Hijacking Affiliates - Cookie Stuffing Explained

[Mike Bogowski]

Hey Warriors,

What I'm about to share is extremely black hat.

Lots of talk about cookie stuffing lately and it seems that many people don't know what it actually is. I thought i'd try and explain it and hopefully that might help some people understand why cookie stuffing is not the reason clickbank is screwing up.

- Say I have a 1 page review site for 'Strip the Fat' that pulls in 100 unique visitors per day
- 10 of those people click on my affiliate link
- 1 of those people buy, good for one sale a day
- Lets say 1 other person reads my review, and then goes DIRECTLY to the sales page without clicking my links. I wont get cash for the sale

Now, wouldn't it be nice if we got commissions for everyone who visited our website if they purchased. Whether or not they clicked on our affiliate links? You bet your butt it would (despite being against every major affiliate companies TOS). This is where cookie stuffing comes in.

- Inside my page I place a 1pixel image. Something like '/images/thisisa1pixelimage.jpg'
- The thing is, this image isnt actually an image. *SHOCK*
- The trick is, I have secretly told my server that this is a PHP script. So instead of displaying the image, it parses the file and tries to execute it.
- Inside the image/php script I redirect to my affiliate link which drops the affiliate cookie on a users computer.
- So now, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who visits my page gets the affiliate cookie on their machine, whether or not they click my link.
- Beyond that, you could post that image anywhere on the entire web and anyone who views it will get a cookie dropped on them. Which is why you should never allow images to be loaded from other sites in your forums.

That's cookie stuffing at its very finest. There are countless ways to use this technique, almost all of them black hat. For example, have you ever noticed that once you open up one spam email, the next week you get 50 of them? The spammer has dropped a 1pixel image into your email, so by opening up the file you are verifying your existence because the 1pixel image runs a php script that says 'hey, the guy at hello@hotmail.com just opened me'.

So think about it, if cookie stuffing was the culprit then you wouldn't be seeing affiliate = none . You'd be seeing affiliate = spammer the whole time.

Anyway, just like Uncle Ben says to Peter Parker 'with great power comes great responsibility'. Don't use this for evil

[JayXtreme]

Hi Mike...

Just a little somethin for ya..

When me and greenovni were discussing stuffing earlier on.. we were NOT saying cookie stuffing was the problem.. we were saying it was a way to find a solution.. at no point did we say cookie stuffing was the issue in that discussion.

We were using it as a means to push a cookie to set, CB was not setting cookies in our examples

Peace

Jay

[Mike Bogowski]

Yup,

I read the thread and understood what you guys were trying to do. I completely agree with both of you as well, if dumping a cookie on the user helps kick CB's system into gear ill be adding the same thing to my sites.

[JayXtreme]

Originally Posted by Mike Benkovich

Yup,

I read the thread and understood what you guys were trying to do. I completely agree with both of you as well, if dumping a cookie on the user helps kick CB's system into gear ill be adding the same thing to my sites.

Cool.. didn't want you thinking we were off our nuts or anythin..lol....

Peace dude

Jay

[al_clark7]

Hi,

amazing post. Is it ok to do that?

I'm only asking because I don't know.

Cheers

[Teenage Genius]

Thanks for that very informative post

[matthewd]

See, I have been doing this on my site for a while now.

It increased my sales greatly! Today for example I have had 12 affiliate sales and 7 of them came from these stuffed cookies... so, it is safe to say it may have doubled my sales.

I never knew it was "black hat" or could be used for bad until I recently started hearing people shun it. Up until today I did not even know HOW it was used for bad.

So, 2 days ago I got an email from Clickbank that linked to one of my pages and said "This page has recently been brought to our attention. We do not allow cookie stuffing. Remove it immediately and email us when you do."

I emailed them back explaining that I am simply stuffing the cookie for the one product on that page and I would like them to explain why I need to remove it if I am in no way stealing other people's commissions or doing anything unethical.

They still haven't responded, but I haven't gotten a sale for that product since (I used to sell a few a day), so I think they may have killed my link for it.

Moral of the story: Clickbank is pissing me off!

[greenovni]

al_clark7 According to the TOS of most affiliate services the answer is NO.

Ebay is suing the people at DP for cookie stuffing. Not sure if they will get far as there is no actual law (that I know of) that says it's illegal too cookie stuff.

[greenovni]

matthewd Wow, that's BS. First their service is going bonkers & you cannot place codes on your own websites?

[Mike Bogowski]

Originally Posted by matthewd

See, I have been doing this on my site for a while now.

It increased my sales greatly! Today for example I have had 12 affiliate sales and 7 of them came from these stuffed cookies... so, it is safe to say it may have doubled my sales.

I never knew it was "black hat" or could be used for bad until I recently started hearing people shun it. Up until today I did not even know HOW it was used for bad.

So, 2 days ago I got an email from Clickbank that linked to one of my pages and said "This page has recently been brought to our attention. We do not allow cookie stuffing. Remove it immediately and email us when you do."

I emailed them back explaining that I am simply stuffing the cookie for the one product on that page and I would like them to explain why I need to remove it if I am in no way stealing other people's commissions or doing anything unethical.

They still haven't responded, but I haven't gotten a sale for that product since (I used to sell a few a day), so I think they may have killed my link for it.

Moral of the story: Clickbank is pissing me off!

If you think that's effective...

Try using this technique on a mass mail out. Anyone who opens up an email in gmail, yahoo, hotmail or any webmail service will have the cookie dropped on them.

Alas I have given up such shifty ways because its like building a business on quicksand.

But its fun to game any system every now and then

[mtncboy]

I really think that this is a good idea, you ought to get credit for your hard work!

[JayXtreme]

I would just like to add that I do not advocate or encourage the use of cookie stuffing in the open market for sales and never have or will do. It's not my thing.

[Rich Rollend]

Thanks for the post Mike, I'll be honest I didn't fully understand cookie stuffing, Ill save that post.

[scotl47]

Wow ... never looked into it, or thought about it. Pure evil :-) Almost every other company in a couple of my financial niches that advertises on PPC has affiliate programs. I get 4-5000 visits a day ... so would be very tempting.

[bretski]

So how do I stand a chance of ever making a commission through Clickbank or any other affiliate program. I have always had a weird feeling and wondered why I have never gotten ONE affiliate sale through CB...not that I'm any sort of whiz at this yet but I know that I spent about a hundred on PPC one month and not one affilate sale....got lots of click...but not one sale. I had decided this run through that I wouldn't promote anything that I didn't have 100% control over the website or landing page, checkout and delivery of product. Call me paranoid but I sure could use that hundred that I paid on PPC this month...live and learn I guess....

I had started cloaking my links but now I'm super paranoid...thanks guys! LOL!

[matthewd]

Originally Posted by rondo

If you can't get someone to click through do you think you really deserve the sale? It seems to me you're either ripping off another affiliate, or the vendor.

If they read my page and then purchase... whether they clicked on my button or not I deserve the sale.

Now what if Clickbank is screwing up as normal and those extra sales actually were click-throughs that their tracking system missed?

This very well could be the case b/c I started this back in May and for a couple of months it only brought me in maybe 1 extra sale a few days, but for the past couple of months it has been bringing in more sales than my button... I bet if I dug deep enough it would correlate exactly with when all of this tracking stuff got screwy.

[matthewd]

I don't want to use it like that. I only want to add it to my pages to help secure my sales.

Originally Posted by Mike Benkovich

If you think that's effective...

Try using this technique on a mass mail out. Anyone who opens up an email in gmail, yahoo, hotmail or any webmail service will have the cookie dropped on them.

Alas I have given up such shifty ways because its like building a business on quicksand.

But its fun to game any system every now and then

[Eric Lorence]

Originally Posted by Mike Benkovich

Hey Warriors,

What I'm about to share is extremely black hat.

Lots of talk about cookie stuffing lately and it seems that many people don't know what it actually is. I thought i'd try and explain it and hopefully that might help some people understand why cookie stuffing is not the reason clickbank is screwing up.

- Say I have a 1 page review site for 'Strip the Fat' that pulls in 100 unique visitors per day
- 10 of those people click on my affiliate link
- 1 of those people buy, good for one sale a day
- Lets say 1 other person reads my review, and then goes DIRECTLY to the sales page without clicking my links. I wont get cash for the sale

Now, wouldn't it be nice if we got commissions for everyone who visited our website if they purchased. Whether or not they clicked on our affiliate links? You bet your butt it would (despite being against every major affiliate companies TOS). This is where cookie stuffing comes in.

- Inside my page I place a 1pixel image. Something like '/images/thisisa1pixelimage.jpg'
- The thing is, this image isnt actually an image. *SHOCK*
- The trick is, I have secretly told my server that this is a PHP script. So instead of displaying the image, it parses the file and tries to execute it.
- Inside the image/php script I redirect to my affiliate link which drops the affiliate cookie on a users computer.
- So now, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who visits my page gets the affiliate cookie on their machine, whether or not they click my link.
- Beyond that, you could post that image anywhere on the entire web and anyone who views it will get a cookie dropped on them. Which is why you should never allow images to be loaded from other sites in your forums.

That's cookie stuffing at its very finest. There are countless ways to use this technique, almost all of them black hat. For example, have you ever noticed that once you open up one spam email, the next week you get 50 of them? The spammer has dropped a 1pixel image into your email, so by opening up the file you are verifying your existence because the 1pixel image runs a php script that says 'hey, the guy at hello@hotmail.com just opened me'.

So think about it, if cookie stuffing was the culprit then you wouldn't be seeing affiliate = none . You'd be seeing affiliate = spammer the whole time.

Anyway, just like Uncle Ben says to Peter Parker 'with great power comes great responsibility'. Don't use this for evil

I still think stuffing is the primary problem, and if you consider that Clickbank may be on to many of these affiliates, and banning their accounts, then you would have to imagine the referer would be "none" in those cases.

Bottom line is that the vast majority of customers are absolutely clueless as to the intricacies of cookies, black hat, or any kind of IM means and methods in general.

Because of this, "stuffing" continues to cost a lot of people commissions.

Best!

[matthewd]

Originally Posted by rondo

People often view dozens of sites before purchasing. The whole point is to get the click.

People may view tons of sites. So, if mine is the last one and they view and it convinces them to buy... why should I not get the commission?

If they say "Man, this guy makes this sound awesome... I am going to get it!" and then type the URL into their browser instead of clicking the button for some odd reason, I still deserve the sale even though they didn't click my button.

Now what about the other scenario I explained and you ignored?

[matthewd]

Originally Posted by rondo

People often view dozens of sites before purchasing. The whole point is to get the click.

Okay, to further my point to you:

I just checked my affiliate stats for June. Out of 177 sales, 28 came from the stuffed cookie.

Fast forward to October. Out of 269 Sales, 140 came from the stuffed cookie.

I doubt 52% of my sales are from people reading my page and going straight to the merchant URL.

[matthewd]

Originally Posted by rondo

You don't know that yours is the last one they viewed.
It's only the last one cookied because you "stuffed" it.


Andrew

That's true; the other people should have had their cookies stuffed too then. Through your thinking, these others wouldn't "deserve" the commission either, so what's the point? As far as ripping off the merchant as you mentioned earlier, how is it ripping the merchant off if it was affiliates that sent the sale to him/her?

Did you also look at my post above expressing the statistics. Before the Clickbank tracking issues, this was bringing in about 15% of my sales... now b/c of the tracking issue, it is bringing in over 50% of my sales.

SO if I were to remove the stuffed cookie, I would be losing out on sales that Clickbank is screwing me out of.

[Mike Bogowski]

Take this situation!

- Someone goes to a site with a rave review about a product.
- The customer clicks through and is very tempted to buy but wants to do more searching
- They search for something like '<product name> sucks'
- You've optimized for '<product name> sucks' and talk about how crap it is
- On your sucks page you stuff them with a cookie
- They decide the positive review is enough proof for them to buy but the person who actually sold them on the item gets nothing because you cheated the system.

matthewd, I'm not suggesting this is your technique but its a good example of how the system wouldn't work. It's too open to holes like this. The rules are in place and bug 90% of people because of what the shifty 10% of people might try to do.

Whether we like it or not, Clickbank is the giant for digital products and unless someone comes in with huge clout and massive bank its going to stay that way for a while. So we play by their rules or promote different products.

[matthewd]

I see what you are saying Mike... I always hated that 10% that screw everything up for us that play by the rules!

I never give a negative review about a product. I don't fake good ones though, if it sucks, I just pass it up and don't bother touching it... I am not going to lie about a product and I am not going to bash a product, so it is best for me to skip it.

Anyway, I use my cookie stuffing for good... and I will continue to do it as long as Clickbank's screwing their tracking up. Right now it is simply an "Insurance Policy" for me to get my commissions.

[matthewd]

Harvey,

That is a difficult way to do it... I just add an image tag to my affiliate link.

[Divisive Cottonwood]

Cheers for the info Mike. I was never really 100% sure what cookie stuffing is even after reading about the guy on Digital Point being busted for it.

[TheNightOwl]

Interesting...

I first heard Jim Morris of NicheBot talk about this, oh, around 18 months or 2 years ago. He called it a SAC (Secret Affiliate Cookie).

I thought something sounded a bit "iffy" about it, but I was more or less a complete web noob then so I let it pass because what did I know?

It stuck with me, though, and more recently Andre Chaperon has promoted it and has a page to generate such cookies. There is no mention of the term "stuffing" though (surprise, surprise).

Having been around the block a few times, I recognised it , but I wasn't sure what it was called. I thought it was "cookie-stuffing" but I wasn't 100%. I've been meaning to email and ask, but this appears to answer my question so thank you, Mike.

So, will this get you banned from the major affiliate networks,then?

If so, why do people advocate such things to newbies in their ebooks, etc.? That just seems grossly irresponsible to me.

@Andre & Jim: Have I got it wrong, fellas? Want to weigh in on the discussion here, perchance?

@Harvey: You say you "rarely" cookie stuff. So what is a "good" example, then, of this practice (if such a thing exists)?

Cheers,
TheNightOwl

[onlineleben]

and then type the URL into their browser instead of clicking the button for some odd reason, I still deserve the sale even though they didn't click my button

So were did they get the URL from? Did you put it in your pre selling copy?
If so, I think you don't deserve teh credit for the sale at all

Btw, interesting discussion and good to see who operated on a shade of gray side.

[matthewd]

They could get the URL from all over the place. I target people in the late stages of the buying cycle, so odds are that the people I am targeting have looked over the merchant site and decided to do some research.

I don't list a URL in my page, but if I did, why would that make me not deserve credit for the sale? That wouldn't make me any less the one that they decided to buy on.

AND I don't see at all how it could be considered "a shade of grey." I am not stealing anyone else's commissions. As I said earlier, it acts as an insurance policy for my commissions.

TheNightOwl - I believe the "good" circumstance of using it is what I have been referring to doing. I only put the cookie on my review page and it ends up saving me TONS of sales that it appears Clickbank would have otherwise lost me.

Originally Posted by onlineleben

So were did they get the URL from? Did you put it in your pre selling copy?
If so, I think you don't deserve teh credit for the sale at all

Btw, interesting discussion and good to see who operated on a shade of gray side.

[awesometbn]

What about web browsers like Firefox with NoScript and AdBlockPlus enabled? Doesn't that bring this method of cookie stuffing to a halt? Just wanted someone to confirm there are ways to stop such behavior on the end user side, if desired.

[TheNightOwl]

Originally Posted by matthewd

I believe the "good" circumstance of using it is what I have been referring to doing. I only put the cookie on my review page and it ends up saving me TONS of sales that it appears Clickbank would have otherwise lost me.

Hi there matthewd

Not that I'm saying cookie-stuffing is categorically 100% bad because I really don't know (although if everyone seems to unanimously agree that it is, then it might be a red flag -- Not to say that means it's the absolute truth of the matter)...

...but I'm not sure your description here is correct. To my mind, it's just not the case that "Clickbank would have otherwise lost me".

If someone wants to type the URL directly into their browser, then surely that's their right to do so. No?

If someone has surfed around and gotten the information they need to make that all important "buying decision" then surely it's their prerogative to buy from whoever they see fit.

If they visit half a dozen affiliate sites (and if they're savvy enough to type the URL in directly then they're probably savvy to affiliate marketing), and your site happens to be the last one...

...and you don't do a good enough job to convince them to click YOUR link, then people being what they are, they are (for the most part) not going to go back, back, back, back through their browser to find the page that did convince them to click.

They're just going to remember the product name and type it in, right?

I'm sure you're (mostly) with me so far.

(You probably don't like the bit about whether your site does a good enough job, but it's true. If your copy isn't good enough, then you don't deserve the sale).

I'm describing the sort of pattern I've followed myself many times:

I go looking for something ("in a buying mood" to use marketer-speak).

I read a review. It's the same old affiliate dross.

I search again.

I read another page.

Crap.

I read another. It seems good.

I click through to see what the product is (because they don't mention it by name and cookie me on the click--which I'm perfectly aware of and I'm happy to play along with because they did a good enough job of pre-selling me).

I read the sales page.

It's crap.

I keep searching.

Some other affiliate review points me back there and "fills in the gaps" in the salespage with the review. I like it, but I'm still not convinced. I'm almost there...

I go searching again...

I land on some crap affiliate review that doesn't tell me anything and/or makes outlandish claims about the product.

I know better that to click on this twat's link.

So what do i do?

I recall the product name and type it into my browser directly.

Why? It doesn't cost me a cent more to click on this crap reviewer's link. But I'm so put off by the review that I don't want to be putting money in the pocket of a huckster.

Bad luck for the person who actually made me click through if you're stuffing your page.

If you weren't stuffing your page, that person actually would receive credit for the sale.

So isn't it cookie-stuffers who are stealing commissions from the affiliates who go the extra mile and give an honest, balanced, and comprehensive review of a product? (Not to say that you don't, but that's not my point)

Or have I got it all wrong here somewhere?

Best,
TheNightOwl

[GeorgR.]

well you dont even need to fake "PHP"...you can also specify a 1x1pixel picture and "display" it at some insane position, like 5000pixels to the left of the actual site. works too.

Edit:

Classic Method:

<img style="position:absolute;left:-2000px;width:1px;height:1px;"src="http://affiliatelink.org">

you see that the "source" for that image can be any affiliate link, that link will be excuted and a cookie will be set. Still trying to understand where your "PHP" comes in there, theres no need for any PHP code.

[zerofill]

Originally Posted by GeorgR.

well you dont even need to fake "PHP"...you can also specify a 1x1pixel picture and "display" it at some insane position, like 5000pixels to the left of the actual site. works too.

Edit:

Classic Method:

<img style="position:absolute;left:-2000px;width:1px;height:1px;"src="http://affiliatelink.org">

you see that the "source" for that image can be any affiliate link, that link will be excuted and a cookie will be set. Still trying to understand where your "PHP" comes in there, theres no need for any PHP code.

The PHP method he is talking about isn't needed on your own site...it was just used by forum cookie stuffers mainly. Images in signatures etc...

[matthewd]

TheNightOwl - I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people I sell to have no idea about affiliates and cookies getting me a commission. I don't sell affiliate stuff in the IM market.

Your scenario is based around the person knowing about affiliate links and deliberately trying to avoid "my" affiliate link.

And I understand you were not saying that I don't give honest, balanced and comprehensive reviews... but I do.

I am not just throwing up a page that says "Oh, it's SO good... BUY IT RIGHT NOW!!! It will change your life forever!!!"

[Gail Sober]

Still trying to understand where your "PHP" comes in there, theres no need for any PHP code.

Using php is just a method of keeping from being discovered stuffing cookies, you can use php to not stuff a cookie if there is no referrer,among other things.

[Darth Executor]

Originally Posted by matthewd

If they read my page and then purchase... whether they clicked on my button or not I deserve the sale.

No you don't. You're a thief, plain and simple.

[Darth Executor]

Originally Posted by matthewd

AND I don't see at all how it could be considered "a shade of grey." I am not stealing anyone else's commissions. As I said earlier, it acts as an insurance policy for my commissions.

It's not a shade of gray, it's pure black hat. You're stealing the commission from anyone who doesn't buy through your link.

If you want to stop being a thief and still protect yourself from clickbank's incompetence, stuff the cookie after they click on your link.

[matthewd]

Originally Posted by Darth Executor

It's not a shade of gray, it's pure black hat. You're stealing the commission from anyone who doesn't buy through your link.

If you want to stop being a thief and still protect yourself from clickbank's incompetence, stuff the cookie after they click on your link.

That might be a better plan.

I am not stealing commissions though.

[TheNightOwl]

Originally Posted by matthewd

I am not stealing commissions though.

But... matthewd... how do you know that?

My example was not exclusively contextualised within the IM market (I'm sorry if that was confusing).

Let me revisit it in a more general way:

-- person goes a-searching ("late in the buying cycle" if you will). Let's call her Sally. She's a tech-dunce and her notion of cookies is delectables fresh from the oven and eaten with milk

-- She finds a review and reads it

-- it's garbage

-- she hits the back button and searches again..

-- reads another review that convinces her to click through

-- unbeknownst to her, she gets cookied

-- she reads the sales letter and it doesn't really set her on fire

-- she goes looking again

-- but now she knows the name of the product so she types "[name of product] + review" into her search engine of choice

-- some reviews come up... she reads one and, again, it's crap

-- she reads another. Again, crap

-- she arrives on your page and is cookied just for turning up

-- she reads you review and for whatever reason you don't make a compelling enough case to get her to click on your link

**** Alternatively, she doesn't even read your review. Something about the site puts her off and she hits the back button. You've still cookied her, though ***

-- she goes back and types the URL directly into her browser (coz she can't remember where that link was she originally found it through, but she does remember the name. She might even just put the name of the product into the search engine, scan the results, find the direct URL and click)

-- she buys

Who gets the sale here?

You.

Who deserves the sale?

The person whose review was compelling enough to make her want to click.

I'm not saying you write bad or hypey or unbalanced reviews or anything like that either, incidentally. I'm just saying that if your review doesn't get the prospect to click, then you don't deserve the sale.

In fact, your review might be "better" by a country mile than the one that got her to click in the first place. That one might (by your standards) be complete tosh. It might be full of outlandish claims, hype, and ra-rah.

But we've been through this conversation a million times on this forum: People are, for the most part cattle, and make buying decisions based on emotion (me included many times; I just like to think I'm "too intellectual" to fall for the old emotional banana appeal in the tailpipe trick. Which, naturally, is self-delusion of the highest order).

Anyway, point is, who are you to try and say that people should click on your review because it's superior to the other one?

It may be. In fact, it probably is. But such a judgement is patently not using the same criteria that Sally used. Whatever she read on that page she clicked through on pushed some hot-button(s) for her. Something about your site or review did not.

In this case are you stealing commissions?

Yes.

You assert that you are not.

How do you know that?

If you can present a convincing and coherent argument as to why I'm wrong about this, then I'll shut up and apologise publically.

Best,
TheNightOwl


P.S. My objective here is not to "go you" or "savage you", personally, matthewd. I'm laying out an argument that I would level at anyone doing this.

I'm still waiting from Harvey to let me know when might be a "good" use of this technique, btw.

And @ Darth Executor: How do you cookie them on the click? And what is the advantage of doing this?

[Steven Wagenheim]

Mike, thank you for sharing this info. It clearly explains what it is.

As for those who condone cookie stuffing under ANY circumstances, I am
beyond speechless.

I'm sorry, but I look this as very black and white.

John Doe comes to my blog to read my review on product X.

If that review does NOT make him click on my link to go to the sales page
and buy the product, then I do NOT deserve to get credit for a future sale
of that product IF it comes in. I did not convince him to buy.

Now, if he goes back to the site later for whatever reason and didn't get
there from another affiliate, and DOES buy, then I will get the credit
because I was the last affiliate he visited. Then, I should get credit.

Sorry, but nobody is going to convince me that cookie stuffing is right
under any circumstances. If they click on your link and buy, there is no
need to stuff the cookie because it's set normally.

Unreal what some people will do.

[matthewd]

Wow, we are not going to agree on this at all.

I see where you guys are coming from... but I still think your theory has a hole in it b/c the person you are saying deserves the sale didn't make them buy either if they still did a bunch of surfing.

I do see what you are saying and I am not saying you an idiot or anything... I just say we disagree on it.

I also think it might be better as he said earlier to cookie after they click... which I guess would just be to send them to a redirect page that also stuffs the cookie?

[Carlsbadd]

Matthewd,

Thanks for the information about how cookie stuffing works.

While I will not directly comment on the morality of it , if it works for you so be it.

Cramming GIF's with code is and has been going on for a long time and will continue to be a simple way to hide code , for good or evil.

Don't hate the play'a.... Hate the game

[TheNightOwl]

hi matthewd

I agree that what Mr Wagenheim says is a little unclear. In particular, this bit:

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Now, if he goes back to the site later for whatever reason and didn't get there from another affiliate, and DOES buy, then I will get the credit because I was the last affiliate he visited. Then, I should get credit.

My point (which I think Steven is echoing, albeit unclearly) is that if the prospect comes to my site, doesn't click on my link, and buys from visiting the product-site directly, then I don't deserve the sale.

I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

If I don't do a good enough of job of getting the prospect to click through via my link, I don't deserve the sale.

They can surf around as much as they like (before or after clicking on my link), but at least I made a convincing enough case while they were at my site, to get them to click on my link.

If another affiliate also convinces them to click through after they visit my site (and click on my link--Do I really need to keep saying this bit?), then in a last-touch program, that affiliate beats me.

Oh, well, that's the nature of last-touch. But this other affiliate obviously did a good job too because the prospect clicked their link.

Swings and roundabouts, really. That'll happen to me sometimes, but other times I'll be the last touch affiliate (who gets someone to... wait for it... click my link) and as such I'll pip the other guy at the post.

But I'm not stealing anything. My site and review and video and copy and whatever else was good enough to get the click. And I just happened to be the one immediately prior to the sale being made.

I honestly don't see how you can say otherwise, man.

Think about this one:

If you do a stellar job of pre-selling someone enough for them to click through, but they can't buy right then for whatever reason, that prospect is cookied to you.

But let's say a couple of days later the prospect gets paid and wants to buy, they fire up Google and type in the name of the product and something about my #3 listing for the same keyword ("product name") catches their eye.

They open the #1 position (let's assume it's the product's direct page), but also flip open #3 to take a quick last minute look before they read that salespage again.

And let's say they don't like what they see or read on my site so they close that browser tab/window and go to the product homepage...

...and buy.

Who should get the sale there?

You! Because you did the heavy-lifting and got them to click through and discover the product name in the first place. You did a good job of pre-selling them and providing a balanced and honest review, etc.

I did nothing but stuff my cookie when they arrived.

Yet I get the sale.

In that scenario, dude, I am shafting you.

Can't you see that?


TheNightOwl


P.S. please don't shoot back the argument "But there was something about my headline in the SERPs that made them click... and I was the last touch... so I deserve the sale." That argument is a sieve and you know it.

[Dmitry]

I don't see what is being hijacked? You "stuff" a visitor with cookies. He doesn't buy. Then he hops on to another affiliate's page - he gets his affiliate cookie, he buys from him - the other affiliate gets the commission since he overwrote your "stuffed" cookie. In essence the cookie is still being saved by clickbank and read by clickbank. Now if you could save cookies as if it were clickbank - that would be BlueFart.

Alas I have given up such shifty ways because its like building a business on quicksand.

But its fun to game any system every now and then

Totally agree with you man. We should create a secret "BlueFart for fun... and profit" society or something

In the spirit of discussion here's a legal cookie stuffing technique for CB I just came up with. Create a publisher account at CB, then an affiliate one. Make you review page you publisher's sales page. Now send visitors via your affiliate link to your sales page. Voila - they now have you affiliate id in their cookies.

@Harvey

You want the rest of the magic formula? Do some bloody research and stop buying eBooks.

What else could there be...

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by TheNightOwl

hi matthewd

I agree that what Mr Wagenheim says is a little unclear. In particular, this bit:



My point (which I think Steven is echoing, albeit unclearly) is that if the prospect comes to my site, doesn't click on my link, and buys from visiting the product-site directly, then I don't deserve the sale.

I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

If I don't do a good enough of job of getting the prospect to click through via my link, I don't deserve the sale.

They can surf around as much as they like (before or after clicking on my link), but at least I made a convincing enough case while they were at my site, to get them to click on my link.

If another affiliate also convinces them to click through after they visit my site (and click on my link--Do I really need to keep saying this bit?), then in a last-touch program, that affiliate beats me.

Oh, well, that's the nature of last-touch. But this other affiliate obviously did a good job too because the prospect clicked their link.

Swings and roundabouts, really. That'll happen to me sometimes, but other times I'll be the last touch affiliate (who gets someone to... wait for it... click my link) and as such I'll pip the other guy at the post.

But I'm not stealing anything. My site and review and video and copy and whatever else was good enough to get the click. And I just happened to be the one immediately prior to the sale being made.

I honestly don't see how you can say otherwise, man.

Think about this one:

If you do a stellar job of pre-selling someone enough for them to click through, but they can't buy right then for whatever reason, that prospect is cookied to you.

But let's say a couple of days later the prospect gets paid and wants to buy, they fire up Google and type in the name of the product and something about my #3 listing for the same keyword ("product name") catches their eye.

They open the #1 position (let's assume it's the product's direct page), but also flip open #3 to take a quick last minute look before they read that salespage again.

And let's say they don't like what they see or read on my site so they close that browser tab/window and go to the product homepage...

...and buy.

Who should get the sale there?

You! Because you did the heavy-lifting and got them to click through and discover the product name in the first place. You did a good job of pre-selling them and providing a balanced and honest review, etc.

I did nothing but stuff my cookie when they arrived.

Yet I get the sale.

In that scenario, dude, I am shafting you.

Can't you see that?


TheNightOwl


P.S. please don't shoot back the argument "But there was something about my headline in the SERPs that made them click... and I was the last touch... so I deserve the sale." That argument is a sieve and you know it.

Thanks Nightowl. You pretty much explained it better than I could because
quite honestly, this is not an area I give much thought to.

I concentrate on doing a good presell and let that take care of the rest.

Believe me, I make more than my share of sales without having to resort
to cookie stuffing.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by L.B

end of the day I know people making 5 figures a week of cookie stuffing...your not going to tell them to stop lol. its pointless arguing about the ethics of it. its the internet people can do what they want and most of the time other people are not going to convince them otherwise

As much as I hate the attitude, when you're right you're right. People are
going to do what they want to do and it's doubtful you or anybody else is
going to change their minds.

That's why the jails will always be filled with criminals.

[matthewd]

TheNightOwl - I don't think I said I was confused... I actually think I said I see where you guys are coming from and just disagree.

Steven - Now you are just being a dick. Maybe you did not read everything I have put before getting so smug and acting like you are SOOOO good that you get your clicks and sales no matter what... it doesn't matter if Clickbank is having issues, you are so good that you fix these issues, right?

If you would look in my previous posts, you would see that it is saving my ass from this Clickbank tracking issue. 52% of my sales are coming from the stuffed cookie as opposed to 15% before all of their crap started. And as was decided in another thread with a bunch of testing, just clicking the link is often bringing up "affiliate=none" whereas the stuffed cookie got tracked every time.

Now, if you would pay attention to some more of what I said... I also agreed that it would be better for me to stuff the cookie AFTER the click. I am not sure on how to do this, but I will look into it.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Thanks Nightowl. You pretty much explained it better than I could because
quite honestly, this is not an area I give much thought to.

I concentrate on doing a good presell and let that take care of the rest.

Believe me, I make more than my share of sales without having to resort
to cookie stuffing.

[Mike Bogowski]

At the end of the day, use your own moral compass and decide if you want to use the technique or not. But you must know that its against the terms of service of the major affiliate networks.

To answer the why use PHP question ... You should use PHP in this technique because its more secretive to the end user, the browser and any software that might try to block it because as far as your browser is concerned you are just viewing an image.

The problem with using an image tag is that its easy to spot, and matthewd that is probably the reason that you got caught since someone only needs to view your page source to know what you're doing.

[GarrieWilson]

Mathew,

It might just look like the stuffing is saving you. ClickBank *might* be working on a way to not overwriting cookies unless they are X old. To keep people/buyers from stealing. Or an number of other reasons.

You say you deserve it, yada yada. Well, here is an example of when you don't.

I find your site looking for X and don't click the link because the review sucks or you make the product look like it wont do what I need. I go back to Google and a few links down from yours is the creator of the product. His sales letter is great and it conviences me.

In this example, you stole from the creator. It could also be the reason your stuffed cookies get more sales. Not because you deserve it. This happens a lot, atleast with me.

Stuff when people click and see if the stuffs still get more.

[matthewd]

Wow, you guys need to start reading before responding.

1) People have already given their examples of disagreeing with me. Their's are all the same except you replaced "other affiliate" with the "merchant."

2) I have said twice now I like the idea of stuffing after the click and I am going to look into how I can do that.

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Mathew,

It might just look like the stuffing is saving you. ClickBank *might* be working on a way to not overwriting cookies unless they are X old. To keep people/buyers from stealing. Or an number of other reasons.

You say you deserve it, yada yada. Well, here is an example of when you don't.

I find your site looking for X and don't click the link because the review sucks or you make the product look like it wont do what I need. I go back to Google and a few links down from yours is the creator of the product. His sales letter is great and it conviences me.

In this example, you stole from the creator. It could also be the reason your stuffed cookies get more sales. Not because you deserve it. This happens a lot, atleast with me.

Stuff when people click and see if the stuffs still get more.

[GarrieWilson]

Originally Posted by matthewd

Wow, you guys need to start reading before responding.

1) People have already given their examples of disagreeing with me. Their's are all the same except you replaced "other affiliate" with the "merchant."

2) I have said twice now I like the idea of stuffing after the click and I am going to look into how I can do that.

I read every word, thanks.

I read more than once how you said what you are doing isn't wrong. How you kept trying to rationalize your actions. Even when you said you would *try* it after the click. That you will "look into it" There is nothing to look into, you put the stuff code in a page and use a meta refresh & JS refresh to redirect. It's simple. Just make sure you have a 10 second delay and put a note on the page that says something like "please wait redirecting. click here if not redirected."

Also, I said merchant for a specific reason. They don't set cookies. Affiliates do and if an affiliates cookie isnt being set to overwrite yours, then either they didn't get the click either or CB messed up for them also.

As far as stuffing "saving you," that's an assumption. All you see is more sales but you don't take other pertenant information into consideration.

For example:

When you stuff, do you mark the time and date and then compare it to when the sale is made? If not, you don't know if it was your sale or not. Chances are, if the sale isn't made within an hour, you didn't earn it. Yet you assume you did because you received the credit.

Are you counting clicks on the link to see if it matches sales?

Lots of things to consider.

Garrie