Digital Thoughts: Adware and the Permission Question
by Sam Harrelson
Adware is
an intriguing enigma. On the one hand, the platform offers
an incredible chance to market to consumers in an
ultra-targeted manner with laser precision. On the other
hand, adware has an unshakable stereotype attached to the
very definition of the term. Just as many legitimate
permission based email marketers are immediately tagged with
the “spammer” stigma, many ethical permission-based adware
developers and marketers are increasingly branded with the
“scum” label. However, adware is growing in acceptance both
within the industry and within consumers’ minds. Just last
week, two major articles on the subject appeared in top-tier
newspapers and business journals. How will the market
forces shape the future of this promising yet troubling
platform in the online direct response world?
One of
the keys to understanding adware’s future is to analyze the
ways that it is distributed to consumers. Adware’s storied
and short history includes a wide variety of distribution
models, from pops to toolbars, banners, downloads, bundles
and the questionable “drive-by” downloads. Some adware
finds its way onto a consumer’s personal computer through
clunky language in download agreements while others are
promoted by permission-intensive toolbar applications.
Clearly, applying the labels of “scum” or “invasive” to the
entire realm of adware is short-sighted and wrong. Adware
has an incredible amount of potential, both for consumers,
marketers and advertisers when done correctly with the right
amount of permission.
However,
as an industry we are not at that point of realizing the
potential of adware’s promises. In many ways, we fall far
short. Nevertheless, the network sector of the industry has
made strides to deal with publishers and agencies based on a
model that falls into the adware camp. Specifically, the
larger networks have begun to implement rules and
regulations which must be agreed upon by the publishers.
Violators face termination from the network and the loss of
revenue from cancelled agreements based on the violations to
terms and conditions. Consumer pressure certainly plays
into this decision. However, that is not the only, and
perhaps not the main, motivator for the networks. A
competing pressure is the price that networks can pay in
terms of bandwith charges, angried advertisers, and
opportunity costs of running a network associated with less
than ethical adware publishers.
As a
result, the industry is increasingly coming to terms with
adware and its complex repercussions. Permission is a
valuable cost-determiner, along with a key to lowering
opportunity costs in a network set-up. As a result,
networks are leading the way to adopt and appropriate adware
in its proper place in the online direct response industry.
However, many affiliates (large and small) are uneasy with
this kind of appropriation due to their past experiences
with the adware platform. The issue is incredibly intense
on industry chat-boards and discussion lists and ranges from
fever-pitch to complete distaste. Legitimate adware
developers and publishers who rely on the adware platform
must be able to differentiate themselves from their less
ethical kin and develop an ethos that is fundamentally based
on permission and transparency.
As 2004
continues, expect to see more discussion about the adware
phenomenon, more converts to the platform because of the
hard data, and some legitimate players rise up to carry the
torch in the field. The platform is too promising to fall
into complete consumer distaste and too valuable for
advertisers to ignore it for long.
Sam Harrelson
is the Co-Editor of the Digital Moses Confidential. Send comments and questions
to sam@digitalmoses.com
