allow you to tell it you MEANT to do that, and have it change to a test code you specify which you could change back as normal. OTHERWISE, the change would be REJECTED!

A number of systems DO reject new values if they don't match the old on that visit, but they DON'T generally have a way to disable the rejection for testing.

Steve

[Gail Sober]

Stuffing doesn't have to necessarily be as bad as everyone seems to think. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about how cookies work.

If you stuffed a cookie on your sites visitor and they then went to another website and clicked an affiliate link on that website, it would overwrite the cookie you stuffed so no sale is "stolen".

Say, you spent your time creating a video demo of the product, paid for marketing, created a really nice pre-sales page and the customer visited this page, read everything there, watched the video then decided to close your page out and mull it over.

After a few cups of coffee, they decided to break out the credit card but instead of returning to your site which they probably stumbled across through your ppc advertising, a search engine, social networking site or some other way and did not bookmark it, they type the product name into google and go directly to the vendors sales page and complete the order.

If you did not set a cookie, you did not get paid. Even though this customer decided to buy because of your marketing. Even though they would have probably been happy for you to receive a commission. Because you did not set a cookie, you will not get paid for your work or recoup your ppc loss for that lead.

Too bad for you.

Was there already a cookie set on that visitors computer for the product before they visited your website? Possibly, but the person whose link was clicked prior to the visitor coming to your website didn't close the deal either. As much as we would like our cookies to last forever, that's just not realistic and the same thing applies to the visitor that you stuffed a cookie on. It's only good until they click on another affiliates link. It's really a "who touched the customer last" thing.

On the flip side, what I WOULD call bad cookie stuffing is those that mass mail lists and stuff cookies at the same time, especially on certain JV launches where the cookie is a first set method meaning the cookie won't be overwritten by a legitimate click on another marketers affiliate link.

Or, those that stuff cookies for something that is not what the page is about, like dropping amazon cookies on every visitor or even stuffing dozens or hundreds of unrelated cookies.

I guess it's all just a matter of perspective but stuffing cookies doesn't have to be synonymous with "commission theft". I would term it more of a "commission theft prevention".

[David McKee]

That is an interesting twist, and sort of what I was thinking at first... I did not know that the affiliate link overwrites the cookie, and if that is the case, it does not seem as bad if you are doing it on your own sites for your own products. Perhaps the spammy email stuffing and the guy who pumps in a bazillion unrelated cookies have given the practice a bad name all around. You scenario of the guy who thinks about it for awhile is also quite like reality I think.

-DTM

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by David McKee

That is an interesting twist, and sort of what I was thinking at first... I did not know that the affiliate link overwrites the cookie, and if that is the case, it does not seem as bad if you are doing it on your own sites for your own products. Perhaps the spammy email stuffing and the guy who pumps in a bazillion unrelated cookies have given the practice a bad name all around. You scenario of the guy who thinks about it for awhile is also quite like reality I think.

-DTM

So, you're suggesting that it is not as bad to steal commissions from your own affiliates instead of from the ad networks and other affiliates?

Thanks for the heads up

[Steven Carl Kelly]

After reading this thread I feel completely stuffed. So stuffed in fact that I hd to fart to make room in my guts. Unfortunately, the gas has caused my hat to change color.

[Gail Sober]

it does not seem as bad if you are doing it on your own sites for your own products.

You are selling your own products through clickbank or other network, there is no need to stuff cookies. You will either get full price for your product if the buyer was not referred by an affiliate or the agreed upon amount if the sale is split with an affiliate.

Stuffing cookies on your own products sales page (where you have affiliates promoting your product) WOULD be stealing commissions from your affiliates since the stuffed cookie would overwrite the legitimate affiliate cookie.

Definitely do not do that!!

[Gail Sober]

So, you're suggesting that it is not as bad to steal commissions from your own affiliates instead of from the ad networks and other affiliates?

Thanks for the heads up

I don't think that is what he was saying at all. I think he just misunderstood something since he made the following comment.

"I did not know that the affiliate link overwrites the cookie, and if that is the case, it does not seem as bad "

[Ebo Etoyep]

On top of the ethical issues involved in cookie stuffing, eBay and a few other large companies who have become the targets of rampant cookie stuffing have actually begun to take legal action against those who use this technique. They are banning large groups of affiliates and, in some cases, even suing for damages due to financial fraud.

Long story short, don't stuff cookies. Not only is it unethical, pending the results of a few high profile lawsuits, it may even become illegal.

[Jill Carpenter]

Perhaps you need to visit BlueFart.com | Underground Marketing Just Got...Smellier for the real truth.

[David McKee]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

So, you're suggesting that it is not as bad to steal commissions from your own affiliates instead of from the ad networks and other affiliates?

Thanks for the heads up

I am not suggesting anything, the entire post was my attempt to understand the problem and the thinking behind in on this forum. As for the "Heads Up" - what? I am not doing any of this I am just asking a question.

[David McKee]

Originally Posted by Gail Sober

You are selling your own products through clickbank or other network, there is no need to stuff cookies. You will either get full price for your product if the buyer was not referred by an affiliate or the agreed upon amount if the sale is split with an affiliate.

Stuffing cookies on your own products sales page (where you have affiliates promoting your product) WOULD be stealing commissions from your affiliates since the stuffed cookie would overwrite the legitimate affiliate cookie.

Definitely do not do that!!

That is not even what I meant! - I was asking if a person was an affiliate and they, for example, had a review page or a promotional page or something for a product - if they dropped a cookie on that page, would that be unethical, and if so, why? I was not implying that a seller of a product should stuff a cookie for his own product against his affiliates - I agree that would be bad! It would be advertisement stealing for one thing.

I am stating to get the feeling that by asking the question I am being painted with a broad (and black) brush - well, too bad! I am asking anyway!

-DTM.

[Catalyst eMarketing]

Originally Posted by Ebo Etoyep

On top of the ethical issues involved in cookie stuffing, eBay and a few other large companies who have become the targets of rampant cookie stuffing have actually begun to take legal action against those who use this technique. They are banning large groups of affiliates and, in some cases, even suing for damages due to financial fraud.

Long story short, don't stuff cookies. Not only is it unethical, pending the results of a few high profile lawsuits, it may even become illegal.

Yes both eBay and CJ pursued legal cases (multiple charges including RICO charges) against the owner of a very well known webmaster forum for stuffing cookies on his forum. The court case has been going on for over a year and is still active. Several more motions were just filled this month.

Even if he is not found guilty I'm sure all the time, stress and legal costs have been incredible.

I have affiliates trying to stuff cookies on my forum and have blogged about the practice. I think that's the worst type of cookie stuffing of all. Mass stuffing tons of people that never even went to your site at all is definitely dishonest.