• http://www.2buildbacklinks.com Mark Collier

    I have to disagree with the terminology used in the article, although the article itself is very informative, hijacker, fraud all mean to me one thing and its not positive.

    In essence these “hijackers” are doing very little wrong unless it is against the affiliate agreement. Affiliates could be and are more likely to be promoting old promotions and representing brands poorly in salesy emails and static, archaic websites.

    Yes it is wrong to dishonour the affiliate agreement but if my affiliates were paying to advertise my products then I would say let them do it. As a business you have set your affiliate commission at a level in which you make money and if the affiliate can use PPC at a level where they still make money, I say let them.

  • danjames

    You are presuming that all affiliates that are direct linking are, as you put it, “URL Hijacking” This only goes on if the affiliate is allowed to get away with it, why are brands and merchants not just cancelling all the sales that come via this activity? If you can spot this activity then I am sure they can. With a well run affiliate programme this kind of activity would stand out a mile and you should just be able to cancel the sales. Merchants should be looking at click to sale times, referring URL’s and time of sales, just a few things that set alarm bells ringing.

    Like most fraud people will only get away with it if you let them…