The Plot To Hijack Your Hard Drive

An anonymous reader writes Business Week Online examines the business practices of spammers and pop-up advertisers, using much-maligned Direct Revenue as an example case. The article discusses the history of the company, their rocky road through good and bad times, and what they're willing to to get your eyes on their ads." From the article: "Among Direct Revenue's alumni, pride over technical cunning mingles with regret for exasperating so many computer users. After waffling on the issue during a long interview, one former Dark Arts wizard sighs and sums up his version of the company credo with an elegiac observation by abolitionist Frederick Douglass: 'Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.'"

Comments

In the end..

[mr.cbaker]

In the end, Google knows how it's done. I find I much more often induldge in either clicking on or glancing at an unobstrusive (and generally relevant) google ad than I do any annoying popup which causes me nothing other than to feel contempt for the company who pulled it on to my screen. Sneaky and dirty marketing is just distasteful, and they should know that it reflects poorly on the company and the product. I suppose it still works well on people like my grandmother, who believe they are in fact the 5000th visitor.

'four hours of my life back'

[ic4x0r]

"You people are EVIL personified," Kevin Horton wrote around the same time. "I would like the four hours of my life back I have wasted trying to get your stupid uninvited software off my now crippled system."

indeed! these people should be held liable for the damage done and time wasted. it's unpleasant to think that there are actually people behind obnoxious spyware, and that they think that pissing people off is the best way to get them to acknowledge the adverts and buy whatever they're selling.

weird

[kook44]

I interviewed at Direct Revenue about 18 months ago. It's funny to hear thier version of what they do - they simply call it "contextual ad-based marketing". The whole place seemed very sketchy and unprofessional. When the sketchy manager walked me past the group he called "forensic computing" - I instantly knew I was in a spyware factory. I met with some other sweaty, twitchy geek who asked me to solve some algorithmic/data-structure type problem. He was very persistent and specific - harping on the minor details. After I got out of there, I realized he was actually tring to get ideas for a problem he was working on - not tech-ing me for the position. Told the equally shady recruiter to f-off & turned them down for another offer. Glad I did it, but I'm shocked that they are the focus of an article on BW. Surprised they're even still around...

Re:Who buys this stuff?

[mmalove]

You don't have to buy something from the pop up ad. There exists a phenomena most marketers are aware of, that when you have several brands of a product to choose from, most people narrow their choice down to a grouping of 2-4, usually by "hunch" or "intuition", before making any drill down comparisons. It's a compromise of search breadth vs search depth. The pop up's main goal is to preprogram their brand as one of your intuitive choices - if you happen to click and purchase directly then that's an added bonus.

As for stopping the local infection version of the pop up - write a letter to your congressman. Tell them that instead of worrying whether or not gays can be gay, or a dissident can burn a flag in protest of his governments actions, maybe they could write a quick law that makes it illegal to install software on another machine without the owner's explicit consent. Then the websites that distribute this shit will have fines to pay, sucking the profit right out of the whole scheme.

(Oh noes, a spammer might lose his job!)

Here's an interesting website, not sure if they read the letters sent but at least it's a start:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/