New net rules set to make cookies crumble
 

The way websites track visitors and tailor ads to their behaviour is about to undergo a big shake-up.

From 25 May, European laws dictate that "explicit consent" must be gathered from web users who are being tracked via text files called "cookies".

These files are widely used to help users navigate faster around sites they visit regularly.

Businesses are being urged to sort out how they get consent so they can keep on using cookies.

Track changes

The changes are demanded by the European e-Privacy directive which comes into force in the UK in late May.

The section of the directive dealing with cookies was drawn up in an attempt to protect privacy and, in particular, limit how much use could be made of behavioural advertising.

This form of marketing involves people being tracked across websites, with their behaviour used to create a profile that dictates the type of adverts they see.

As part of its work to comply with the directive, the IAB - an industry body that represents web ad firms - created a site that explains how behavioural advertising works and lets people opt out of it.

The directive demands that users be fully informed about the information being stored in cookies and told why they see particular adverts.

Specifically excluded by the directive are cookies that log what people have put in online shopping baskets.

However, the directive is likely to have an impact on the more general use of cookies that remember login details and enable people to speed up their use of sites they visit regularly.

It could mean that after 25 May, users see many more pop-up windows and dialogue boxes asking them to let sites gather data.

Data delay

The exact steps that businesses have to go through to comply with the law and gain consent from customers and users are being drawn up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

A spokesman for the DCMS said that work on the regulations was "ongoing" but that the technique solutions would not be complete by 25 May.

In a statement, Ed Vaizey, minister for Culture, Communications and the Creative Industries, said he recognised that the delay would "cause uncertainty for businesses and consumers".


Cookies are used by websites to save user preferences between visits. "Therefore we do not expect the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to take enforcement action in the short term against businesses and organisations as they work out how to address their use of cookies," he added.

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said: "I cannot bark at the industry at the moment because I have not got the regulations."

However, Mr Graham stressed that the government's confession that the regulations will be delayed should not be a spur to inaction.

"My message is that this is not your 'get out of jail free' card," he said.

The response to complaints about firms that flout the directive will be viewed in light of what they have done to prepare for it, continued Mr Graham.

Businesses should be considering how they will communicate with customers to get consent and look at the technical steps that might make that process easier, he explained.

Early work by the ICO suggests that gathering consent by changing settings on browsers may not be sophisticated enough for the demands of the directive.

"They have to think seriously about this," said Mr Graham. "It's going to happen and it's the law."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12668552

I guess you're going to enjoy your beer without porn.

Porn Beer
Porn
Beer
Porn Beer

haha, the UK passing privacy laws is hilarious. yeah, a bunch of pop ups are less annoying than cookies...

if people have to opt in, it will mean the end of affiliates as the affiliate code will not be tracked.

BUT

will it apply to sites only hosted in the eu, or the domain names bought from the eu?

http://www.xbiz.com/news/131398

A Congressman plans to introduce new legislation that would allow Internet users to see what kind of information companies are collecting about them and how that information is being used.
During a panel discussion on the Federal Trade Commission’s “Do Not Track” initiative, U.S. House Representative Cliff Stearns said it’s important to create legislation that would keep companies in check and would give users the ability to control how their information is used in advertising.

"The goal of the legislation is to empower consumers to make their own privacy choices,” Stearns said.

“My draft legislation requires covered entities to provide consumers in clear and easy to understand language what information is being collected and how the information is being used. It includes a provision for an FTC approved five-year self-regulatory program and prescribes requirements for a self-regulatory consumer dispute resolution process."

Stearns argued that his bill wouldn’t undermine the online advertising industry, which relies heavily on targeted ads in order to make money and provide free services to users.

"We do not want to disrupt a well-established and successful business model," Stearns said.

Instead, he wants "more robust transparency" from the companies that collect the information — notice of data collection outside of the company's privacy policy and customers being told how to keep the information from being collected.

The new bill will be based on one that Stearns introduced in 2005 — the Consumer Privacy Protection Act.

The 2005 bill asked companies to notify users upon the first instance of identifiable information collection on their websites, provide details on how the information would be used, and provide a clear instructions on how users can limit the data collection.

Neither the House nor the Senate ended up voting on the bill. Based on Stearns' description of the bill, it will likely end up being a copy of the old one with some newer twists

What do you think has been happening in the last five years? AD blocking and privacy settings have been disabling or removing affiliate cookies in greater numbers over the years. Affiliates get poorer while the owners get a bigger chunk of the pie.

Many affiliates are stupid and will just pick their nose and not demand any changes to payouts or tracking to compensate. Business as usual. Maybe a few will change things but many won't. Why would they if a bunch of idiots are willing to send them free traffic?

so what is the answer?

Shoot yourself now.

Don't rely on cookies. Track IPs. Whitelabels. Customer-affiliate linking.

In the mean time payouts should have increased as less surfers are effectively able to be tracked using cookies. If cookies are 10% less effective today than in 2007 then affiliate's payout percentages should have been increased equally to compensate.

It's very simple, go back to basics, approach the owners direct and strike a deal i.e. they pay you X amount per month. Keep hold of any affiliate programs that still pay you a decent amount, they do still exist, I have a number of quality ones and one that's exceptional. Strange thing is, since I first started making non-affiliate deals, my affiliate sales have always gone up, not down. You'll find that non-affiliate deals are a far easier way to make money and it only takes around 3 or 4 months for them to outweigh your affiliate sales

true... camera's everywhere but a cookie that can easily be blocked by a surfer if he wanted to has to be regulated by law?

I don't think it will affect us that much; at the beginning it will be a little annoying that after a few weeks people will set them all to YES and problem solved

its going to be interesting.

laws are for the good guys...

this doesnt effect me one bit...





.

Of course. A paysite owner still gets the sale regardless of whether cookies are set. In fact it will just mean having to pay out even less to affiliates who will actually lose the sale. It makes sense for a program owner to try to dismiss it as no big deal while not having to change anything. It's pretty much shaving but without having to do anything or take any blame.

so it will be the end of affiliates?

How about making a new cookie on that date, check for it's existance, if not exist then pop up dialog box stating "In order to proceed you MUST AGREE to our use of cookies as usual". If they dont agree, kick them off to something else you can make money from.

I see a bunch of people already trying to figure out how to get around this

that would probably make them happy

Its important that this is thought about now, as in a few months it will be too late.

People need to think of solutions to this and implement now.

I think such as ccbill may also need to have somthing in place.

No but it would mean less money for traffic sent at least unless better ways of tracking are used. The affiliate would still send the same amount of sales but would get credit for less of them.

Mabe with softwear removing cookies already, somthing should have been done already.

Mabe its not a case of sales have gone down, but sales not recorded due to the cookies removed.

Mabe thats already going on as softwear removed cookies.

Like I said most don't care. It just means more money for them and most of the affiliates are too stupid to care.

I have to admit I have promoted my own sites on a site with other sites, and my sites seem to be getting sales.

I am now wondering if its simply a case that the cookies are not being sent forward and in fact if had I would have been making a lot of cash.

No wonder programe owners are staying silent on this.

Bingo. That's part of the reason why a program owner will brag that they do 1:400 overall on a site while most affiliates will do 1:1,300.

it explains a lot.

I wondered why stats showed on some sites low hits even though I was expecting a lot more hits.

Actually usually cookies not being set would not explain that. For example CCBill counts the hit based on the URL and sets the cookie as part of it's tracking. I'm fairly sure that as long as the referring url is correct the hit is counted. But if no cookie is set and no other tracking (CCBill can potentially use other tracking but it isn't the best and it depends on different factors) is used then don't count on getting any credit for that sale.

interesting points.

Nothing will change. People still be using cookies as before. Try to disable them and you'll see that almost everything on the Net doesn't work. You even won't be able to check your gmail or hotmail box, log into your facebook profile etc.

people do not get that.

they think cookies are bad.

You make Markham look intelligent.

It's not going to apply to any sites. It's about as stupid as trying to enforce a "no jaywalking" law. It's just a bunch of politicians who want to make it look like they're busy, and deserve their salary.

Worse case scenario, the default web browser settings will be set to "High" upon installation, instead of "Medium". This will require users to click Yes everytime a cookie gets added, unless they change their settings. Even that probably won't happen, since it's an EU law, and most web browsers are developed in the US.

Nothing will change at all. People will get sick of not having the benefits that cookies bring and turn em back on

They'll get it instantly as soon as they see all their favorite sites will stop working. As I told above, simple try to log into your facebook or twitter account w/o cookies :2 cents:

Lack of cookies won't affect your ratios.

This.

There is also a law in the UK that every website must have contact details for the business it is owned by. Do you see many affiliate porn sites complying with that?

You're probably right.

And surely the intent of this law is to deal with behavioural tracking, which has nothing to do with a simple affiliate referrer cookie. I doubt if the police will be busting down doors over affiliate tracking cookies.

It will probably hit mainstream marketing in the EU though. Most mainstream networks will have to comply with this and come up with a different way of tracking sales. Paidonresults.com already use something called 'flash cookieless tracking', in addition to standard cookies.

Regarding the points about sponsors skimming affiliates, maybe I'm naieve but surely if one company is skimming its affiliates, those affiliates will simply switch to another company that isn't skimming? Surely basic economics keeps a lid on skimming rates? Or do all the sponsors have a 'gentleman's agreement' not to undercut each other's skimming percentage??

i think thats only if your a ltd or plc company.

i may be wrong, but i do not think it applies to personal or solo owners.

the police will nick you for anything in the uk.

http://www.xbiz.com/news/131430

New European Internet rules may soon be changing the way website operators track visitors and tailor ads to their specific behaviors.
The new European rules, which are set to take effect in late May, dictate that explicit consent must be gathered from web users who are being tracked via cookies. Businesses are being urged to sort out how they get consent so they can continue using cookies.

The new rules dealing with cookies are part of the European e-Privacy directive created in an attempt to protect privacy and limit how much use can be made of behavioral advertising.

The directive demands that users be fully informed about the information being stored in cookies and told why they see particular adverts.

The rules will more likely have an impact on the general use of cookies that remember login details and enable people to speed up their use of sites they visit regularly.

It could also mean that users see many more pop-up windows and dialogue boxes asking them to let sites gather data.

Early work by the Information Commissioner’s office suggests that gathering consent by changing settings on browsers may not be sophisticated enough for the demands of the directive.

The exact steps that businesses have to go through to comply with the law and gain consent from customers and users are being drawn up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

If they want to eat their cookies alone then let they gtfo from my sites.

True. But they will use laws like this to get you if they want you for something else (and haven't got the evidence to nick you on that).

Pretty soon everybody will be a criminal in the uk.

Google's ahead of this, check their blog for the workaround