FireFox Extensions that Rip Off Affiliates & WebMasters

[Linda Buquet]

Important info from my 5 Star Blog, I thought you should know.

Webmasters I know (including myself) prefer FireFox for many reasons, but there are a growing number of FF extensions that hurt and literally ROB affiliates and webmasters of revenue. [b]One is just like Norton and blocks all common ad servers including Commission Junction (CJ) links like qksrv.net and Linkshare affiliate links, as well as all common banner sizes. See my article on how Norton Blocks Affiliate Links at http://www.5staraffiliateprograms.co...s-revenue.html and then read the description of the FF extension in the blog below and you will see the functions and the sites it blocks are almost identical.

There is even one that REPLACES Amazon links with your own. The description blatantly reads: "Exchanges Amazon affiliate ID’s with your own (claim the Amazon links on websites.)

Not an affiliate so you're not worried? Are you a blogger? Do you show Adsense or other ads on your site? There are numerous extensions to block Adsense ads listed below as well. Sheesh. Text link ads are NOT intrusive. Just ignore them, why block them?

Azam from NowSell.com writes a great review of this problem. See a long list of troublesome FireFox extensions at his blog: Webmasters, Could Firefox Be Bad For Your Health? http://www.nowsell.com/web-marketing...r-your-health/
He states:

Most of the scripts are fairly incouous and are designed to help users get more out of various websites... But MANY are designed soley to strip ads from pages, remove redirects and even change affilate links...

All (these Firefox scripts) are freely available for plug-and-play installation by every Firefox user. The number of scripts like this will only grow, unless people look at them in the same light as porn or warez, and put them in the same generally unacceptable bracket when it comes to providing hosting and promotion services.

What I want is a script I can put on my site that detects this sort of thing and redirects to a page saying, “ENTRY DENIED! We have detected you are blocking advertisements on our site. The creation and maintenance of this site is not free. Web hosting costs money. Our time designing, writing, editing, etc., is not free. The advertisements pay for the site. If you refuse to accept that, we refuse to accept you!”

My feeling on the whole ad blocking issue is this. People have the right to block pop ups because they are intrusive and often misused. People do not however have the right to erase, change block regular content on our sites. If they don't like ads they can ignore them or go to another site that is ad-less - IF they can find one.

What do you think???

[flood6]

I know that I'm not in the same ballpark as you, Linda when it comes to making money from affiliate and other advertising links, so I think I'm a little more forgving of these things. On some machines I use FF's AdBlock to squash nearly all ads.

I know I'm not going to change your mind about these applications, but they do have some very understandable uses. I'm not going to defend the ones that change one affiliate's code to another, I can't think of a single case where I think that would be acceptable.

As an interent user you've seen those insanse sites with 3 popups per page, blinking flash banners and ads all over the place. While mostly useless, sometimes these sites might have a scap of rare content that someone has been looking for answers someone's question; someone searches for "proper way to bathe an

[DrTandem1]

I think you're right. I'm not that familiar with Firefox's features. However, I don't want anything changing things on a page I'm viewing with the exception of pop-ups that aren't clicked to work.

I have read about Norton blocking banners. I think it blocked anything with the word banner in it. I also recall something about images that had the typical dimensions of banners being blocked.

Firefox may have had an overreaction due to the constant bombardment of advertising on web sites. I really dislike the Flash ads that open up all over the page when you happen to cursor over them. They seem to be very popular on the news sites.

It is an ever escalating war. People don't like most ads and have found ways to avoid them. Advertisers keep coming up with new ways to advertise. On and on the battle goes.

One that was really annoying was Gator. If you recall (are they still around?) they would replace ads and links on pages you were viewing with ads of their own.

My son somehow got it installed on his computer. It was similar to a virus. As I tried to delete the Gator files they would replicate. I think I was finally able to delete them by first renaming them. That was long ago.

If I was Google, I would be very concerned.

[dburdon]

Linda,

I can see your point of view. Nevertheless, one of the key attractions of Firefox is its blocking capability.

I'm driven nuts by pop ups, pop unders etc. And I'm getting fed up with Adsense ads everywhere.

Banner ads I'll tolerate as I know that's part of the implied deal of many sites that provide free content.

[OneMoreBite]

Originally Posted by Linda Buquet

Azam from NowSell.com writes a great review of this problem. See a long list of troublesome FireFox extensions at his blog: Webmasters, Could Firefox Be Bad For Your Health? http://www.nowsell.com/web-marketing...r-your-health/

Excellent topic, Linda, but taking the time to check the reference you mentioned shows the enormity of the problem and the pointlessness of bothering about it.

I first heard of the Norton ad blocking long ago and was troubled by it, until I remembered there are millions of Internet users who don't use Norton, myself included. There are also tens of thousands of users who may use Firefox but have no idea they could install extensions, much less that would.

I think I'm better off working on making the best site and product/service I can, than bothering myself about something I can do nothing about, but perhaps I'm sticking my head in the sand? Since these extensions are written by anyone who choose to create one, it's not like you're up against one big company who's opinion can be swayed.

I'm very interested to hear more on this subject.

Kathryn

[incrediblehelp]

Blocking pop ups and pop under are one thing but when you start to change the content or the way the website was built, someone got to say WAIT A MINUTE. Everyone threw a hissy fit when MSN and Google started to hot link your text and send those links to advertisers or SERPs and rightfully so. How is this different? It is my website and I choose to put advertising there. I provided the end user with great content and I choose to put some advertising next to that content. For Norton or an FF plug-in to manipulate the way my website appears in any way is unacceptable.

[kgun]

Personally.

I do not like pop ups / under.

My son, the future? uses Opera and has pop up blocking on. But he reads Norwegian newspapers, among them VG. How can you handle that I ask him? It is filled with Ad. I do not see it, he replies. But what about your unconsiousness I ask? He studies psychology and claims that it has no effect. I am not sure.

Branding takes a lot of forms. When Microsoft has a seminar in Norway, the room is filled with ???? yes parafume ...

A person from IBM once told me, Ad is about sexuality ..

How many answers a post posted by kgun?

How many answers a post posted by a woman where women are the minority?

In my own view, it is a natural law.

[phantomcat]

When television was in its infantcy the FCC determined that propriotory rights were to be awarded to a very select group of commercial broadcaster. "Commercial" being the operative word. The FCC then took measures to prevent pirates from inserting their own ads on. or over that frequency.
Firefox consists of frustrated hackers who have directed their misguided efforts to create havoc anywhere that won't subject them to prosecution. They are not concerned with their impact on ligitimate commercial business' as much as impressing their peers with their skills at legally hacking, and altering the content of internet content, including cmmercial websites.
[/b]

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by kgun

Personally.

I do not like pop ups / under.

My son, the future? uses Opera and has pop up blocking on. But he reads Norwegian newspapers, among them VG. How can you handle that I ask him? It is filled with Ad. I do not see it, he replies. But what about your unconsiousness I ask? He studies psychology and claims that it has no effect. I am not sure.

When I was a broadcast engineer I played literally thousands of spots. If someone called me right after I played one to ask a question about it, I couldn't even remember that I ran it. To this day, I will only remember/notice spots that are entertaining, and then I rarely remember the product.

Subconsciousness? I think I have developed a mental block to most advertising because I understand the hype and how it is made to connect with emotions. For instance, a montage of happy people eating potato chips does not translate to a message of eat potato chips and I'll be happy to me.

[ace1mc]

I was just reading threw this and I would have to say this. I have copyrights in USA and Canada on my web pages I built. So That would be a fringement on my copyright to make and pull things out of my web pages I built.
Something I will have to look at.

[southplatte]

Well, what if someone is watching a tv show, and during the commercials they go get a soda, go to the restroom, get some munchies, or call a friend? They just missed a several thousand to several million dollar ad, that some company is banking on them seeing to get brand exposure, product exposure, etc.

This is no different. What if 1/3 of the Internet block all the ads that they ever seen. How large would your market still be?

I am an affiliate for many things, and generally those who block stuff like that have seen the ads enough to not be interested in them anyway, or they are not ad people in the first place, so seeing the ad does you no good anyway in my opinion.

If you see a funny ad on tv, do you tell people about it? What's so funny about a banner or text ad? What is the usefulness in a page of content, and someone has thrown an adsense ad block right in the middle of the content, to make sure the reader sees it while reading the story. I generally go right past the ads and go on. Some sites go so far wrong I don't just block their ads, I block their site as in I never return to it.

I need the content I need, when I need it and don't have time, money or the want to have to scroll past three banner ads in the middle to two side sections and the four adsense ads that separate the paragraphs of how-tos, news or other content I am reading.

That's just me though and my take on it. The internet reaches globally, and if a few sales are lost on the affiliate ads or clicks lost and it is hurting your business or affiliate program earnings, it may not have been that great anyway. If you have 500 visitors, 10% click on your ad, and of that 10% 10% make a purchase where do you stand? Well, you just got 5 sales, say at an average earnings of 6-12% (unless affiliate payments have gone up) of the average sale of say $75. You earned how much? Well at 10% you just got $7.50x5=$37.50. This estimation is high, since most ads get what 1% conversion rates or less? So you have people who are affiliates of 10 banner exhanges, affiliate programs or ad networks....that place on average 7-10 ads per page, in hopes that they will get more exposure from placing more ads from different networks. The user sees, 7-10 ads, that he/she has probably seen on 10-20 other sites in the past 6 months (as most affiliate programs have a pool of 10-20 ads to choose from) that are members of the same ad network. The ad networks and affiliate programs really need to offer a wider assortment of ads to their users to differentiate it, it would do both the ad publisher and ad network better service, and more revenues. Adsense in my opinion is rather kind of dumb...I am selling services and products, and it searches my site for keywords, which it then uses to pull the ads to display....so my competition is in my ads - and yeah I can manually enter up to 200 urls to block the ads of these competitors, and this is relevant to my business and time effective? If the revenue I earn from them clicking on the ad should outweigh me gaining a client sale, great I will put more ads there....but other wise I am going to focus on getting clients to my site, and keeping them there and not letting them click away to some other site that sells the same thing I do....or maybe I have missed something on adsense??? My competitor has adsense...I get to click on his ad where it says "click here to advertise on this site" and now I can advertise on his site...unless he manually blocks me in his adsens account....the games google plays.

So yeah, blocking ads could be harmful....but the bottom line in my opinion is revenue from advertising has long been tossed out the window as a main source of income....why do you think all the main "free" sites that are covered by ads are now offered "paid" services? They need more revenue because after 10 years they are still operating in the red, but most of us cannot operate in the red or we would be closing our buisnesses, or finding a new job.

I played the game of just make a custom site with affiliate links, ads and put some good content on it and watch the money roll in. I have read the eBooks on how to make $10,000 plus a month from adsense. That is why the ad blockers exist, is the methods describe usually mean obsuring sites with ads, so the ads are the main focus to the eye, while to the search engines the content is the main focus generating good search placement for what the user sees as only ads.

Ace1mc brings up another great point agains the blockers though....if they hide, modify or somehow on the fly change the web page code, even after it has been delivered to the browser and the browser is what makes the change....is that copyright infringement? Could be....

[nerdbyte]

"If they don't like ads they can ignore them or go to another site that is ad-less - IF they can find one.

What do you think???"

Well, I embrace your concern and as a web designer/website owner of various domains, I fully understand what you mean.

But this issue reminds me of the music companies. Our users are changing but we're not following them, instead we're pushing against them.

I believe the answer is to find other ways to serve ads. Or other ways to refer products. Shouldn't we be giving people what they want? Pushing against them only seems to make us the losers.

[chandrika]

Noone complains when they go in the supermarket and are offered shelves of varieties of products and noone minds bill boards in the London underground.

Why the big deal about banner and adsense ads on websites. They are not like popups and unders which are the thing I think that has made people averse to all forms of advertising.

They are targetted so they are useful if you are researching a subject. Many people its the only way their site can get seen if they cant affrd SEO. Most people dont have budgets to be able to afford placing static links on websites, adsense ads give website owners an opportunity to offer their services and internet users a chance to see a wider variety of topics and products available relating to topics.

There are many bad things on the internet but adsense isnt one of them. In the past few months i have witnessed 2 people I know whose small businesses were failing, decent businesses, a small hotel and a wardobe fitting business, the business owners didnt have loads of capital to shell out on advertising campaigns, adwords/adsense provided them a way to reach their market without sending them broke and their businesses have turned around. It helps the little guys compete with the big guys. For that I think its great.

If it werent for things like adsense coming about, the only people who could afford to get their sites seen would be the those who were already successful with enough to spend to buy static space on sites, and we would lose all the cool small places that give us a little more variety than having to always go with the main players that can afford to pay to be seen.

I dont want to lose being given the opportunity to see sites made by people who dont have huge advertising budgets.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by chandrika

Why the big deal about banner and adsense ads on websites. They are not like popups and unders which are the thing I think that has made people averse to all forms of advertising.

I think the big deal isn't so much the banners, but the hijacking of the web space they occupy by another banner. Also, I think some block them because they never know what their children will see or download.

[TrafficProducer]

Cookie cutters Spy Wear removal causes removal of Cookies, which may also have a negative impact on payment to webmasters who spend a lot of time, and cash, pasting links on their sites.


So, Linda hay you notice a drop in revenue?


And at a time when more people are said to be buying off the Internet!

[Andilinks]

Well, the public wants this blocking at the browser level and there's really no way to fight it without looking like the brain-dead RIAA/MPAA, so you just won't be able to reach people who don't want to see your ads. Deal with it.

When pop-up blockers first arrived advertisers made the same complaint about "robbery" and "theft" but realized that forcing things on the public is just bad business.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Linda. The good news is that the people who block ads are the least likely ones to click on them anyway and the most likely to resist or resent any sub-conscious branding so you will be saving on bandwidth.

Oh, all of my online income is PPC javascript ads, so it's not like I want this blocking, there's just no way to stop it and it's a waste of time to try. Norton may well listen, but open source extension writers are mostly unreachable politically...

Andi

[DJ-Rg]

Firstly.. could you point me to which ext that Mozilla or FireFox supports that will replace your affiliate ad with mine?

I know of none that they support. Yes there are programs and code that will hijack pages or links and that is wrong, but it more prevalent with IE than FireFox.

There is even banners, usually iframe type that will unknowingly place malicious code on your computer.

Second.. Have your ever gone to site and though you had a popup blocker you still got a popup?

I use both FireFox and IE (i look forward to IE7) and i dont block non-intrusive ads as long as they are relevant to the site i am visiting.. YOU invited me, Please do NOT force me, when I say no. Thats like inviting me to your party and when i get there you force me to drink the whiskey (though i probably will accept).

Have you ever seen a page stripped of all its ads ..BLAH.. it makes for a ugly experience plus I dont want to miss something that i may be interested in - just dont force me. Most people are willing to look at a honest good deal. People that do block 'all' ads dont even amount to 1%.

Back to your attack on FireFox, show me any such ext that Mozilla or FireFox supports hijacking your links or page?

..hang on a sec, phone ..BRB ..guy on the phone says i just won a home entertainment center ..YAY! ...

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by southplatte

Ace1mc brings up another great point agains the blockers though....if they hide, modify or somehow on the fly change the web page code, even after it has been delivered to the browser and the browser is what makes the change....is that copyright infringement? Could be....

Nope. If I chose to view your site with a text-only browser (or a similar device) this would be "copyright infringement"? If I chose to hide all images because I am on a slow line - "copyright infringement"??? If I decide to switch off javascript for security reasons and therefor don't get any popups - "copyright infringement"?

If I bought a book and chose to tear out chapter ten completely (for whatever reason) - "copyright infringement"? If I archive newspaper articles and decide to cut out all Ads because they are irrelevant in my case - "copyright infringement"?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

What you all seem to miss is that the web is not print. The user is the king: How a user wants to view your content is up to him/her. If I use my own style sheets rather than those of your website, I can change the appearance completly - rearranging the content, hiding parts, changing fonts and colors ... whatever I want.

If it were not possible to block certain ads (I personally leave banners, I just block popups and -unders and flash), some sites were close to unusable. So what do you want: Having some visitors completely abandon your site or rather have them take all other things you have to offer? IF there IS something else to offer - if your site exists for the ads alone, your site would be pointless anyway.

It has already been mentioned: The whole advertising thing is grossly overdone. Sites opening 3 popups on access, or blocking the view with full-size flash ads with a an OK button where the close button normally sits ... come on. There is a certain contempt for the visitor behind this concept, and this now fires back. With collateral damage, of course ...

Originally Posted by nerdbyte

I believe the answer is to find other ways to serve ads. Or other ways to refer products. Shouldn't we be giving people what they want? Pushing against them only seems to make us the losers.

Couldn't agree more.

faglork

[mtheory]

Your site is appearing on someones computer by invitation. It is the end-users decision how they want to view your site. If they want to use software that blocks or replaces certain content I don't think you have a right to tell them they can't.

[mikesmith76]

Your site is appearing on someones computer by invitation. It is the end-users decision how they want to view your site. If they want to use software that blocks or replaces certain content I don't think you have a right to tell them they can't.

I have to agree with this comment, it is my PC it is my choice how I want to view a website. I can see why people are angry if their banners are being replaced by banners for another product / service, but if a user wants to block a banner that is their business.

[incrediblehelp]

OK then what about other media. Can I create a TV or device that blocks or replaces commercials and those pop ads on cable and the major Networks? Maybe I replace a Ford commercial with Chevy commercial because I am affiliate of Chevy.

Well I don't think the cable or major networks would be happy if this TV or component existed. The networks provide content in shows to the end user and it is their right to advertise as they see fit. If I created a device that replaced that advertising with my own (or just blocked it) and marketed it, wouldn't I get sued by the Networks?

I know Tivo is out there and you can record television and replay it without commercials. I am talking live TV, because that is what counts and is the most comparable to live content on the web.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Linda. The good news is that the people who block ads are the least likely ones to click on them anyway and the most likely to resist or resent any sub-conscious branding so you will be saving on bandwidth.

Andi

I did a short stint in sales and found that those that put up the most resistance to sales before they were even contacted were the easiest sales to make, if you got past their initial resistance. Thus, many are blocking to protect themselves from themselves.

There is always a backlash to anything taken too far. If it gets too profane, the people will rise up and demand censorship. If they aren't shown enough, they will scream about too much censorship.

Too many ads on TV, cable TV promised in its onset to be commercial-free. Too many ads on radio gave rise to satellite radio which I predict will be filled with advertising in short order, if it survives at all, and it doesn't look good financially. So, all of you who are paying $12.95/month or prepaid for life, get ready for lots of commercials or it disappearing altogether. (And no, Howard Stern won't save it. His schtick worked on FCC-regulated radio because he had a line he crossed. With no line, he has no schtick.)

Very few large content-oriented ventures can survive on subscription fees alone. As a matter of fact, I can only think of one and that's Consumer Reports. I have my doubts about their financial backing as well.

There is advertising disguised as content. Probably the most prevalent are articles on some product. Another popular method is the interview with a celebrity or "expert." Actually, they are pushing a book or movie. Then there is the more subtle ad as product placement in the movies or TV. If you can identify the product in a movie or TV show, it cost the advertiser a ton of money.

Subliminal advertising, which the previous example is a form, can take much darker avenues to reach its intended targets. Its effectiveness is debated, but I think that it is very powerful, if done "correctly."

"Correctly" may be illegal, such as splicing in an ad on a single frame of movie film. It goes by so fast, that you won't notice it consciously. For instance, you won't even notice, let alone be able to read "You're thirsty, Drink Coke" at that speed, but you will have an undeniable urge for a Coke.

So, here's the rub. If everyone is successful at blocking all forms of advertising, advertising won't pay. Without the revenue from advertising, there will be no way to financially support the content you seek on a wide level of availability.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

OK then what about other media. Can I create a TV or device that blocks or replaces commercials and those pop ads on cable and the major Networks? Maybe I replace a Ford commercial with Chevy commercial because I am affiliate of Chevy.

Well I don't think the cable or major networks would be happy if this TV or component existed. The networks provide content in shows to the end user and it is their right to advertise as they see fit. If I created a device that replaced that advertising with my own (or just blocked it) and marketed it, wouldn't I get sued by the Networks?

I know Tivo is out there and you can record television and replay it without commercials. I am talking live TV, because that is what counts and is the most comparable to live content on the web.

Advertisers feared VCRs because people zipped through their spots. Yes, the same fear with zappers has risen from TiVo. The fear is baseless. I'll prove it to you Sunday, February 5th and it will be documented everywhere on Monday, February 6th.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Advertisers feared VCRs because people zipped through their spots. Yes, the same fear with zappers has risen from TiVo. The fear is baseless. I'll prove it to you Sunday, February 5th and it will be documented everywhere on Monday, February 6th.

Because we as a public are interested in commercials one time a year, that makes us year long lovers of them? Me thinks not.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

So, here's the rub. If everyone is successful at blocking all forms of advertising, advertising won't pay. Without the revenue from advertising, there will be no way to financially support the content you seek on a wide level of availability.

Right so that is why the blocking or replacing of contextual advertising, banner ads or whatever I choose to put on my website is bogus and will only lead to less quality websites on the web.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Because we as a public are interested in commercials one time a year, that makes us year long lovers of them? Me thinks not.

No, it proves that put in the proper context, entertainment, commercials are not objectionable. This is not a "one time a year" thing. It is the unveiling of what you will see throughout the year. These are the ones willing to put up the big bucks and give it their best shot.

Some will be great. Others will be flops. Other spots will be seen for more reasonable rates at other times of the year. For more information, visit:

http://www.clioawards.com/home/

[Linda Buquet]

So many sides to this issue and so many great points have been brought up. I can relate to and agree with almost all of them. I was hoping this topic would create a lively debate and it has!

As a user I agree that I should have control of my desktop and what I view. However as a webmaster and an advocate for affiliate rights I also feel that we OWN our sites and they are our property and we should have some rights too.

When I BUY a domain, INVEST time and money to Build and Create a web site, PAY for marketing... well it's MY property and you don't have the right to deface it or change it - except for usability (disability reasons like making text bigger) or to strip something if I am doing something unethical or intrusive (like pops). ESPECIALLY if I am letting you use my site all you want - for free.

Brick and mortar analogy: I buy a store, build it and stock it with products. I have sales and product signs in the window and hanging from the ceiling above each product display after you walk in. You can come in and browse or window shop for free all you want. You do not have the right to block or tear down my signs though because they are mine and I own the property. If you don't like my signs then don't use my store for free. Go somewhere else!

I know there are a million ways to look at this. But that's my stance.

TrafficProducer said:

Cookie cutters Spy Wear removal causes removal of Cookies, which may also have a negative impact on payment to webmasters who spend a lot of time, and cash, pasting links on their sites.

So, Linda hay you notice a drop in revenue?

Yep that's another one of my pet peeves and I blog about cookie blocking quite often too.
http://affiliate-blogs.5staraffiliat...ookie+blocking
My best estimate is that 20 - 40% of affiliate sales are not tracked on some of the BIG networks due to cookie blocking.

I know all of this is just a fact of life on the net.
I don't so much have a problem with savvy surfers who KNOW what they are doing and choose to block ads or delete cookies. I do have a problem though when average JoeSurfer buys or downloads software or adds an extension that he thinks will protect him from something "bad" without realizing it's stripping content he may be interested in. I have a BIG problem when articles and AntiSpyware tells Joe ALL cookies are bad so he lets them be deleted. Then he gets frustrated on sites because they don't remember him or he can't check out and gives up and does not buy online at all. I don't have a problem with Joe for blocking the ads or deleting cookies. I have a problem with the apps that take advantage of Joe by selling him something due to fear hype that affects his ability to surf and shop online even if he wants to.

Thousands of Norton Internet security shoppers for example request tech support from affiliate sites, online malls and even HUGE site like the Wall Street Journal who say - I came here because I wanted to buy X but the link is missing, or I see the link but can't click it, or I saw some text about this product I wanted more info on it but theres a blank spot so I think your site is broken and the product is missing. This happens A LOT. Joe wants to buy or wants to click for more info and does not realize an app on his computer is blocking his efforts.

Norton and that Firefox extension block ANY image that is traditional banner size - EVEN if it's YOUR SITE LOGO or a Pic of your CHILD on your own site.

So how do you feel if your own logo and site pics that aren't banners are stripped from your site so your customers who WANT to see the info can't??? How would you feel if 20% of your visitors had just seen white spots where your logo was supposed to be for 3 months until finally someone with Norton asked you why you had a big blank spot at the top of all the pages of your site??? How would you feel if you tested Norton and saw that not only was your logo and half your images missing but they were not just blocked - they left big white spots that made your site look "broken" and they were totally stripped out of your source code???

Ok, so what if you aren't trying to even sell anything. What if you are a web designer and build a site for a charity or a church and people who WANT to donate or want more info can't cuz the more info or donate buttons are a certain size and therefore get blocked?

Oh-oh, I'm starting to rant!!! Better shut up. Your turn. ;-)

[incrediblehelp]

I am not saying that we hate or love commercials and I think we are getting off the subject to much here as we were talking about advertising on the web. I am no pro when it comes to advertising through media like TV, I was simply making an analogy between the end user being able to remove advertising on tv and the internet.

[DJ-Rg]

this is getting funny ..for two reasons ..the first is the topic here is

..FireFox Extensions that Rip Off Affiliates & WebMasters

that is so wrong ..like i said i use both IE and Firefox ..i do use the Google Bar with IE and it does a better job of blocking than FireFox.. IE7 will have the same abilities ..i also use Microsoft Anti-Spyware (eliminating cookies and grey and spyware i dont want)

you also said. "There is even one that REPLACES Amazon links with your own. The description blatantly reads: "Exchanges Amazon affiliate ID’s with your own (claim the Amazon links on websites"

Please show me what extensions you are talking about, you wont find them at the Mozilla/FireFox supported site. (prove me wrong)

you say, "Norton and that Firefox extension block ANY image that is traditional banner size - EVEN if it's YOUR SITE LOGO or a Pic of your CHILD on your own site".

again, i use FireFox and i see all the banners, text ads, and flash. I just dont get most pop up/under/slider ads :-)

Pic of your Child? now that sounds like scare tactics.. how do you know that/ ..i went to your affiliate site and i dont why you would want to put your childs pic there?

please dont take this personal, i am only elaborating my point ..i am sorry but you are wrong about firefox.

on the positive, if someone goes to your site, i would assume they would want to link up to affilates? Would there be another reason? so i would also assume they wouldnt block anything in regards to affiliate marketing. so whats the bum?

are you saying you want to ambush surfers at sites with unrelated banners? you didnt click on my banner so here's a in-your face pop under or exit ad?

are you saying hard working webmaster should build sites and for a lack of not having anything to sell ..just try to sell you anything ..thats insane.

there's more sound and sensable ways to make money. if the site has value, a product or service, then it will sell itself.

again show me a Mozilla/FireFox supported extension that will hack your links. if you can? :-)

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I am not saying that we hate or love commercials and I think we are getting off the subject to much here as we were talking about advertising on the web. I am no pro when it comes to advertising through media like TV, I was simply making an analogy between the end user being able to remove advertising on tv and the internet.

And the analogy was an appropriate one!

Going on to what Linda is saying...

She compares a brick-and-mortar business with a web site. I think she makes a valid analogy, but misses the mark just a bit. For example, local ordinances prohibit certain signage on brick-and-mortar businesses. Local code enforcements control the interior of the business. Federal laws enforce accessibility.

Yes, the intellectual content may be the property of the web site owner and others related to its content; however, the browser (or TV set, or radio, etc.) belong to the end-user. The end-users have an absolute right to passively filter any content or view/monitor it any way they choose.

If someone surreptitiously places a program that changes or reports on an adult end-user's browser or other reception device or their browsing habits, then I have a problem with it.

[mtheory]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

OK then what about other media. Can I create a TV or device that blocks or replaces commercials and those pop ads on cable and the major Networks? Maybe I replace a Ford commercial with Chevy commercial because I am affiliate of Chevy.

Well I don't think the cable or major networks would be happy if this TV or component existed. The networks provide content in shows to the end user and it is their right to advertise as they see fit. If I created a device that replaced that advertising with my own (or just blocked it) and marketed it, wouldn't I get sued by the Networks?

I know Tivo is out there and you can record television and replay it without commercials. I am talking live TV, because that is what counts and is the most comparable to live content on the web.

You're missing the point. It is not the network or advertiser that determines what the END-USER watches, It is the end-user's choice.
So make a device that replaces the network commercials with your own. If the end user likes your commercials better and uses the device, that is their choice.

[Andilinks]

Yes, the Firefox extension and other things like it will change the nature of the web if their use becomes widespread, probably for the worse and it will hurt you and me.

There's been a lot of whining and wringing of hands here but no one has had any suggestions about what to do.

The analogy to TV is apt. Because of Tivo and other commercial zapping devices you are seeing more of those little ads along the bottom during programming, sometimes animated. We are also seeing many quality programs going to pay channels like HBO and Showtime. Finally there is more and more product placement within the programming.

So to follow suit, advertisers on the web will have to be more creative in placing ads. Use non-standard sizes for banners, and integrate the products and ad links into the content in ways that they can't be blocked.

Trying to stop the use of these extensions or other blocking devices is like spitting into the wind. Don't do it, you'll be sorry.

Andi

[DJ-Rg]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

So to follow suit, advertisers on the web will have to be more creative in placing ads. Use non-standard sizes for banners, and integrate the products and ad links into the content in ways that they can't be blocked.

Andi

Andi you hit the ol' thumb with the hammer. advertiser need to become more creative and respectful of the consumer.

FireFox or Microsoft are not as much making things worse as they are listening to us as consumers. Its what the consumers want.

How many times of we heard, "It is a wise man that listens and not speaks." If you're a good marketer then you should listen to the comsumer.

Perhaps the ad blockers are the consumer speaking, are we listening yet?

BTW ..Linda you still havent shown where those 'link eating' extentions are? ..hhmmmmmm

[msandersen]

Originally Posted by Linda Buquet

When I BUY a domain, INVEST time and money to Build and Create a web site, PAY for marketing... well it's MY property and you don't have the right to deface it or change it - except for usability (disability reasons like making text bigger) or to strip something if I am doing something unethical or intrusive (like pops). ESPECIALLY if I am letting you use my site all you want - for free.

Brick and mortar analogy: I buy a store, build it and stock it with products. I have sales and product signs in the window and hanging from the ceiling above each product display after you walk in. You can come in and browse or window shop for free all you want. You do not have the right to block or tear down my signs though because they are mine and I own the property. If you don't like my signs then don't use my store for free. Go somewhere else!
...

I know all of this is just a fact of life on the net.
I don't so much have a problem with savvy surfers who KNOW what they are doing and choose to block ads or delete cookies. I do have a problem though when average JoeSurfer buys or downloads software or adds an extension that he thinks will protect him from something "bad" without realizing it's stripping content he may be interested in. I have a BIG problem when articles and AntiSpyware tells Joe ALL cookies are bad so he lets them be deleted. Then he gets frustrated on sites because they don't remember him or he can't check out and gives up and does not buy online at all. I don't have a problem with Joe for blocking the ads or deleting cookies. I have a problem with the apps that take advantage of Joe by selling him something due to fear hype that affects his ability to surf and shop online even if he wants to.

You contradict yourself; you say I shouldn't have a choice to block ads, you get uppity and call it 'defacing', but then say you don't have quite as much a problem if I know what I'm doing. The whole issue with Microsoft's adwords was that they wanted to hijack a page and link to their own advertisers. The uproar rightly forced them to retreat. Any program like Gator which attempts the same or similar is similarly unwelcome. Some software like Spyware removers try to be alarmist about things like cookies to attract customers. However it's not about 3rd party programs on your computer hijacking content, programs should always be clear and upfront about what they do and act ethically, it's about consumer choice. And let's face it, FireFox (or IE) extensions can only affect what I personally see, not every visitor to your site.
Marketers naturally don't want consumers to have Choice, at least not ones of their OWN choosing. If I find ads on a page intrusive or simply don't like to be brainwashed, or simply want to reduce the bandwidth overhead, well that's MY choice, and thankfully you don't have a say in it. With traditional media, the cunsumers don't have a choice. There's no function on the TV or VCR to blank out the ads (we don't have TiVo here, so I don't know what it can do; I did read TiVo had to remove the ad-removing function for Cable TV). We can't turn off the Neon signs or tons of other in-your-face garbage we're assaulted with everywhere. We're pissed off because it's massively abused, it's overkill. Let's not even go into subliminal product placement advertising on TV and in Hollywood. If there's a space without an ad, it is considered wasted. So we as users relish the chance to take control in a new media where we DO have the power to fight back. Personally, unobtrusive banner ads don't bother me, but ad-laden pages that get in the way of the content do, like ads in the body. I block common ad servers through my Hosts file, so nothing on the page is altered even. I use the "Block Images From..." function in the Contextual menu for annoying ads. This does affect other ads in other places which may not be obtrusive.
And your bricks-and-mortar analogy is patently ridiculous. We're not talking about users hacking your webserver and removing content they disagree with, we're talking about users blocking ads on their computers in their browsers, which affects only them. They customise their browsing experience to suit them, NOT you or your advertisers. We have an absolute right to filter or alter the content of the pages we see. And for you or anyone else to get uppity and suggest we don't have that right, is not only arrogant, but offensive.
If the default behavior of FireFox or moreso Internet Explorer was to block all ads, then you could rightly be worried, since most users don't change the defaults and are frequently ignorant of them or how to change them. The default to kill unrequested popups are quickly killing them, and rightly so. But all this thread is concerned with are user-installed extensions that they have to go to a website and download and install to use. A small minority do this, and it is their choice. The extensions wouldn't be there if there wasn't a demand, and if not, it will remain an unused collection of extensions.
So what's the problem?

[chandrika]

I havent tried it yet, but I found this software which is supposed to protect affiliates from the use of parasite softwares that try to steal your commissions.

http://covertlinks.com/

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Mtheory

You're missing the point. It is not the network or advertiser that determines what the END-USER watches, It is the end-user's choice.
So make a device that replaces the network commercials with your own. If the end user likes your commercials better and uses the device, that is their choice.

huh?

When did we choose what to see or not as far as commercials go?

Just because I choose to watch something doesn't mean I get to "own" it or control the advertising that comes with it. Sure I can change the channel when the commercials come on or pay a premium service like HBO not to see any commercials, but I cant "change" the commercials that are being shown to me or add commercials to the channel and rightfully so.

My main point is not so much that the ads are being blocked (all though I still don't like it), but rather they are being changed or manipulated into something that they were not originally intended for. This is is just plain wrong.

[jackson992]

I'm sorry but no I am the only owner of what is on my sites. Noone has the right to change anything in any shape or form. Seeing the ads is the price you pay for visiting a site. If you don't want to see them you can leave the site but no one has the right to not be able to see them.

[mtheory]

Originally Posted by jackson992

I'm sorry but no I am the only owner of what is on my sites. Noone has the right to change anything in any shape or form. Seeing the ads is the price you pay for visiting a site. If you don't want to see them you can leave the site but no one has the right to not be able to see them.

The fact is that these programs are not changinging your site in the least bit. It still exists the way you created it. Just some end-users may choose to view it differently by using or installing certain software.

If I hire someone to cut out all of the ads out of a magazine before I read it, that is my choice.

If you think you have the right to dictate how someone views your site on THEIR computer is a little arrogant to say the least.

[Andilinks]

If you think you have the right to dictate how someone views your site on THEIR computer is a little arrogant to say the least.

It is unfortunately not the end user that is deciding, it is a programmer that embeds the ability to change or delete ads on the end user's computer simply by persuading (or tricking) the user to install some software and click "I agree" to an EULA that is never read.

Sometimes it is a well meaning Firefox extension writer, sometimes it is a criminal malware developer but the result is that the ads are changed or deleted without the end user making a choice or even knowing what happened.

[mtheory]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

It is unfortunately not the end user that is deciding, it is a programmer that embeds the ability to change or delete ads on the end user's computer simply by persuading (or tricking) the user to install some software and click "I agree" to an EULA that is never read.

Sometimes it is a well meaning Firefox extension writer, sometimes it is a criminal malware developer but the result is that the ads are changed or deleted without the end user making a choice or even knowing what happened.

That's exactly right. My point is, under that scenario, the only parties that have any standing in that relationship, good or bad, are the end-user and the software maker.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Mtheory

That's exactly right. My point is, under that scenario, the only parties that have any standing in that relationship, good or bad, are the end-user and the software maker.

OK under this scenario if I am content provider then the only way I can make money from my content is to be subscriber based so "software" can mess with my pages all they want as long as I get my monthly fees from my customers.

It shouldn't have to be that way.

[Andilinks]

It shouldn't have to be that way.

That's absolutely true. But the old cliché about the Internet being the "Wild West" applies here.

There is effectively no law out here. The thief is protected by the difficulty and slowness of due process and the impracticality of building a case.

Besides, trying to say blocking ads is theft won't get you much sympathy with the public. If you were to win a court case you'd be winning the battle but losing the war, the game will have already changed and passed you by.

Have a shot of whiskey cowboy...

[brucet]

Let's try not to react the way the music industry first reacted to MP3 downloads! The technology is out there now, and it's not going to go away. It may end up becoming widely adopted, or not, depending on consumer demand. My guess is, it won't. And here's why.

For a start, Microsoft will be very reluctant to see it made available for Internet Explorer, because MSN gets most of its own revenue from advertising.

Secondly, even if the technology got built into browsers as standard, it would be a bridge too far to have it enabled by default. So most people would not enable it. Of those that did, most would disable it again - because to most users, the effects of ad blocking will be more irritating than the actual ads. IMO you've got to be a bit of a control freak to prefer a web page with bits missing to a page that's nicely laid out and visually attractive, even if some of the content is advertising.

Thirdly, most people accept advertising because it reduces the cost to them as individuals at the point of use. Far more people buy publications that consist solely of advertising than publications that don't contain any advertising at all! People even tolerate advertising in publications (and TV channels) that they pay a subscription for. Indeed, if someone is wanting to buy something, an advert is often the first place they look.

The same is true online, and will remain so.

I do agree that flash ads that block the page content you are trying to read are unbelievably annoying. But I think they are only a short-term experiment. The level of irritation they cause to users will eventually force site owners to drop them altogether.

[_azam_]

Thanks for the kind words, Linda. I hope people find the information useful (I'd better fix those typos!).

Actually, the article sat on my hard drive for 2 months while I was doing other things, so there are almost certainly even more of these plugin scripts by now.

Already Firefox is the browser used by somewhere between 10 and 14% of all surfers.

That's a LOT of people.

Whilst true that only a percentage will make use of plugins at all, the numbers can only continue to grow, especially with Google pushing it both directly and by paying Adsense publishers for every download. This, and the wide range of scripts makes Firefox a potentially a bigger problem than Norton.

Due to the comments made here, I've done a follow-up post on my blog:

Blocking Ads and Stealing Commissions With FireFox.

[orfeo]

I am really surpised to read website owners saying that "the user should do whatever he wants".

I strongly disagree. Try going to your local video club and changing the way that the movies are placed in the store. Or tearing down the posters because you think they are annoying.

I believe that most of the people that are not annoyed by ad-blocking software are people that make sites for others and not people that pay their rent from advertising revenues. I don't think I am greedy but the deal is clear.

I work hours to provide you (the user) content of some quality. I give it to you for free and all I ask from you is to see and, whenever you feel like, react to advertisement. If you don't like the deal just leave. Why should I pay e.g $1 for a person that browsed my whole site and consumed 1G of data tranfer and get nothing back because he "chose" to not see ads. In what logic is that fair? Is it my fault that some sites abuse ads?

Just a final thought. I believe that the newer VERY annoying ads that cover the page are a direct result of pop up blockers. And if the whole ad-block move becomes stronger then wait to see more. I think it is unavoidable that we will see more and more TV like ads. You will have to see a 5,10,20 second ad and then you will be free to access the site for a day or an hour.

my thoughts...

[jnmsnow]

Originally Posted by southplatte

Well, what if someone is watching a tv show, and during the commercials they go get a soda, go to the restroom, get some munchies, or call a friend? They just missed a several thousand to several million dollar ad, that some company is banking on them seeing to get brand exposure, product exposure, etc.

This is no different. What if 1/3 of the Internet block all the ads that they ever seen. How large would your market still be?

Is this not what happened to ReplayTV? They had to take the automatic commercial skip function out of their new units. Because it taking away from the advertisers.

[kerer99]

Great thread - lots to read, so I've only skimmed (thoroughly though!)

Is the internet decending into aNaRcHy? Seems like everybody is doing what they want, and what is in their own best interests. It's difficult to say who's right and wrong because there are no real set of rules to follow.

Different governing authorities monitor and govern different types of media, but the internet is still a pretty free medium. This is what most people agree has made the internet so great, but maybe it's become too big for the laissez faire approach?

As a (rare) full-time employed affiliate marketer, losing revenue to browser extensions, link hijacks, etc. is a frustrating experience. Sometimes it seems like I'm the owner of a small store who keeps on having problems with petty theives, but who also doesn't have the budget to invest in a proper surveillance system.

Regardless, as the search engines continue to become huge corporate entities and as more and more people worldwide use the internet, these types of problems will continue. It will be interesting to see what will be the internet newsmakers of 2006...

[Linda Buquet]

Hi _azam_, I noticed your 2nd blog on this topic realier today. Thanks for posting the link here to add to this discussion.

To msandersen who says:

You contradict yourself; you say I shouldn't have a choice to block ads, you get uppity and call it 'defacing', but then say you don't have quite as much a problem if I know what I'm doing.

I was basically saying what Andilinks said here:

It is unfortunately not the end user that is deciding, it is a programmer that embeds the ability to change or delete ads on the end user's computer simply by persuading (or tricking) the user to install some software and click "I agree" to an EULA that is never read.

Average Joe surfer half the time does not know what he is installing and what the sw is doing. Sometimes he wants to do product research and buy and has no idea that the sites he is looking at are not "broken" but are stripped due to software he downloaded because of a a pitch that the software would protect him from hackers, theives and spyware.

I just answered another post that's sort of a take- off on this discussion - it's about 3rd party cookie blocking and deletion, and also a little about parasites. Linking to the thread in case it helps someone and it is a direct tie-to what we are talking about here.
http://www.webproworld.com/posting.p...=reply&t=59000

[_azam_]

DJ-Rg continually implies this is all a figment of Linda's imagination or something, for which there is no proof:

Back to your attack on FireFox, show me any such ext that Mozilla or FireFox supports hijacking your links or page?

BTW ..Linda you still havent shown where those 'link eating' extentions are? ..hhmmmmmm

again show me a Mozilla/FireFox supported extension that will hack your links. if you can? :-)

Don't be misled by this if you've just joined the thread.

Linda said in her first post:

Azam from NowSell.com writes a great review of this problem. See a long list of troublesome FireFox extensions at his blog: Webmasters, Could Firefox Be Bad For Your Health? http://www.nowsell.com/web-marketing...r-your-health/

As you would expect, my blog links to the proof.

[TGO]

Fun post to read.

I have to say the TV industry is quite pissed off at the Bittorent community. Why you ask? Not because we dont need cable tv subscriptions to see it, its because we strip the advertisements before its shared on the net. This has them in a uproar as its their largest source of revenue. If we left the commertials before we shared them they probably wouldnt care about us sharing them.

I have to say, My site is my site. Dont change/edit my free content that I spent countless hours creating for you. My websites are my creative works, and my property. I have a right to display the site the way I want it seen. If the use does not like my site they have a close button on the browser for them. I dont force them to visit my site, they came there to get something from it that they wanted. And should not be able to block ads that I place. The example of a blockbuster is good as its the same thing, they plaster ads everywhere in their store. They are all "contextualy targeted" to your venue just as adsence, or affiliate links. Yet you cant complain or remove them as its their store and they can display what they want on their property.

Edit - you would have a right to complain if they started posting Porn posters everywhere, then they become intrusive like popups.

Some of my sites users have used 2gb bandwidth themselves per visit. I use CPM ads on lower CTR pages(no pops ever) and if these are blocked even the view does not count. This hurts my end of the month pay. I offer over 15gb of free data/info and spent countless hours making it one of the best in its niche. What gives a user that did nothing the right to change my property to his likeing for his visit.

I am not fighting these ad blockers as its useless, I am just pointing out some things as this problem is just begining to show its face on the net.