opinion

Dirty Advertisers Are Under Fire

Let’s make one thing abundantly clear — malware, tech support scams, fake anti-virus alerts, and fake software updates totally suck. That is why at JuicyAds we don’t allow our advertisers to promote them on our network, and this has always been our stance on the matter. Even when malware distributors have come to us and offered obscene amounts of money to distribute ransomware and other tech scams into our network, we have refused while others have accepted. There is no doubt that “malvertising” is highly lucrative, but as a matter of principle we do not support it, and it’s a never-ending battle to keep the “Sexy Advertising Network” from becoming less sexy from these bad advertisers.

Google has taken a stance similar to ours. Even though I have routinely seen fake download buttons and the like on Google’s advertising network, they announced a new policy in November 2015 of penalties to publishers who engage in deceptive or misleading advertising that may cause harm. This basically pushes Google further into a position of handling Internet and website security. We support this ideology, but there may be more going on here than meets the eye.

We believe (and hope) that the only publishers, advertisers and networks that are going to be slapped by Google are those who are frequently (and intentionally) running dirty ads. That’s bad news for the bad guys and good news for the good guys.

The googleblog.com website described these ads as; “social engineering attacks — deceptive tactics that try to trick you into doing something dangerous, like installing unwanted software or revealing your personal information (for example, passwords, phone numbers, or credit cards) … social engineering in a deceptive download button, or an image ad that falsely claims your system is out of date.”

The presumption is that these penalties would only be activated if the landing page is dangerous or malicious. So that means your website is probably safe, unless you are one of the many who are promoting tech support or fake updates, the specific examples used by Google to demonstrate what would result in a penalty. These types of ads have disrupted the entire advertising ecosystem with high bids from the profits of their malicious activity. This means that it even hurts legitimate advertisers who sell a real product or service, who do not have huge “malvertising” margins in order to compete. It’s much easier to make money when you’ve locked someone’s computer browser or threaten to wipe their hard drive if they don’t send bitcoins. Clean and reputable networks sometimes lose publishers who switch to dirty networks that offer high payouts and higher profits. Sometimes the publishers are well aware the ads are dirty (and they don’t care) or they switch and unwittingly expose their visitors to these threats that are often hard to detect.

Google indicates that only websites who “consistently” deliver these malicious or deceptive ads will be affected. If Google’s intent is to actually clean up the Internet, that’s something worth supporting.

However, publishers now have the potential to be penalized by Google, and may be required to remove advertising from their websites that engage in “deceptive” advertising in order to stay friendly with Google. Otherwise, they may lose traffic from the Google search engine. Effectively, Google is now “policing” advertising on the majority of websites on the Internet. This is a very large step into a very subjective area, and may be a dangerous path for Google, a company who operates its own advertising network and whose revenue is primarily advertising based.

At what point does Google indirectly declare war on every other advertising network on the planet, by using their search engine as leverage?

What if the penalties are expended and the result of their Internet-wide sweeping and fight with “deceptive ads” is the limitation of competing ad networks, by indirectly trying to control what those other ad networks display? Google already makes decisions that affect the direction that many publishers go with their website operations. When does telling a publisher what ads they can display (or providing a warning) step over the line, when Google is an advertisement company itself? Mistakes in any automated process are likely to hurt innocent advertisers, publishers, and networks, but it’s far too early to say what will happen. On the surface, with affiliates split testing and frequently sending different traffic to different landers, I don’t know how this new policy could be accurately enforced.

Think of it this way. At what point does a player button ad become deceptive, if it links to a website primarily dedicated to video content? What if an ad is a big download button but it links to a download for some software and it has the software name in small text on the banner? Is that deceptive? What about webcam or dating ads that mimic alert windows? These are common and they forward to webcam and dating ads that are not malicious and are directly related to the ad content. Would that result in a penalty by Google? Google is likely looking for something specific, but they are leaving publishers in the dark by not being clear about what that is. That is a double-edged sword. By not telling publishers what they are looking for, they are leaving those people in the dark. At the same time, they are limiting the knowledge the bad guys have in order to bypass Google detection with new techniques.

As an advertising network, for us to re-review hundreds of thousands of images without any idea of what is “allowed” or “disallowed” is a game that can’t be won. That’s why the second criteria Google has provided is so important — that they are targeting ads leading to something dangerous. This is the important distinction, and the reason why reputable advertising networks scan their ads and act very quickly anytime something malicious is detected.

We believe (and hope) that the only publishers, advertisers and networks that are going to be slapped by Google are those who are frequently (and intentionally) running dirty ads. That’s bad news for the bad guys and good news for the good guys. That would be something positive for the Internet, and even make ad blocking less relevant.

Juicy Jay is the CEO and founder of JuicyAds, the Sexy Advertising Network. You can follow Jay on Twitter @juicyads, visit JuicyAds.com, or like on Facebook.com/juicyads.

Related:  

Copyright © 2024 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More Articles

profile

VerifyMy Seeks to Provide Frictionless Online Safety, Compliance Solutions

Before founding VerifyMy, Ryan Shaw was simply looking for an age verification solution for his previous business. The ones he found, however, were too expensive, too difficult to integrate with, or failed to take into account the needs of either the businesses implementing them or the end users who would be required to interact with them.

Alejandro Freixes ·
opinion

How Adult Website Operators Can Cash in on the 'Interchange' Class Action

The Payment Card Interchange Fee Settlement resulted from a landmark antitrust lawsuit involving Visa, Mastercard and several major banks. The case centered around the interchange fees charged to merchants for processing credit and debit card transactions. These fees are set by card networks and are paid by merchants to the banks that issue the cards.

Jonathan Corona ·
opinion

It's Time to Rock the Vote and Make Your Voice Heard

When I worked to defeat California’s Proposition 60 in 2016, our opposition campaign was outspent nearly 10 to 1. Nevertheless, our community came together and garnered enough support and awareness to defeat that harmful, misguided piece of proposed legislation — by more than a million votes.

Siouxsie Q ·
opinion

Staying Compliant to Avoid the Takedown Shakedown

Dealing with complaints is an everyday part of doing business — and a crucial one, since not dealing with them properly can haunt your business in multiple ways. Card brand regulations require every merchant doing business online to have in place a complaint process for reporting content that may be illegal or that violates the card brand rules.

Cathy Beardsley ·
profile

WIA Profile: Patricia Ucros

Born in Bogota, Colombia, Ucros graduated from college with a degree in education. She spent three years teaching third grade, which she enjoyed a lot, before heeding her father’s advice and moving to South Florida.

Women In Adult ·
opinion

Creating Payment Redundancies to Maximize Payout Uptime

During the global CrowdStrike outage that took place toward the end of July, a flawed software update brought air travel and electronic commerce to a grinding halt worldwide. This dramatically underscores the importance of having a backup plan in place for critical infrastructure.

Jonathan Corona ·
opinion

The Need for Minimal Friction in Age Verification Technology

In the adult sector, robust age assurance, comprised of age verification and age estimation methods, is critical to ensuring legal compliance with ever-evolving regulations, safeguarding minors from inappropriate content and protecting the privacy of adults wishing to view adult content.

Gavin Worrall ·
opinion

Account-to-Account Payments: The New Banking Disruptor?

So much of our industry relies upon Visa and Mastercard to support consumer payments — and with that reliance comes increased scrutiny by both brands. From a compliance perspective, the bar keeps getting raised until it feels like we end up spending half our time making sure we are compliant rather than growing our business.

Cathy Beardsley ·
profile

WIA Profile: Samantha Beatrice

Beatrice credits the sex positivity of Montreal for ultimately inspiring her to pursue work in adult entertainment. She had many friends working in the industry, from sex workers to production teams, so it felt like a natural fit and offered an opportunity to apply her marketing and social media savvy to support people she truly believes in and wants to see succeed.

Women In Adult ·
opinion

Understanding the Latest Server Processors

Over the last decade, we mostly stopped talking about CPU performance. Recently, however, there has been a seismic and exciting change in the CPU landscape, due to innovation by a chip company called Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).

Brad Mitchell ·
Show More