Last week, I discussed “scumware” — applications that sneak their way onto hard drives and display ads without user consent. I mentioned Gator when describing the problem created by these nefarious apps. In doing so, I attempted to provide readers with a reference point on ad-serving desktop software, but I wasn’t trying to paint Gator with the same brush as some of the applications I mentioned. (I probably could have handled that with a bit more finesse.)
So let me be perfectly clear: Gator is not a scumware application. Here is my definition of a scumware application. It is a program that serves pop-up advertising on a user’s computer and is characterized by the following:
- A distribution strategy that places the application on users’ desktops without taking appropriate steps to obtain permission
- Functionality that adds little or no value beyond serving ads to a user
- Advertising displayed without branding or attribution to who served it
An application such as Gator doesn’t fall under this definition. Gator seeks permission and provides additional value (e.g., a form completion tool), and all ads are branded by Gator.
The difference, in my opinion, between scumware and Gator is the notion of express consumer permission to occupy a piece of desktop real estate. Gator is visible on the desktop and can be uninstalled. Scumware apps skirt the permission issue and hide deep within the system, often taking measures to counter uninstall attempts. Scumware acts not unlike a computer virus.
We’ve all read the announcements regarding Gator and the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) making peace and resolving to work toward a constructive solution to issues some publishers have with Gator. One way Gator is assisting the IAB is through participation in a special technology task force. An issue under discussion for inclusion on the task force agenda is the so-called “rules of engagement” for software that serves advertising. Gator will advise the IAB with respect to how such applications should seek permission and disclose the value proposition (e.g., an application might serve targeted ads in exchange for providing a user with useful functionality). Ultimately, such guidelines could serve as a road map for advertisers when determining which desktop advertising vehicles to support and which to avoid.
This is a giant step in the right direction. Any application that changes a user’s experience must seek permission to do so, particularly if it serves advertising. The online advertising industry will not survive, much less retain respect from users, if rogue applications serve ads without explicit user permission. Remember — advertising is only half of the equation with respect to the implied contract between a publisher (or a programmer in some cases) and the consumer. We must maintain an exchange of value if advertising is to work on the Web.
While ad fraud has become part of every marketer’s vocabulary, attribution fraud—the practice of gaming outdated attribution models to justify self-serving means—has ... read more
On Monday, Netflix reported that it added 370,000 new subscribers in the U.S. in the third quarter, 20% more than the 300,000 it ... read more
Snapchat Discover has been a hit with publishers that want access to the popular messaging app’s highly-desirable audience, and some reports even ... read more
Spotify, the popular digital music service, is getting into the video ad game with a new ad offering called “branded moments.” Currently, ... read more