
Facebook's 3rd Biggest Advertiser is a Bing Affiliate Scam - joshfraser
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_3rd_biggest_advertiser_is_a_bing_affilia.php
======
jbk
So funny to see Zugo around...

They've had offered us to bundle their 'nice' toolbar inside the VLC installer
so that every install of VLC would have install this thing...

And they proposed a very high value for each install...

~~~
spoiledtechie
well, Im glad you didn't. VLC is by far the best Vid player out there and only
is getting better. I hate spam and the non-super users would sadly
accidentally install it.

~~~
xiongchiamiov
_VLC is by far the best Vid player out there_

Only if you aren't watching files with, say, ordered chapters, or comments
inside the SSA files.

Granted, that's most of the population, but there's a very particular dislike
of VLC in the animu community, although some of the commonly-stated criticisms
have since been fixed.

~~~
jbk
This is true.

And while, the SSA situation was catastrophic, this is now fixed, I believe
(even comments).

The ordered and linked chapter in MKV is still not resolved... Patches are
welcome.

------
JacobAldridge
I wonder if Bing has seen an uptick in searches for 'why has Google changed
colours' and 'why is Google now spelled Bing'?

I suspect the mystery of the changed homepage and new toolbar is, to many
users, alongside the mystery of why the printer sometimes doesn't work or my
cell phone drops out when I'm still in the living room. 'It's technology. It
happens. Nothing I can do about it.'

Which I guess means Zugo [Edit - actually, Make-my-baby.com] is manipulating
the uneducated (in a tech sense). Borderline business behaviour, though a well
thought out and executed strategy.

~~~
dangrossman
It's too soon to blame this on Zugo, unless you know more than was stated in
the article. As far as we know, they're just a custom toolbar distributor,
like Conduit and many other companies. How many people away they are from the
affiliate buying the ads, how many people away they are from the company
paying that affiliate, and whether any terms and conditions in-between forbid
tricking people into installs are all unknowns.

~~~
lreeves
Zugo can certainly take some flack for having a toolbar without an
uninstaller, and an FAQ URL that doesn't work. When something becomes
purposely difficult to uninstall for end-users it crosses over into malware
territory.

------
cookiecaper
I really liked this quote: "Between the incredible growth of casual games that
arguably do little for the collective human experience but consume a growing
amount of it each day... it's hard sometimes to take Facebook seriously when
it says it wants to bring people together and make the world a better place."

~~~
w1ntermute
> casual games that arguably do little for the collective human experience but
> consume a growing amount of it each day

Who's to say that whatever people were doing with that time before was doing
something significant "for the collective human experience"?

~~~
alex_c
Facebook games (and MMOs in general, for the most part) are designed tightly
around a feedback loop meant to make the game as addictive as possible. It
strongly reminds me of experiments where rats are given a choice between
eating and receiving a shock of pleasure:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure_center#Experiments_on_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure_center#Experiments_on_rodents)

The worst part of these games is that they can act as a surrogate for success:
your life may not be progressing in any way whatsoever, you may have goals and
aspirations that you are not pursuing, but you are getting rewards and
constantly progressing in a game - I'm not sure how good our brain is at
distinguishing between real and virtual rewards (especially when the virtual
rewards are guaranteed, but the real rewards are... well... hard).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_system>

All this is to say: other potential time wasters (TV is probably the most
common) may be less likely to cause addictive and/or harmful behavior (I can't
believe I'm arguing that TV may be less harmful than video games, but there it
is). Sure, the majority of people can play causal games strictly in their
downtime, but for some it spills over into what may otherwise be productive
time, and for a relative few it can take over (where do you think Zynga's
revenue is really coming from?)

~~~
simonsarris
There was an article on this I read a year ago called Awesome By Proxy:
Addicted to Fake Achievement

[http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/11/awesome-by-proxy-
addicte...](http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/11/awesome-by-proxy-addicted-to-
fake.html)

~~~
alex_c
Thanks for that link - excellent article.

------
NZ_Matt
To be fair, Facebook isn't the only ad network filled with dodgy ads. Matt
Cutts wouldn't have to look far to find other similar "scams".

~~~
Alex3917
What I really like is when I'm showing my friends a YouTube video and suddenly
there's a pop-up with my health information.

~~~
ajju
Are you serious? Got an example?

~~~
Alex3917
I don't have a screen shot, but I do get text pop-ups from Google on top of my
YouTube videos with things from my search history. For example, "Is leg pain a
problem in your life? Go to [...]." (This actually happened.)

Just yesterday I got one from SpecialTeas.com which said something like "We
miss you at SpecialTeas, please come back."

The point is that it's not cool to be showing someone a YouTube video and then
all of a sudden not only are there ads showing up based on my search history,
but the ads are actually incorporating my search strings and purchase history
directly into their text. Especially when these have to do with personal
issues, medical problems, etc.

Is there anyone here who wouldn't be uncomfortable if they were in a movie
theater with their family and friends and all then without any warning they
suddenly started projecting your Google history and credit card purchase
history from the last 5+ years? (Both of the examples listed were drawing on
searches I had done 3 to 7 years previously.)

~~~
DevX101
At least it wasn't a Valtrex ad.

------
harshpotatoes
_Update: That word million doesn't seem right, in order for this company to be
the third largest advertiser on Facebook, that's got to be a typo. It's
possible that AdAge mistyped this, that's the simplest explanation. I've asked
the reporter for clarification and apologize for not getting it prior. Thanks
as always to our eagle eyed commenters._

They are noting in the comments that 1.75 million ad impressions would
probably only cost the advertiser a few hundred dollars, which would make it
difficult for that to be the third largest advertiser considering advertising
brought in a $1.86billion. I don't know anything about the cost of
advertising, but do those numbers seem right?

~~~
metageek
Maybe the long tail really does drop off that fast. According to the "Facebook
is a Ponzi scheme" article ljlolel posted [1], most Facebook advertisers
experiment for a while, then give up; that would make for a long tail and a
steep curve.

[1] <http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/facebook-is-a-ponzi-scheme>

~~~
harshpotatoes
I've been thinking about it, and I think that another possibility is that
there is no drop off, just a very flat curve with all companies spending a
very similar but low amount, meaning the only reason facebook earns money from
advertising is through the high volume of companies advertising on facebook.
This makes sense in my mind, because I have a hard time believing google
spends less than this unheard of company. But, your explanation seems equally
likely at the moment...

------
ljlolel
I'll say it again, Facebook is making ephemeral cash flows which bolster more
investment and thus attention and thus more ephemeral cash flows. Facebook is
a ponzi scheme: <http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/facebook-is-a-ponzi-scheme> .

~~~
fleitz
Warren Buffet became one of the richest people in the world based on ephemeral
cash flows. (See Berkshire Hathaway and buying for cashflow)

You realize that the amount of cash printed is insufficient to even pay back
the US Debt. The economy for the most part is a ponzi scheme. It will only
stop working when the birth rate slips below the death rate, and at that point
humanity is on a timeline. As Keynes said, 'in the long run we're all dead'.

The primary question with Facebook is how much more revenue they can suck up.
Thats what's driving the crazy valuations and so far they haven't stopped
booking revenue.

~~~
DevX101
See below for population distribution of the U.S.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uspop.svg>

The people at that bulge in the middle are now in their late 50s. When they
start to die and sell their assets all at once, we're going to see a major
devaluation in the stock market, and real estate.

~~~
beoba
They won't be selling everything at once; it'll be distributed over 30-40
years. They don't have that much saved either:
[http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/working-americans-
have...](http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/working-americans-have-almost-
no-retirement-savings.html)

And, on top of all that, following the hump is another (albeit smaller) one
filled with their kids.

------
DanielBMarkham
_Either way, I think that prompting people to give access to their browser's
settings under false pretense, and then changing their search provider and
home page, is unethical._

Yes, I completely agree. I have several non-technical friends on Facebook who
have been tricked into installing browser helpers (BHO) and it's disgusting.
Every so often they post some kind of ridiculous advertisement in their status
bar -- only it's not them, it's their browser doing it. It's like some hi-tech
version of Tourrette's Syndrome.

But, playing devil's advocate -- and I love devil's advocate because when it's
done well it makes you think -- there's nothing wrong with trading a cute
interactive session of making a baby with setting the user's home page, or
changing their browser, or selling them stocks, or taking all their money from
their bank account, _as long as the user knows the trade-offs they are
making_. People do all sorts of stupid things for ten minutes of
entertainment. It's the trickery part that makes it a scam.

So the next obvious question for me has to be: what do these guys need to do
in order not to be a scam? Make the text bigger? Bold? Have a flashing sign?
Since a BHO can do all sorts of nastiness -- including things they are not
currently designed to do -- how do you adequately inform the user of what kind
of trade they are making?

Chrome has a nice way of doing this where you approve of the types of
information you are allowing the helper to have. Still, even then there have
been many times when installing something in Chrome that I've thought "Do I
really want this particular widget having this kind of access? How do I know
that the developers won't change what it does with my information on some
future version?"

I am concerned that many of these articles sound like "See the witch! Burn the
witch!" -- mindless mob thinking. I know it's much easier to sell salacious
articles by pumping yourself up and being the superhero speaking out for truth
and justice and all, but from a logical standpoint I'm much more interested in
what specifically is wrong with a particular practice and what steps need to
be taken to make it better. Demonizing these guys -- even if they are total
assholes and are out to trick and cheat and steal everybody they find --
doesn't do much as far as advancing the discussion along for the rest of us. A
little bit more analysis and information, a little bit less emotion, please.

~~~
invisiblefunnel
Dark Patterns wiki (<http://wiki.darkpatterns.org/Home>) does a great job of
identifying ux trickery, with a nice undertone of "See the witch! Burn the
witch!"

------
notahacker
Afaik I've never seen a single impression of that ad.

It would be interesting to know whether their ad targeting algorithm has me as
in the _unlikely to be interested in baby pictures_ demographic or in the
_people that have previously reported scammy ads_ demographic...

To be fair, hijacking ad click revenue seems a lot less underhand than some of
the "Scamville" advertisers...

------
codelust
I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Facebook or MSFT and I do lean a bit
favourably towards Google, but the article is a good representation of what is
wrong with reporting on Tech/Digital these days - so much of it is just
absolute breathlessness.

There is precious little in the story save what is already provided by Matt
Cutts and there is this little gem towards the end:

"Is no one minding the store? Or are they just minding the cash register and
turning away from what the customers are up to?"

That entire sentence could very well turn out to be true, but for the time
being it is just opinion, which, after enough people repeat it, becomes a
fact.

------
fleitz
Next thing you know people will be making 'free' browsers just to capitalize
on the search revenue.

~~~
barrkel
A browser used by the user for browsing the is huge distances away from
browser plugins that hijack the home page for purposes unrelated to the
initiating task.

~~~
fleitz
Perhaps bing works better when searching for baby face making sites.

[http://ask.metafilter.com/70731/Why-is-Google-Toolbar-
bundle...](http://ask.metafilter.com/70731/Why-is-Google-Toolbar-bundled-with-
everything)

I've certainly seen Google's toolbar bundled with pretty much anything not
related to searching the web. Yes, it's easier to remove, but it's damn
annoying after clicking Next Next Next, that Google Toolbar is installed.

Also, you'd never find a shitty site like baby-face-maker or whatever
advertising on Google.

------
nestlequ1k
Seems really weird that facebook would allow this type of ad. I know, "money
is money", however with too many scammy advertisements, eventually people will
lose trust in all ads and the overall click through rates will drop. You would
think Facebook would want to have some controls over this to avoid devaluing
their main source of revenue.

~~~
blackysky
they do have an ad control but it is very hard to control those shady
advertiser... they are ready to do anything to bypass any rule .. ask google
about that ...

------
lookforipv6
Another reason to stay away from clicking anything inside Facebook. Once I
though they were amazing, now sadly I can see that as many other companies it
is just money, no matter how.

~~~
mauriciob
I believe people here know better, but that should be the advice to anyone who
uses Facebook.

------
neworbit
I'm astounded Zynga isn't in the top ten advertisers on Facebook. Playdom
probably is lumped into Disney these days, but unless Zynga's ad lab is named
named Official IQ Quiz I don't see them here at all...

------
apedley
Trust Matt Cutts to find this and comment on it. :)

I wonder if he would have said anything if it was the switching default search
provider to Google.

~~~
Matt_Cutts
_cough_ <http://www.google.com/corporate/software_principles.html> _cough_

apedley, in 2002 (2003?) or so, I spent a large fraction of my Christmas
holidays with my in-laws in Omaha trying to uninstall all the scumware that
had gotten on their machine. I was horrified to find out that Google had a
business deal with one of the companies I found on my mother-in-law's
computer. A bunch of us came back from that break determined not to spend next
Christmas uninstalling scumware. We quickly kicked that scuzzy company out and
put in place the guidelines linked above to keep Google from monetizing
scumware/malware/etc.

Google may bundle its toolbar with some applications, but to the best of my
knowledge we always insist on clear disclosure that the toolbar will be
installed (we don't want users to be tricked) and easy removal. If you're
aware of any counter-examples, please let me know and I'll ask someone to
investigate it.

By the way, the best method to prevent scumware that I found back in those
days: installing Firefox. No new scumware after the Firefox install plus some
basic education.

------
poppysan
Maybe it's my naivety, but how are they a scam?

