To Active-X or not to Active-X?

[Jokerman]

Okay, here's a program that you'll either love or hate, depending on your virtual politics.

You can visit their site and read their privacy statement, TOS, etc. here:
http://www.addictivetechnologies.com/

Is it Spyware? Here's what they say:
Absolutely not. Spyware is defined as software that is installed without the consumers knowledge that tracks personal surfing habits, reads on line forms, captures credit card information or other personally identifiable information and is not listed in add/remove programs on the users computer. NetPal does nothing of the sort. Our free games that we give away to consumers provide a valuable benefit, we have a pay version available with no adware available, as well as a free version that includes adware so the consumer clearly has a choice and our software is 100% listed in add/remove so that if a consumer decides to remove the ads, he/she may do so quickly and easily.

Why do I like this program? Because it's so damn lucrative. They pay 25c per install for an exclusive contract (you agree to only run their Active-X prompt on your site) and 20c for a non-exclusive contract. You get a $500 bonus when you reach 25,000 installs. It works on a triple prompt, which asks you three times "Are you sure you don't want to install?" (or some such) Annoying to some visitors, sure, but also a highly effective method of securing installs. I find that an average of about 5% of prompts result in an install. That works out at 50 per thousand, or an effective CPM rate of $12.50 (50 x 25c). If you have 10,000 uniques a day, that's $125.00 per day.

You could get the install rate higher if you popped the prompt more than once per unique visitor. When I did that, I was getting over 10%. But the downside is that you will drive your visitors crazy. Hence, popping it once per unique and settling for 5% is the better option - assuming repeat visits matter to your site. After all, you run a web site to make money, not to provide a free service to freeloaders who'd rather block all your ads and have a free lunch at your time and expense, so one triple X propmt per visit is fair payment and to hell with the moaners.

If there is a better way to make an effective CPM rate of $12.50 with an Active-X prompt, I've yet to find it.

[cheznoir]

Mindset interactive are the jerks that started the whole bho craze. Ask them about their early technology and fun things like blackstone.

If they are so proud of their product, why do the use domains by proxy to hide their whois?

And finally, would you install this on your own PC? If not, why are you installing it on someone elses?

Also, unless you have 10,000 new visitors, and never any repeat, your cpm figuring is wrong.

Chet

[emmzee]

The fact is that if you have 10k unique users per day, unless, as cheznoir points out, those 10k are totally unique each day (ie never been to your site before) you will quickly lose a lot of your traffic by showing ActiveX "ads".

For example, I would never run ActiveX ads on my own sites, since 30-50% of my traffic comes from type-in repeat visitors ...

It all depends on how far you're willing to go to get the $$$. There's absolutely no logical reason why anyone would ever want the Addictive Technologies software installed on their computer, given stuff like this:

VX2 reports back to its servers with URLs you have visited, things you have entered into web forms (even 'secure' ones), your computer configuration and software you have installed. If your e-mail address is set up in Outlook Express it will be sent to Mindset Interactive to be sold to spammers.

The software updates itself silently and the License available on VX2's web site specially reserves the right to have it automatically install any other "third party software" at all.

http://www.pestpatrol.com/pestinfo/v/vx2.asp

Therefore, the only people with this installed have had it installed simply because they are naive or accidently hit the wrong button. I've had to remove this thing from my brother's computer because it was messing up his web browser, and he had no idea where he got it from. Is it his own fault? Partially, but I would prefer that I didn't have to constantly be on guard while surfing the web, on the lookout for potentially harmful programs being installed on my pc ...

[Jokerman]

Okay, first off: as regards defending AT or the merits of their service/product, that's not my job; and I have no intention of posturing as their self-appointed spokesman, no more that I will preach sermons about the merits of products advertised on banner ads. If they want to hire me, I work cheaply.

"If they are so proud of their product, why do the use domains by proxy to hide their whois?" - Cheznoir

I see no reason why they should hide their Whois info. If they do, so what? Full contact information is readily available for them on their web site.

"Also, unless you have 10,000 new visitors, and never any repeat, your cpm figuring is wrong." - Cheznoir

The way this works is that once they install it, it no longer prompts them to do so. Naturally, that will show a reduction in your installs over time - if you have the same repeat visitors every day. But show me a site with the same punters day in and out and I'll show you a stagnant site. Probably 20-30% of my visitors are repeats, the other 70-80% aren't. Hell, over 60% are hits from search engines, not , by definition, folks who have you in their favorites. So, that reduction isn't detectable for all practical purposes. I would allow 20% for residuals after a month or so, and even then, you understand that only 1 in 20 (5%) installs, so you're looking at 5% of 20% - tiny percentage. The math, of course, will be particular to each site's dynamics.

"And finally, would you install this on your own PC? If not, why are you installing it on someone elses?" - Cheznoir

It is installed on my PC. Simply because I got fed up clicking the "I don't want this ****" prompt. But what is your point here? I wouldn't install Linux, but that is not a valid reason for instructing others not to do so. I wouldn't drink Jack Daniels, either. But hell, feel free to drink as much of the stuff as you like. I'm liberal.


emmzee, you can always find someone to sing your praises and another to damn you.

In the quote you mentioned "VX2 reports back to its servers with URLs you have visited, things you have entered into web forms (even 'secure' ones), your computer configuration and software you have installed." Well, here's what AT say on their web site's privacy policy: "This Software product does not read online forms. This software may collect the following information upon installation: IP address, Location of Country, and Time Zone. No other personal Information is collected. At no time do we sell your information without your permission. At times we may present you with special offers; however you may choose to stop receiving these offers at anytime by simply uninstalling the software." So, they outright deny that claim.


Edited to obstructive correct typing error.

[fireklown]

I find "5% of prompts result in an install" to be a tab bit high

Actually EXTREMELY high. with the exception of little kids, and old people, most people know right off the bat not to install an active X prompt. 9 times out of 10, nothing good is going to come out of it. I actually made the mistake of runing a campaign with netpal for about a month. Seemed awesome to start, would make me a fortune. By the end of the month, maybe one out of every 2000 actually resulted in an install. And at the same time my traffic dropped 35%

[cheznoir]

Wow, i hadn't realized it was still the joshua abrahms beast - vx2.

Talk about the lowest of the low on the net, I wouldn't let joshua (whom i have spoken to in length on the phone numerous times) wash my car, in fear he steal my hood ornament.

wow.

the site is even still there.

http://www.vx2.cc/


http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,49960,00.html

I thought it was a bad idea then and I still do. The original VX2 (i pretend to have no knowledge of their current system) actually captured everything you typed into your browser and sent it - and then at a later time decided what to delete. It basically was a browser key logger.

May I never be in such a hard spot, that I am so desperate as to promote these people.

Chet

[Jokerman]

"Wow, i hadn't realized it was still the joshua abrahms beast - vx2.

Talk about the lowest of the low on the net, I wouldn't let joshua (whom i have spoken to in length on the phone numerous times) wash my car, in fear he steal my hood ornament.

May I never be in such a hard spot, that I am so desperate as to promote these people." - Cheznoir

Oh, I don't know, you just might be. Maybe he'll read where you libeled him and take offence? It's your call, but a smarter man would delete such a defamatory remark; and a more ethical one would not have made it.


"I find "5% of prompts result in an install" to be a tab bit high

Actually EXTREMELY high. with the exception of little kids, and old people, most people know right off the bat not to install an active X prompt. 9 times out of 10, nothing good is going to come out of it. I actually made the mistake of runing a campaign with netpal for about a month. Seemed awesome to start, would make me a fortune. By the end of the month, maybe one out of every 2000 actually resulted in an install. And at the same time my traffic dropped 35%" - fireklown

Okay, so 5% is too high in your opinion, but 0.002 ("one out of every 2000") isn't too low? Interesting sense of balance there. If your figure is that low, you must have forgot to install the code.

People can try this program and make up there own minds about it. I've had installs go as high as 160 per 1000 (16%). 10% is achievable by running the code on more than one page. 5% is a good average (1 in 20). After several months, that's still what it works out at.

Plus, they pay on time and I can honestly say I haven't observed any stat-scrubbing. But then, if they are scrubbing stats, that would mean a higher install figure than 1 in 20.

[Steve_S]

Please excuse the interuption.

Please do not engage in personell attacks. Vigourously debate the issue in a civil and respectfull manner but please don't engage in personell attacks.

If I still havent made myself crystal clear, please don't hesitate to contact me via our BB Feedback Form and only this form.

Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

<Note to team: Ban forever if non compliance continues and lock.>

[sitebroker]

jokerman - thank you for showing us this idea...

I think people should make up their own mids, if they like the idea of the program, then go for it. If you think it is stupid, then don't - its that simple.

I am certainly going to try it...but maybe with some more undevelopped stuff - rather than my best sites - I'll see what happens

[wsz]

If the thread title means, "Would you do this or not," then I say a definite, "NO." The only situation where I would even consider it would be some throw-away, cheap-n-nasty, hit-and-run, type of site. It is just too obnxious / intrusive for loyal visitors.

The OP says:

show me a site with the same punters day in and out and I'll show you a stagnant site.

I say exactly the opposite. Look right here where you just posted - a thriving, busy forum, generating lots of fresh daily content, from repeat visitors. We keep coming back, seeing new ads, and contributing to the usefulness of the site, which then attracts more viewers.

And this site is also an example of the issue of intrusive ads. Steve experimented briefly with a drop-down box appearing over the site, upon arrival. Apparantly, it was too much, so now we have the less-intrusive pop-under, filled with useful links. That is "thottling-back" for the overall good, and keeping the repeat traffic.

It is installed on my PC. Simply because I got fed up clicking the "I don't want this ****" prompt. But what is your point here?

The point is called, "coercion," and people don't like it. And think about whether it even serves the advertiser, and merchant, in the long run?

"That site tried to hijack me! I'lll never go there again (and never see the CPM ads, and never click the CPA links..)!"

People can try this program and make up there own minds about it.

And they can also blab on Usenet and other forums about how obnoxious they think it is, and how everyone else should avoid it.

[Jokerman]

Well, I would say that if your site has no unique features to draw visitors and they can easily switch to a 10-a-penny alternative site, then you should avoid this program - and probably webmastering too, as you're clearly not contributing anything original or unique to Internet users. It's not for the meek.

If, on the other hand, you have a captive market because you offering something unique, then maximize the monetization potential and use the program.

[cheznoir]

Jokerman, what about sites with your content that do draw visitors, and those visitiors keep coming back and growing the site because they are not assaulted by downloads?

I guess you don't get the repeat visitors to understand this. And I guess caring about my visitors and thinking having intgrity is a good thing, makes me meek.

Chet

[Steve_S]

<Spot on wsz. >

Iv'e said this before and will continue to say it.

1. Regardless of which side of the isle you sit, these are business decisions. No more and no less. I'm not here to tell you how to run your mainstream site. Thats a business decision that only you can make with the obvious loss of visitors and a dimishing revenue stream after a year or more, if not sooner. I respect your desire to run your mainstream site as you see fit.

2. In these parts of the universise, make your case in a civil and respectfull fashion. Thats the only way to garner real support for your position in this Community.


3. We have had real luminaries in this regard. Quoting uncle Josh/Czar:

"Yes, lwrules is Sanford Wallace, who used to refer to himself as Spamford, and as the self-proclaimed 'King of Spam' when operating Cyber Promotions back in 97. He also championed mouse trapping and other controversial practices in the early days of his transition from email to web publishing. I have been surprised all through this thread that none of our Geeks (particularly those who have long frequented abuse boards and/or Slashdot) noticed this earlier."

The full thread for your reading pleasure which works it's way into the active x install. See:

http://www.geekvillage.com/forums/sh...5&pagenumber=1

4. It's interesting to note that Sanford no longer does the active x thing at:

http://passthison.com/

The site says: "Due to new laws being enacted and controversy surrounding our business model, we have voluntarily decided to implement the cease of all current business practices by the end of June 2004."

And YES! lwrules/Sanford is welcome to return and post since part of what we are trying to do here, is inform you with facts about what your options are.

5. "If, on the other hand, you have a captive market because you offering something unique, then maximize the monetization potential and use the program." Respectfully, no thank you. I said this 3 years ago and will continue to say it:

From my 9/03 Post which also applies to active x web browser stuff. I'm not familar with the current crop of .exe downloads which is a much more complex issue to examine. The historical nature we can document in our previous posts is quite interesting to follow and you can clearly see how it started and what it has become today.

"Changing your visitor’s home page setting in their browser without their prior authorization is morally and ethically reprehensible. These are the same words I used 2 years ago and they were carefully chosen to eliminate certain “defenses”.

You can’t abrogate this action with something in your TOS. If you do, it’s still morally and ethically reprehensible since you haven’t given your guest a clear and unambiguous way to either issue a denial or a authorization before you do it.

In my view, a prior authorization means exactly this:

You require an explicit check box select/action from the user. This action appears below a clearly worded statement in 12 point type on exactly what you will do to their Home Page browser setting if they agree by turning on the check box and also includes a clearly worded instructions on exactly how they may change this if they so desire. This statement should also be easily available via a translate button in the other primary languages of the world like Spanish, Latin , French, and many more.

If you want to send the guest to never never land if they don’t agree to the change via turning on the check box, that’s your right because it’s your site. "

[lwrules]

After reading through this thread quickly, I just have one opinion to share at this time.

First off, Passthison's change in business model addresses silent downloads, not active-x.

With that said. If using active-x increases your eCPM enough to compensate for loss of *some* visitors, then there is absolutely ZERO reason *not* to use it in my opinion.

By using active-x, you are seeking PERMISSION to install software. Assuming you do so in a way that is not designed to TRICK your users into downloading anything, then you are doing ASBOLUTELY NOTHING wrong and it is within your rights to do so. Just like pop-ups, if you use active-x to monetize your site, it's your decision. In my experience, I don't believe it will scare away too many visitors as long as you don't popup too many screens per session.

Sanford Wallace

[cheznoir]

Sanford, serious question.

If there were no laws against walking into your neighbor's house and taking money off their kitchen table. Would you?

Chet