John Andrews is a Competitive Webmaster and Search Engine Optimization Consultant in Seattle, Washington. This is John Andrews blog on issues of interest to the SEO community and competitive webmasters. Want to know more?  Competitive Web & SEO
November 20th, 2006 by john andrews

Google Negotiating Access to Lightpoles for Google WiFi

This is not SEO, but it is about Google and Google’s desire to “own” municipal WiFi. Google and Earthlink have a partnership for WiFi in San Francisco, and it seems Google is also, in addition to the partnership with Earthlink, asking for separate “real estate” rights on 1500 light poles in San Francisco.

Light poles have power (obviously) and are maintained clear of trees and vegetation, and generally have a line-of-site view of their neighbor light poles. Remember when cell antennas showd up on top of water towers across the nation? Now Google wants to put WiFi repeaters (?) on light poles.

I think Google Local has only just begun.

Kimo Crossman posted this to Seattle Wireless, and also noted :

When Brian Roberts of DTIS, the city IT department staffer that is performing the negotiations testified at a public hearing on Friday 11/17 he didn’t reveal this major development even though the discussion happened at least a week earlier.Streaming video here of 11/17 hearing is available at

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
November 20th, 2006 by john andrews

The Competitive Web and Affiliate Marketing – doomed?

At Pubcon I got into a conversation about affiliate marketing. I hold the position that affiliate marketing is a temporary opportunity, and not one for long-term investment. By my read, an affiliate is useful for only as long as the more traditional sales process is unable to satisfy consumer demand. As soon as a more traditional sales model catches up and is able to satisfy demand, the affiliate is an unnecessary middleman and should be “disintermediated”.

The attraction of affiliate marketing to buyers is largely based on convenience. I can sell without handling product, and do it using technology that I happen to control rather easily. The attraction of affiliate marketing to  sellers has largely been based on technology. An affiliate is able to use technology to reach customers (such as through SEO tactics) at a lower cost than the seller or her traditional distributors.

I also don’t enjoy getting ripped off, and I believe (based on experience) that the affiliate game is ripe with rip offs. Affiliate networks and upstream affiliates running sub-affiliate programs can “skim” with little if any accountability. Much like traditional industry turns to “monetize the channel” when end-user profits get squeezed (to make money off of the distribution and sales channel…often at higher profit rates that the product sale itself), the affiliate programs are monetizing affiliates as well as vendors. As vendor profits get squeezed by the market, the affiliates represent an opportunity for additional profits.

Those of us who run test purchases through vendors and affiliate programs know they often fail to track, thus failing to pay commission. We usually can’t know exactly why that happens.

So when I read of yet another cookie washing scheme by an affiliate system seller, I was reminded of that conversation. Here’s the summary of it (discussed in detail at abestweb forum):

First you, as affiliate, signed a contract with the seller regarding terms of the business partnership. You will refer traffic to their ecommerce solution, and they will provide a means for tracking that referral (by a browser cookie) and crediting you with the sale. The cookie term is very important, because the longer the cookie term, the longer you have to capture a sale that may take time to close. If a visitor takes a look today but doesn’t buy, your cookie persists in their browser. If they return to buy at a later date, and it is within your cookie term, you still get the sales commission.

In the case reported at abestweb, the selling company also contracted another business (besides you) to work on “abandoned shopping carts”. When a shopper carts an item and then doesn’t buy it, the ecommerce website knows (by the cookie) enough information to follow up with that potential customer if desired. This third-party to your affiliate arrangement sends a follow up e-mail to the potential customer and tries to induce them to come back and actually buy. In this case, free shipping was offered as an inducement. As you can imagine, it has a high success rate. They are able to “convert” a large percentage of abandoned shopping carts.

And they provide this service to the seller for “free”.

How can that be? Well, they overwrite the existing cookie (yours) with their own (they, too act as an affiliate) and thus get the commission on the sale. And since abandoned carts can really only be converted right away (at the buying opportunity) this is done within YOUR contracted cookie term. In effect, the seller has contracted out the same commission twice, and you will lose. Twice. Here’s why.

First, you spent the cost of acquiring the customer. The cookie-washing company was handed the customer’s data for free as part of the shopping cart abandonment process. Second, you don’t get the commission. So that’s a double whammy on your bottom line.

Think this  is outright theft? Well, I doubt the intent is there. I doubt the seller actually knows what is going on, because the cookie washing is integrated into the shopping cart software. Legally, however, of course it is a problem for the seller who has violated her contract with you (and probably her contract with that cookie-washing system vendor). But it’s only a problem if the affiliate pursues it.

I think the affiliate game is a mess in progress or a mess about to happen, depending on where you sit. It exists as an industry because of a technology opportunity, but that technology has now advanced considerably. If your technology has not similarly advanced, so that you can detect, counter, or avoid additional threats like the one mentioned, then you will be the target of the “channel monetization”. Your productivity will be funding the system, as it sells product for minimal margin and the other players live off the profits drawn from your contributed “free” efforts.  That’s not my idea of a winning business strategy. How about you?

If I had to project forward and make predictions about the online ecommerce affiliate future (and of course I have to do that because I am an affiliate) I would expect that the affiliate model would now become much more HIGH PROFILE, promoted more heavily by vendors and affiliate networks. You will see more “make money as an affiliate” activity than ever before as this problem increases and affiliate profits are trimmed back. Networks and vendors will provide more advanced (and thus simple) programs, with javascript links and “easy” accounting. The reason is simple – as it gets easier to be an affiliate (have a computer? Work from home!), and harder to keep savvy affiliate marketers in the program (who wants to lose money to cookie washing?) the sellers/networks will need many more, less-savvy affiliate marketers to maintain sales.

The vendors/networks can say “let those who understand the process choose to work elsewhere”, with no need to apologize, and then induce an army of naive affiliate marketers to join and refer traffic. I expect it to get to the point where those who understand the game will consider it “ridiculous” to be an affiliate, and yet still the sellers will enjoy a steady stream of new affiliates signing up looking for the chance to make money the easy way. It won’t change until the system crashes under the weight of maintenance of that large volume of low-producing affiliates. Everybody knows it’s the Super Affiliates who drive sales, and Super Affiliates won’t suffer the cookie-washing and other cheats. They will find another way to earn their commissions.

Looking back on the Pubcon conversation, is this the wrong time to become an affiliate marketer? Not at all. But as has always been the case, things are not as they seem. You will have to innovate and work hard and pay attention. You will have to ptimize your business before someone else optimizes the profits they pay you. In general, it is not easy money, and won’t be getting any easier. But while the opportunity that comes to you is not likely to be a good one, it may be what you need to get into the game. But if you are just joining the game, I do think you need to achieve Super Affiliate status as fast as you can, so you can achieve a position of influence with vendors, and avoid getting eaten alive by the scams.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
November 19th, 2006 by john andrews

Drinking the Gool-Aide™

I noticed a high percentage of SEOs at Pubcon openly proclaiming a commitment to “white hat” SEO. These were not just wanna-be’s either. In discussion, they were very knowledgable of SEO and plenty experienced/successful as competitive web masters. Many of them loved Google’s webmaster tools, sitemap, analytics, and *gasp* even toolbar.
The Google Kool-Aide is mighty tasty to many folks. I’m calling it Goolaide™

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine

Competitive Webmaster

Wonder how to be more competitive at some aspect of the web? Submit your thoughts.

SEO Secret

Not Post Secret

Click HERE


John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John




comments policy



Recent Posts: ★ SEO Industry Growth, Widespread Failure, and SEO Industry Challenge ★ Do you want to WIN, or just “Be the Winner”? ★ 503: GONE ★ Cloud Storage ★ Identity Poetry for Marketers ★ PR is where the Money Is ★ Google is an Addict ★ When there are no Jobs ★ Google Stifles Innovation, starts Strangling Itself ★ Flying the SEO Helicopter ★ Penguin 2.0 Forewarning Propaganda? ★ Dedicated Class “C” IP addresses for SEO ★ New Domain Extensions (gTLDs) Could Change Everything ★ Kapost Review ★ Aaron Von Frankenstein ★ 2013 is The Year of the Proxy ★ Preparing for the Google Apocalypse ★ Rank #1 in Google for Your Name (for a fee) ★ Pseudo-Random Thoughts on Search ★ Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, or a Blog ★ The BlueGlass Conference Opportunity ★ Google Execs Take a Break from Marissa Mayer, Lend Her to Yahoo! ★ Google SEO Guidelines ★ Reasons your Post-Penguin Link Building Sucks ★ Painful Example of Google’s Capricious Do Not Care Attitude 


☆ about

John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John

☆ navigation

  • John Andrews and Competitive Webmastering
  • E-mail Contact Form
  • What does Creativity have to do with SEO?
  • How to Kill Someone Else’s AdSense Account: 10 Steps
  • Invitation to Twitter Followers
  • …unrelated: another good movie “Clean” with Maggie Cheung
  • …unrelated: My Hundred Dollar Mouse
  • Competitive Thinking
  • Free SEO for NYPHP PHP Talk Members
  • Smart People
  • Disclosure Statement
  • Google Sponsored SPAM
  • Blog Post ideas
  • X-Cart SEO: How to SEO the X Cart Shopping Cart
  • the nastiest bloke in seo
  • Seattle Domainers Conference
  • Import large file into MySQL : use SOURCE command
  • Vanetine’s Day Gift Ideas: Chocolate Fragrance!
  • SEM Rush Keyword Research
  • ☆ blogroll

  • Bellingham SEO
  • Domain Name Consultant
  • Hans Cave Diving in Mexico
  • Healthcare Search Marketing
  • John Andrews
  • John Andrews SEO
  • SEMPDX Interview
  • SEO Quiz
  • SEO Trophy Phrases
  • SMX Search Marketing Expo
  • T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East 2007
  • TOR
  • ☆ categories

    Competition (39)
    Competitive Intelligence (15)
    Competitive Webmastering (547)
    Webmasters to Watch (4)
    domainers (63)
    Oprah (1)
    photography (3)
    Privacy (16)
    Public Relations (187)
    SEO (398)
    Client vs. SEO (2)
    Link Building (3)
    Search Engines vs. SEO (1)
    SEO SECRETS (11)
    SEO vs. SEO (1)
    ThreadWatch Watching (5)
    Silliness (24)
    Social Media (7)
    society (31)
    Uncategorized (23)

    ☆ archives

  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • July 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006