Security Seminar Focuses on Traffic

LAS VEGAS — Traffic was the main topic at the "Hijacked! How Do Real-World Security Concerns Impact Traffic Vendors, Networks, Buyers and Affiliates?" seminar at the XBIZ Summer '07 Forum Thursday morning.

Speakers participating in the seminar were Tela Andrews, director of business development for ExpressPro; adult industry attorney Greg Piccionelli; Scott Rabinowitz, CEO of Traffic Dude; Brandon Shalton, founder of T3Report and moderator Stephen Yagielowicz of XBIZ

The topics covered included definition of "traffic," appropriate ad placement and the use of inappropriate keywords to drive traffic to sites.

Shalton pointed out that buyers and sellers of adult traffic should be clear on what is being bought or sold.

"What is the definition of what you're buying?" Shalton said. "Is it a hit? Is it a click? Is it unique? ... There have been a number of hot topics related to whether or not people are getting their money's worth. What are the measurable units of what you're buying or what you're selling? Getting that clarity of definition determines whether or not you have even a running chance of making a success of a campaign."

Andrews concurred, saying that the definition of the unit of success should become more sophisticated, saying that a click followed by a purchase on a subsequent visit has a value.

Piccionelli added that the definition of traffic should be agreed upon, and that in case of fraudulent traffic, the parties responsible for the fraudulent traffic should be responsible for it.

The question of appropriate ad placement was raised, with Shalton mentioning that some advertisers were displeased when their MySpace placements went on pages with nudity.

"They don't want that kind of bad will," Shalton said.

Piccionelli said that branding was an important consideration, with possible legal action involving tarnishing a trademark by association with objectionable content.

Vendors should be asked about their practices, Rabinowitz said: "How do you screen? Do you accept any source of traffic just because they give you the right to sell it? ... You have a right to know from us or anybody else that wants a penny of your money for traffic where the ads will be displayed, and if they can't give you an answer, at least regarding policy ... I recommend asking first and pulling out the Visa card later."

"There's a tradeoff between ease of use and protection," Andrews said. "There's also a difference between sites under owner control and those that accept user content."

Shalton then mentioned the use of inappropriate keywords like "Lolita" and "young teen" to drive traffic to sites with legal content.

"This is a form of bad traffic," Shalton said. "The problem occurs when a pedophile joins these programs, thinking 'There has to be [child pornography] there, otherwise why would they use Lolita?' They don't find any, and there's a chargeback. If you are using those words that can get you the bad traffic, you're going to make some money on pay-per-signup, but it causes a lot of implications for everybody up the food chain."

Piccionelli added that a legitimate adult entertainment site that uses words like "Lolita" to draw traffic are asking for government attention.

"That's to the detriment of everyone. It's clear in how the Department of Justice addressed the [new 2257] regulations that they just can't bring themselves to believe that this is a legitimate industry.

"Anybody that uses these types of CP-related terms is likely to be high among the lists of all those millions of sites out there for scrutiny by the government."

Piccionelli also added that if a webmaster inadvertently posts CP, a defense would be tough to mount if "Lolita" was a keyword on the site.

Yagielowicz said that ASACP keeps a list of key words that are used by pedophiles to find child pornography, so they can be removed from keyword lists.

Shalton's final comment: "Treat your business as a business. Take it seriously. Follow regulations. Follow the law. Look at things like trademarks. A lot of people don't do that; they aren't incorporated, they don't have attorneys on retainer, they don't pay attention to these issues."

Related:  

Copyright © 2025 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 News

Magic Silk Debuts 'Glimmer' Collection

Magic Silk has introduced its new Glimmer line of apparel.

Ofcom Releases Transparency Reporting Guidelines

Ofcom, the U.K. media regulator, has made public its official guidance detailing how online service providers — including adult sites — will be required to publish annual transparency reports on their efforts to protect children from online harms.

Blush Expands 'Naturally Yours' Collection

Blush has introduced three new dildos from its Naturally Yours line.

New AV Rules Take Effect for Ireland-Based Sites

Ireland’s Online Safety Code came into force Monday, including a provision requiring adult sites headquartered in Ireland to implement age assurance measures beyond self-declaration.

XBIZ Amsterdam Calls on New Startups for 'Spotlight' Program

XBIZ is pleased to announce that its new “Startup Spotlight” programming will make its European premiere at XBIZ Amsterdam 2025, set to take place Sept. 2-5 at the Jakarta Hotel Amsterdam.

Le Wand Dive Gets Wired.com Review

Le Wand Dive has been spotlighted by WIRED with a review by tech and lifestyle journalist Amanda Chatel.

Texas Resumes AV Lawsuit Against Aylo Following SCOTUS Decision

A district court judge in Texas has unfrozen the state’s $1.6 million lawsuit against Aylo for allegedly failing to comply with age verification requirements, Bloomberg Law is reporting.

Blush Introduces 'Splash' Vibe

Blush has debuted its new duck-themed Splash vibrator.

SVibe Debuts 2 New Vibrators

SVibe has introduced the new Snail GIZI Duo and Snail AXI Spot Wand.

JuicyAds Wins Trademark Infringement Case Against Fraudulent Domain

JuicyAds has won its World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) case against a website using a similar domain to impersonate the company's site and defraud customers.

Show More