Thou Shalt Not Conquest?

Written by Brook Schaaf

So our dear friend and known scalawag Dustin Howes rage-baited me into a dust-up (Dust-Linked-Up-In?). He tagged me among others in a jeremiad against browser extension conquesting. Most demurred, but your humble writer leapt in like a fierce dog and yea, did he smite the anti-browser-extension arguments, specious and divers. Though after his righteous victory his heart did hang heavy, for he knew he could not enter each affiliate marketer’s heart to win the same battle. So let this opinion piece be the next best thing, by way of the mind.

Dustin gave a short screen share of the Rakuten extension in action. On his third attempt, he found a pop-up advertisement on one merchant’s page advertising a competing supplement brand, an example of the practice known as “conquesting.” This he called “filthy,” “disgusting,” “nearly holding these guys hostage,” and even “evil.” This last was especially reminiscent of MegaLag’s histrionics and deserves rebuttal.

As the theologian Saint Augustine of Hippo so famously argued, nulla natura malum est, “no nature is evil;” rather, evil is a privation of the good (privatio boni). So the wolf is not evil for killing the sheep or, at my home, the raccoon for killing the peacock. 

In commercial terms, the nature and game of the buyer is to compare, whereas the nature and game of the seller is to stand favorably in comparison, starting with making the buyer aware of the offering, hence the natural partnership between advertiser and publisher. Therefore, Rakuten Rewards is acting out its appropriate nature and playing the game well. The first and competing supplement companies are free to join in or not. The customer is free to shop how she pleases. To call any party evil is incorrect. (At least because of this.)

Whether or not you like the practice (admittedly many don’t), this is playing within bounds, not cheating, as Phia was apparently guilty of with its forced clicks. (And for which it’s reportedly been removed from at least two of the major tracking platforms.) Forced downloads are also a distant memory, so nothing is getting installed without the user’s express permission.

Yet within affiliate marketing, I dare say a prevailing negative attitude holds back this part of the channel. Browser extensions are used and beloved by tens of millions. They enable deal and coupon awareness and insertion, price comparison, image comparison, private and shared carts, and a host of other features. Conquesting is exactly what both user and (competing) advertisers want, or at least might want. The user can freely ignore the information signal and deactivate the extension. So contrary to the assertion that this makes for a bad experience, it makes for a good one.

Some argue that there is no incrementality, but this confuses two questions. Can a transaction be triggered? If so, can it be redirected? If the messaging cannot convince a buyer to buy, there is little reason for the incumbent merchant to object to it. If it can, surely it has some value that should be recognized. Conversion is not guaranteed, and purchasing elsewhere is still buying. 

Some argue that this is a violation of trademarks, but this confuses two different questions: can a trademark trigger an advertisement? If so, can that advertisement include a competitor’s trademark? The answer to the second may be no, but if it were also no to the first, Google would not be allowed to show competitors’ ads against queries. They can because they won the landmark cases 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com in 2008 and 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. JAND, Inc. dba Warby Parker in 2024. (Surely there’s some joke in here about seeing things clearly.) Again, this grants no right to misrepresentation, such as posing as a trademark holder. (For abuses in that direction, let me refer you to Amazon’s search results when it doesn’t sell the brand you looked for.)

Some argue that the information presented might be wrong or incomplete, e.g., codes may be withheld or bad or for another channel. This is a fair point, which ultimately comes down to rules and negotiation. Ultimately, with no relationship, there is little leverage on the merchant’s side except, perhaps, user satisfaction. (The Tragedy of the Coupon Commons.)

The PMA has proposed new toolbar standards, which would be welcome, but compliance is still separate from the main issue, which is that browser and mobile extensions are hard-won and valuable surfaces our channel would be crazy to give up or to overly restrict. They are particularly suited to cashback sites like Rakuten, which remain the backbone of affiliate marketing, per the PMA’s most recent study. Better still, extensions could become an increasingly important source of shopping-intent data in the worsening zero-click era (Penske’s lawsuit was just thrown out, unfortunately). The browser extension can put more information in front of the shopper at precisely the moment she is deciding what and where to buy. 

Advertisers may not always enjoy being compared, but comparison is what shoppers do. Helping them do it better is not an affront to commerce; it is commerce. So let the merchants compete. Let the publishers publish. Let the shoppers compare. And let the browser extensions extend.

Amen.