Xbiz has an interesting article concerning Zango. It seems that they contacted Xbiz to "correct" some of the misunderstanding here, and to plead total innocense. It is an impressive piece of double talk, read closely:
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=17751
I'll start at the end, it's easier to explain:
Quote:
Bruzzese claims Zango does not in any way overwrite cookies that are tagged with affiliate ID codes.
?We deliver ads when a consumer is searching or browsing the web and likely looking for goods or services,? Bruzzese said. ?In other words, at the precise moment that advertising is beneficial both to the consumer and to the advertiser.?
|
What Zango fails to mention here is that their window pops AFTER the other window is open. If the same site is opened in the popup, many programs will reset the saved cookie to the affiliate code in the new window. I understand that this isn't Zango SPECIFIC goal in opening window, but it is an unintended and very profitable side effect of their actions. Because of the way some programs work, closing the popup and continuing in the original browser will invoke the cookie from the popup window when it comes time to sign up, because it is the newest cookie for that site. That creates value for the popup buyer, and eliminates the original webmaster from the transaction.
I accept that may not have been Zango's intention, but their method creates exactly this sort of situation in cases where the same site gets popped over itself.
Quote:
|
Zango serves ads based on a consumer?s Internet use and search activity from browsing, including keywords from the websites a consumer visits. However, it does not collect or track personally identifiable information, according to Bruzzese.
|
Not so, according to this test:
http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/
Quote:
|
Zango and Seekmo, the company?s adult advertising platform, claims that its software offering operates by popping up contextual ads on to the users? desktop who have downloaded the software, ?Fulfilling consumers? growing demand for free, sought-after online content, while automating and monetizing relationships between content providers, web publishers and advertisers of all sizes,? the company states.
|
This is where Zango admits to using Asterixware - you want X, we will give you X for free, all you have to do to watch that 30 second video is give us control of your computer for extended periods of time, the right to track your surfing, and the right to popup ads long after you have stopped enjoying that 30 second video. Asterixware is the ultimate bait and switch in my personal opinion, because giving away free videos wasn't the intention of the business, but rather the misleading freebie that hooks the unsuspecting fish.
Quote:
|
The company would not disclose how many adult industry clients it has. Zango claims to have more than 200,000 consumer downloads each day with 20 million-plus users total.
|
This is where their logic really starts to show. I have had ICQ on my computer for, what, 10 years I guess. It is a useful tool that I intentionally downloaded. There are many millions of people in the same boat. My install time is, well, 3000+ days, I am sure.
Zango with 20 million and 200,000 new a day is looking at a hold time of about 100 days. If a tool is that useful, why would people be deleting it? It would seem to me that a useful service would retain customers and grow, and not be a victim of such violent churn (1% per day... 100% turnover 3.65 times per year).
Quote:
|
However, Zango officials claim their product in no way interferes with normal surfing activity because the user consents to its download and knows what to expect.
|
I think that Zango officials are kidding themselves here. If they offered their product (FREE POPUP ADS ON EVERY OTHER WEBSITE!) they would get few takers. In fact, most experienced surfers have some form of popup blocker or disabler on our systems. Without tying the install to permission to view a video or play a game, they would not have a business to speak of. I would suspect that a survey of people who had Zango on their system would reveal something other than users that felt they had given knowledable consent to what effects that watching that video would have. I base that opinion on surfing google, where I have not found anyone saying how great Zango's popups are.
At the end of the day, Zango has trotted out it's standard legalese excuse list of why it's product is currently legal, and it contains more visible holes that quality swiss cheese.