Advertisers Unknowingly Supporting Spyware

My IT director recently made me aware of a troubling issue for advertisers on the Internet, in particular their unknowing participation, through brokers, in spyware dissemination. Here is an excerpt of the article from Computer Power User:

One of the dirtier secrets of spyware is how many legitimate companies have their products or sites pitched to people through a spyware app's ads, which in turn, make those companies look bad. People who book such advertising space usually do so through third-party brokers, so some aren't always aware spyware is advertising their products or services.

Advertisers, time to check with your broker. As the Internet advertising space continues to explode, we need to take a deeper look at where your ads are being placed. Brokerblogger has more in depth info on misleading and deceptive websites watch outs.

Comments

[Brokerblogger]

Thanks for the referral link to my blog post, Will.

I just wanted to comment that while you are right about the advertiser's responsibility to police and complain to their online ad broker for spyware related ad placement, Google (the #1 ad broker) has resisted human editor policing in the past on other similar issues. So, it is hard to follow through with eradicating the problem unless the advertiser is prepared to give up the #1 broker.

Even with strict policies in place, Google has (in the past) mainly tried to "do no evil" through computer algorithmic adjustments which don't always work as well as Yahoo's human editor involvement does.

This is why I believe Google has a much longer "red" indicator bar graph line than Yahoo in this recent study entitled "The Safety of Internet Search Engines - SiteAdvisor" = http://www.siteadvisor.com/studies/c1.html

That study's ( http://www.siteadvisor.com/studies/search_safety_may2006.html#paid ) rating criteria involved many negative things including spyware dissemination = http://www.siteadvisor.com/press/faqs.html#q2

To be fair, all online ad brokers are guilty to a certain degree, because, IMO, they earn more money by keeping the spyware ridden ad placements.

[Max Kalehoff]

"Unknowing participation, through brokers, in spyware dissemination" is a a bad excuse for advertisers, and consumers will not be sympathetic, nor should industry watchdogs. Just as it is an advertiser's obligation to ensure its oversees manufacturing partners are not engaging in child labor, it also is their duty to ensure that their online advertiser partners are not violating consumer privacy and trust. Agents are extensions of the brand, so brands must be extremely diligent here, especially with the temptation to give in and look the other way when the direct-response ROI is so high. What makes this scenario disturbing is that it is often junior executives -- with high pressure to meet performance stats -- who are responsible for overseeing the in-the-weeds services that shady agents provide.