Written by Brook Schaaf
Of all the industry jargon out there, few phrases are quite like Dan Sweeney’s vivid, unpleasant, apt “Serp Lice,” which he defines as “parasitic, hard-to-remove sites that infest branded search results.” Here’s the kicker: this isn’t trademark bidding by affiliates; this is trademark bidding by non-affiliates (he counts the SERP – Search Engine Results Page – to include all organic, AI-generated, and paid content).
Sweeney describes the technique: “They bid on trademarked terms without joining your affiliate program, often operating from Southeast Asia or Hong Kong. These sites are often inexpensive template coupon sites that promote hallucinated offers, and monetize through display ads (frequently via Google AdSense) and toolbar installs. They siphon high-intent traffic, undermine your brand integrity, and deliver zero user value.”
During Q4 last year, Creed Van Ryt of Atolls (formerly Global Savings Group) posted a list of offenders that seem to fit this criteria. He said he had collected a list of over 560 such sites. It’s important to be aware of this pattern because many will confuse these sites with affiliates, which will not help the reputation of our space. I brought this up with a network executive last year, and she acknowledged the problem but pointed out that this isn’t something they care about because they have no control or even influence over the situation.
Here’s another kicker: trademark bidding hasn’t gone away; neither have other methods of click insertion. In various conversations, informed people I’ve spoken with have argued that many of the compliance tools can be defeated. I don’t know if that’s true, but my sense is that most merchants don’t make use of them to begin with.
Interestingly, in a coincidence of timing, compliance heavyweights Ben Edelman and David Naffziger just joined Visible Performance Technologies, a monitoring company not previously on my radar. They can observe various kinds of affiliate click-insertions and other compliance violations, such as misleading deal copy (dear to my own heart). Edelman agrees that some existing methods can be defeated: “It’s a serious risk and a genuine problem. Cheaters have such a strong incentive to find gaps and exploit them to the utmost.”
Forgive me if this sounds superstitious, but it felt to me like the appearance of two adjacent but non-overlapping issues—one on the heels of the other means something. My musings:
• It seems to me there is a slowly gathering awareness that some past problems haven’t entirely been solved or that old solutions no longer work. The compliance arms race progresses, and new generation techniques are emerging.
• For its part, FMTC has had a great response to our Forbidden Codes feed.
• The solution to the non-affiliate issue may involve coordination with affiliates, such as sandbagging the paid results (Dan has more tricks up his sleeve that he can show if you ask).
In all probability, most merchants probably won’t make the necessary investment, though everyone should because misbehavior bleeds our space of trust. Assiduous in-house program managers and agencies have an opportunity to shine through their efforts and elevate the channel. They can not only right their company or client’s affiliate program, but by extending their observations beyond affiliates, they can probably uncover all sorts of chicanery in other channels, which will put ours in a good light twice over.
Last Comments