In the past few days I have heard commercials for national companies where the announcer says something to the effect of, “Visit ‘whatever.com ‘backslash’ whatever.” I’m sorry but there is no use for a backslash “\” in a URL. These are big companies paying advertising agencies large amounts of money to make commercials for them and they are screwing it up by giving viewers invalid URLs to visit.

Maybe it’s just me, being the online marketing geek, but this drives me absolutely crazy. Get with it out there people. Step away from your old days of using DOS to navigate your computer and forget the term BACKSLASH!

The only thing worse is the Jared commercial where the announcer talks about “Jew-lery”. It is spelled…and pronounced JEWEL-RY. Look it up folks! If thievery is the act of being a thief, and trickery is the act of using a trick, is “Jew-lery” the act of being Jewish?

OK, I’m done. Have a nice day everybody.

I have had several email conversations and several phone conversations lately as to why there seems to be an exodus of merchants in the affiliate marketing world. In the past few months, Vermont Country Store, Fun to Collect and several other merchants who have been in the affiliate marketing arena for some time have exited.
Some of these merchants have cited trademark abuse and their inability to control it as a reason for leaving affiliate marketing. I see this as a frightening trend that will only get worse unless this problem is brought under control.

Here is the problem as I see it. A merchant enters the space with a new affiliate program and the management of the program is placed in the lap of someone in the marketing department. This person is told to create banners, text links and other similar materials for affiliates to place on their web sites. Meanwhile, they are auto-approving affiliates because it takes too long to manually approve them and those who do nothing but bid on the merchant’s domain name show up, fleece the merchant out of thousands of dollars and the merchant never even knows what hit them. All they know is that they have this pool of affiliates now standing between them and a customer who was looking for them by name. They find one affiliate who is doing this, remove them and there are 10 more in line with their Adwords account cocked and ready to do the very same thing.

Meanwhile, the merchant might or might not have gotten a brief education on the perils of trademark abuse from the network when they signed up for their affiliate program. The merchant certainly did not enter the affiliate marketing space knowing that they would have to dedicate someone to police their affiliates. Furthermore, they probably did not bother to set terms forbidding this practice when they set up their affiliate program. Why did they not do this? Because they had no clue that it was necessary.
The bottom line is that we have networks making huge stacks of money from this valueless proposition to the merchant and affiliates who know better, but just can’t seem to stop because the money is so good. The networks and the offending affiliates are the very first people in line to blame the merchant for not disallowing the practice. My question is how did the merchant know this would be such a large problem? They signed up to have affiliates promote their products and/or services, not to have affiliates bidding on their domain name and tricking the customer in to clicking an ad to get to the merchant’s web site. It is truly a mess.

Are affiliate managers and OPMs to blame? Maybe so. If they did not take the time to educate their clients about this abuse, then they are indeed at least partially to blame. Those affiliate managers who have clients who implicitly disallow trademark bidding yet still allow it are criminal in my opinion. Most affiliate managers and OPMs seem pretty responsible, but there are a few out there that blatantly disregard the will of their client in the name of a dollar. This will stop soon enough, when their clients realize they they are being fleeced and file huge law suits against the rogue managers.

Are the networks to blame? Let’s follow the money on that one. If a network has 2000 merchant clients and 1500 of them are being abused by affiliates poaching their domain name, who is making the real money here? Yep, the networks are making huge amounts of money from this activity.

Is auto-approve to blame? In a word….YES! If an affiliate can join an affiliate program with nobody performing any vetting at all of that affiliate and their operation, auto-approve only fuels the fire. It has been my contention for some time that auto-approve is to blame for much of the abuse in the affiliate marketing industry today.

In conclusion, there is no simple answer to this problem. Merchants need to be educated. Networks need to take at least some steps to alert new merchants of the potential of abuse. Granted, if a merchant is brand new, has no traffic and an Alexa rating of 4,387,987 then their domain name will likely not be a big payday for a trademark poacher. But merchants who already have an existing base of customers and traffic need to be educated and I say that it is the network’s responsibility to do that. They are the one who profits from every single sale. They are the one who have the fiduciary duty to both the merchant and the affiliates.

By the way, kudos to the Avantlink network for recognizing this problem and addressing it in their generic affiliate terms. If the others would follow suit, the affiliate marketing industry would be a healthier place to do business for everyone.

I just ran across an article that I found very interesting. It first off says that SPAM is now 30 years old this month. I was not aware that SPAm has ben a problem for that long.
Another aspect of the article was a complete transcript of the very first spam message, along with the replies it generated. The person who sent the very first SPAM was named Gary Thuerk. Thuerk worked for the old Digital Equipment Corporation. He sent a sales-related email to 393 users on Arpanet, a U.S. government computer network and predecessor of today’s Internet (before Al Gore invented it…HaHa)
As you might expect, the solicitation caused some complaints, but it apparently generated $12M in sales. I wonder about that, being sent only to 393 people. Anyway, here is a link to the article. Read it for yourself. It is a good read.
I have posted the message along with the replies it generated, below. Visit Brad Templeton’s Web Site for more information on the transcript.

Mail-from: DEC-MARLBORO rcvd at 3-May-78 0955-PDT
Date: 1 May 1978 1233-EDT
From: THUERK at DEC-MARLBORO

DIGITAL WILL BE GIVING A PRODUCT PRESENTATION OF THE NEWEST MEMBERS OF THE
DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY; THE DECSYSTEM-2020, 2020T, 2060, AND 2060T. THE
DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY OF COMPUTERS HAS EVOLVED FROM THE TENEX OPERATING SYSTEM
AND THE DECSYSTEM-10 COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE. BOTH THE DECSYSTEM-2060T
AND 2020T OFFER FULL ARPANET SUPPORT UNDER THE TOPS-20 OPERATING SYSTEM.
THE DECSYSTEM-2060 IS AN UPWARD EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT DECSYSTEM 2040
AND 2050 FAMILY. THE DECSYSTEM-2020 IS A NEW LOW END MEMBER OF THE
DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY AND FULLY SOFTWARE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER
DECSYSTEM-20 MODELS.

WE INVITE YOU TO COME SEE THE 2020 AND HEAR ABOUT THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY
AT THE TWO PRODUCT PRESENTATIONS WE WILL BE GIVING IN CALIFORNIA THIS
MONTH. THE LOCATIONS WILL BE:

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1978 - 2 PM
HYATT HOUSE (NEAR THE L.A. AIRPORT)
LOS ANGELES, CA

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1978 - 2 PM
DUNFEY’S ROYAL COACH
SAN MATEO, CA
(4 MILES SOUTH OF S.F. AIRPORT AT BAYSHORE, RT 101 AND RT 92)

A 2020 WILL BE THERE FOR YOU TO VIEW. ALSO TERMINALS ON-LINE TO OTHER
DECSYSTEM-20 SYSTEMS THROUGH THE ARPANET. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND,
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE NEAREST DEC OFFICE
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXCITING DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY.

The Reaction to that First Spam

Here’s just a snippet of some of the reaction…

10-MAY-78 23:20:30-PDT,1491;000000000001
Mail-from: SRI-KA rcvd at 5-MAY-78 1203-PDT
Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 5-May-78 0732-PDT
Date: 4 May 1978 1635-PDT
From: Feinler at SRI-KL (Jake Feinler)
Subject: MSGGROUP# 694 DEC Message
To: DEC-MAIL-RECIPIENTS:
Redistributed-To: [ISI]Mailing.List;154:
Redistributed-By: STEFFERUD (connected to MSGGROUP)
Redistributed-Date: 5 MAY 1978

Date: 4 MAY 1978 0452-PDT
To: FEINLER at SRI-KL
From: DCACODE535 at USC-ISI

JAKE,

YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED THE MSG SENT OUT BY DEC ON MAY 1 ABOUT WHICH I HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED SEVERAL COMPLAINTS AS YOU CAN READILY IMAGINE. CAN YOU FORWARD THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO ALL ADDRESSES OF THE SUSPECT MESSAGE PLUS ALL HOST AND TIP LIAISONS? THANKS:

NOTE: Please direct your comments, if any, directly to DCACODE535@ISI. Thanks, Jake.

ON 2 MAY 78 DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION (DEC) SENT OUT AN ARPANET MESSAGE ADVERTISING THEIR NEW COMPUTER SYSTEMS. THIS WAS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE USE OF ARPANET AS THE NETWORK IS TO BE USED FOR OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ONLY. APPROPRIATE ACTION IS BEING TAKEN TO PRECLUDE ITS OCCURRENCE AGAIN.

IN ENFORCEMENT OF THIS POLICY DCA IS DEPENDENT ON THE ARPANET SPONSORS, AND HOST AND TIP LIAISONS. IT IS IMPERATIVE YOU INFORM YOUR USERS AND CONTRACTORS WHO ARE PROVIDED ARPANET ACCESS THE MEANING OF THIS POLICY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

MAJOR RAYMOND CZAHOR

CHIEF, ARPANET MANAGEMENT BRANCH, DCA

10-MAY-78 23:20:30-PDT,2192;000000000001
Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 7-MAY-78 1527-PDT
Date: 7 May 1978 1527-PDT
From: Feinler at SRI-KL (Jake Feinler)
Subject: MSGGROUP# 695 Personal comments on DEC message for MsgGroup
To: Stef at ISI
cc: feinler
Redistributed-To: [ISI]Mailing.List;154:
Redistributed-By: STEFFERUD (connected to MSGGROUP)
Redistributed-Date: 7 MAY 1978

I was not going to comment (and add to the traffic) on the issue of the DEC message that was sent out, but after having several conversations with people about and around on this issue I think I will add what hopefully will be useful insight to the problem. NOTE: The comments are my own. They do not represent any official message from DCA or the NIC.

There are two kinds of message that have been frowned upon on the network. These are advertising of particular products and advertising for or by job applicants. I would like to point out that there are good reasons (other than taking up valuable resources and the fact that some recipients object) for not permitting these kinds of messages. There are many companies in the U.S. and abroad that would like to have access to the Arpanet. Naturally all of them cannot have this access. Consequently if the ones that do have access can advertise their products to a very select market and the others cannot, this is really an unfair advantage. Likewise, if job applicants can be selected amongst some of the best trained around, or if the applicants themselves can advertise to a very select group of prospective employers, this is an unfair advantage to other prospective employees or employers who are not on the net.

I have heard some rumblings about ‘control’ and ‘censorship’ of the net by the powers-that-be, but I feel in these two particular areas they are leaning over backwards to be fair to the big guys and the small guys alike. In addition, the official message sent out asked us (’us’ being network users) to address the issue ourselves. I personally think this is reasonable and think we should lend our support or otherwise be saddled with controls that will be a nuisance to everyone involved.

Regards,

Jake

10-MAY-78 23:20:30-PDT,3281;000000000001
Mail-from: SU-AI rcvd at 7-MAY-78 2058-PDT
Date: 7 May 1978 2057-PDT
From: MRC at SU-AI (Mark Crispin)
Subject: MSGGROUP# 696 in reply to Jake’s message about advertising
To: MsgGroup at USC-ISI
Redistributed-To: [ISI]Mailing.List;154:
Redistributed-By: STEFFERUD (connected to MSGGROUP)
Redistributed-Date: 8 MAY 1978

I agree with Jake about suppressing advertising for many of the same reasons as I disagreed with suppressing subjective messages about QUASAR. The ARPAnet is not, as Jake pointed out, a public resource; it is available to pretty much a select group of people (high school kids regardless!). We are all engaged in activities relating to, or in support of, official US Government business. ARPAnet mail therefore is more of an “interoffice memo” sort of thing than a trade journal, not intended for public distribution although not “top secret” either.

Even MsgGroup is in this class; however inappropriate QUASAR is to MsgGroup’s intent (and it was inappropriate) I feel that any censorship can only lead to worse things later on. I am sure that DCA realizes this also; otherwise the ARPAnet would have been curbed long ago. Whether or not QUASAR is a fake is a valid topic to be discussed among the computer science community via the ARPAnet; although it is inappropriate for MsgGroup. If there is sufficient interest, another group should be created whose purpose and interests embrace this issue.

I don’t see any place for advertising on the ARPAnet, however; certainly not the bulk advertising of that DEC message. From the address list, it seems clear to me that the people it was sent to were the Californians listed in the last ARPAnet directory. This was a clear and flagrant abuse of the directory!

I am not sure as to how far this should be carried though. I would not mind hearing from DEC about their new products via ARPAnet mail, but I would expect considerably more technical content and considerably less of a sales pitch. Where is the line to be drawn between this sort of thing (if it is to be allowed at all) and advertising? Another point Jake mentioned which concerns me is that of employment hunting (by employee or employer). Is that to be taken to mean that a person cannot establish contacts at another ARPAnet site and poke around about a possible position there? Is this really unfair to non-ARPAnet people? Allow me to point out that at times a job is created in order to have a particular person on the staff, and if that person is unavailable, the job won’t exist.

This all seems worthy of examination by the MsgGroup community, as it involves how electronic mail is to be used. Something else; I would greatly appreciate it if all comments about this make a distinction between ARPAnet mail and mail on another (possibly commercial) network. Saying that electronic junk mail is a no-no on the ARPAnet doesn’t answer the question. I shudder to think about it, but I can envision junk mail being sent to people who implement Dialnet, and no way it could be prevented or stopped. I guess the ultimate solution is the command in your mail reading subsystem which deletes an unwanted message.

– Mark

10-MAY-78 23:20:30-PDT,2250;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-AI rcvd at 7-MAY-78 2316-PDT
Date: 8 MAY 1978 0213-EDT
From: RMS at MIT-AI (Richard M. Stallman)
Subject: MSGGROUP# 697 Some Thoughts about advertising
To: stefferud at USC-ISI
Redistributed-To: [ISI]Mailing.List;154:
Redistributed-By: STEFFERUD (connected to MSGGROUP)
Redistributed-Date: 8 MAY 1978

1) I didn’t receive the DEC message, but I can’t imagine I would have been bothered if I have. I get tons of uninteresting mail, and system announcements about babies born, etc. At least a demo MIGHT have been interesting.

2) The amount of harm done by any of the cited “unfair” things the net has been used for is clearly very small. And if they have found any people any jobs, clearly they have done good. If I had a job to offer, I would offer it to my friends first. Is this “evil”? Must I advertise in a paper in every city in the US with population over 50,000 and then go to all of them to interview, all in the name of fairness? Some people, I am afraid, would think so. Such a great insistence on fairness would destort everyone’s lives and do much more harm than good. So I state unashamedly that I am in favor of seeing jobs offered via whatever.

3) It has just been suggested that we impose someone’s standards on us because otherwise he MIGHT do so. Well, if you feel that those standards are right and necessary, go right ahead and support them. But if you disagree with them, as I do, why hand your opponents the victory on a silver platter? By the suggested reasoning, we should always follow the political views that we don’t believe in, and especially those of terrorists, in anticipation of their attempts to impose them on us. If those who think that the job offers are bad are going to try to prevent them, then those of us who think they are unrepugnant should uphold our views. Besides, I doubt that anyone can successfully force a site from outside to impose censorship, if the people there don’t fundamentally agree with the desirability of it.

4) Would a dating service for people on the net be “frowned upon” by DCA? I hope not. But even if it is, don’t let that stop you from notifying me via net mail if you start one.

10-MAY-78 23:20:30-PDT,685;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-AI rcvd at 9-MAY-78 1528-PDT
Date: 9 MAY 1978 1827-EDT
From: RMS at MIT-AI (Richard M. Stallman)
Subject: MSGGROUP# 698 DEC message [VERY TASTY!]
To: Stefferud at USC-ISI
CC: Geoff at SRI-KL
Redistributed-To: [ISI]Mailing.List;154:
Redistributed-By: STEFFERUD (connected to MSGGROUP)
Redistributed-Date: 9 MAY 1978

Well, Geoff forwarded me a copy of the DEC message, and I eat my words. I sure would have minded it! Nobody should be allowed to send a message with a header that long, no matter what it is about.

Forward this if you feel like it.

[EDITORS NOTE: ACTUALLY, I THINK RMS@MIT-AI NEEDS SOME MORE COPIES. /STEF]

10-MAY-78 23:20:30-PDT,13632;000000000000
Mail-from: SRI-KA rcvd at 10-MAY-78 0921-PDT
Date: 10 May 1978 0910-PDT
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP# 699 [THUERK at DEC-MARLBORO: ADRIAN@SRI-KL]
From: Geoff at SRI-KA (Geoffrey S. Goodfellow)
To: msggroup at ISI
Message-ID: <[SRI-KA]10-May-78 09:10:14.GEOFF>

Begin forwarded message
===========================
Mail-from: DEC-MARLBORO rcvd at 3-May-78 0955-PDT
Date: 1 May 1978 1233-EDT
From: THUERK at DEC-MARLBORO
Subject: ADRIAN@SRI-KL
To: DDAY at SRI-KL, DAY at SRI-KL, DEBOER at UCLA-CCN,

[SNIP]… [SNIP]… [SNIP]… [SNIP]… [SNIP]… [SNIP]… [SNIP]