<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Edelman Claims Hula Direct Runs Banner Farms</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/edelman-claims-hula-direct-runs-banner-farms/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/edelman-claims-hula-direct-runs-banner-farms/</link>
	<description>Where Interactive Advertising Begins</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:59:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pace Lattin</title>
		<link>http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/edelman-claims-hula-direct-runs-banner-farms/#comment-838918</link>
		<dc:creator>Pace Lattin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:35:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/edelman-claims-hula-direct-runs-banner-farms/#comment-838918</guid>
		<description>These posts by someone claiming to be &quot;Mike Warsinske&quot; four years after this expose are ridiculous. The claims that somehow that Ben Eldelman made up these findings because of some nefarious plot not to pay bills is paranoid and strange.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These posts by someone claiming to be &#8220;Mike Warsinske&#8221; four years after this expose are ridiculous. The claims that somehow that Ben Eldelman made up these findings because of some nefarious plot not to pay bills is paranoid and strange.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Warsinske</title>
		<link>http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/edelman-claims-hula-direct-runs-banner-farms/#comment-817628</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Warsinske</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/edelman-claims-hula-direct-runs-banner-farms/#comment-817628</guid>
		<description>Ben Edelman is incorrect and shows a reckless regard for the truth in nearly every &quot;investigative&quot; attempt to pin bad behavior to good companies.  Google, Yahoo and this time Hula Direct. If you look at the packet he claims we directly placed, you clearly see a Zedo tag (we never used Zedo serving directly and this was rebrokered against our policies and quickly terminated).

Several companies have pinned Ben down in legal agreements which prohibit him from mentioning their name in his blogs and reporting.  Claria, Google, Yahoo&#039;s Right Media, ContexWeb and a bunch of other companies large and small have been targets of Ben&#039;s wild, self proclaiming internet police guy acconts--who then turns around and attempts to sell his &quot;Monitoring&quot; back to brand advertisers.  Ben is a conflicted guy, who hides behind a Harvard education and affiliation--but is careful not to directly associate himself with Harvard to draw a deep pocket lawsuit target.  

Hula Direct never supported spyware--and apparently several other companies have had to tangle with Ben to neutralize his slander and libel.  I have been asked to join in lawsuits against Ben and have declined--as he has already cost enough people their jobs and security by his false and misleading reporting.  

In the case of Hula Direct, we had a strict policy with the media buyers we placed our traffic through which prohibited spyware.  When we found any breech to that policy, we acted quickly and responsibly to cure the situation.  Ben knows this too, as I acted quickly to contact him to explain our innovative, Free Standing Insert distribution model on the internet which generated millions of quality clicks for advertisers over several years of operation.  We enabled content websites with advertising revenue by carrying our innovative advertising units and maintained a strict policy against spyware and any rebrokering of our media to shady players.

My background as an early online media sales executive, who launched advertising sales for IMDB.com, Andover.net, ClickZ.com, eMarketer.com, Iconocast and dozens of other internet brands far exceeds the slander and libel behavior Ben claims in his sloppy posts.  

It is time to clean up the internet--and I suggest Ben focus on the actual bad actors in the sector--like his friend Pesach Lattin, formerly of Vizi Media now working for Scott Richter.  Pesach owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid media to dozens of media suppliers.  To avoid paying, Pesach recruited Ben to attack media providers who Pesach owed money to.  Hula Direct was one, but there were several others.

Guess who founded Adotas--Pesach Lattin, Ben&#039;s source for a lot of his fiction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ben Edelman is incorrect and shows a reckless regard for the truth in nearly every &#8220;investigative&#8221; attempt to pin bad behavior to good companies.  Google, Yahoo and this time Hula Direct. If you look at the packet he claims we directly placed, you clearly see a Zedo tag (we never used Zedo serving directly and this was rebrokered against our policies and quickly terminated).</p>
<p>Several companies have pinned Ben down in legal agreements which prohibit him from mentioning their name in his blogs and reporting.  Claria, Google, Yahoo&#8217;s Right Media, ContexWeb and a bunch of other companies large and small have been targets of Ben&#8217;s wild, self proclaiming internet police guy acconts&#8211;who then turns around and attempts to sell his &#8220;Monitoring&#8221; back to brand advertisers.  Ben is a conflicted guy, who hides behind a Harvard education and affiliation&#8211;but is careful not to directly associate himself with Harvard to draw a deep pocket lawsuit target.  </p>
<p>Hula Direct never supported spyware&#8211;and apparently several other companies have had to tangle with Ben to neutralize his slander and libel.  I have been asked to join in lawsuits against Ben and have declined&#8211;as he has already cost enough people their jobs and security by his false and misleading reporting.  </p>
<p>In the case of Hula Direct, we had a strict policy with the media buyers we placed our traffic through which prohibited spyware.  When we found any breech to that policy, we acted quickly and responsibly to cure the situation.  Ben knows this too, as I acted quickly to contact him to explain our innovative, Free Standing Insert distribution model on the internet which generated millions of quality clicks for advertisers over several years of operation.  We enabled content websites with advertising revenue by carrying our innovative advertising units and maintained a strict policy against spyware and any rebrokering of our media to shady players.</p>
<p>My background as an early online media sales executive, who launched advertising sales for IMDB.com, Andover.net, ClickZ.com, eMarketer.com, Iconocast and dozens of other internet brands far exceeds the slander and libel behavior Ben claims in his sloppy posts.  </p>
<p>It is time to clean up the internet&#8211;and I suggest Ben focus on the actual bad actors in the sector&#8211;like his friend Pesach Lattin, formerly of Vizi Media now working for Scott Richter.  Pesach owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid media to dozens of media suppliers.  To avoid paying, Pesach recruited Ben to attack media providers who Pesach owed money to.  Hula Direct was one, but there were several others.</p>
<p>Guess who founded Adotas&#8211;Pesach Lattin, Ben&#8217;s source for a lot of his fiction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Edelman</title>
		<link>http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/edelman-claims-hula-direct-runs-banner-farms/#comment-12646</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Edelman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/edelman-claims-hula-direct-runs-banner-farms/#comment-12646</guid>
		<description>Hula is mistaken when it claims that its sites are served up through spyware only through &quot;multi-broker relationships.&quot;  Consider e.g. the example I posted last October: ContextPlus spyware (installed without consent) sent traffic directly to Hula&#039;s clickandtrack.net (a domain registered directly to Hula, not to any intermediary).  To be quite clear: The spyware vendor sent traffic to Hula directly, not to any ad network or other middle-man.  And I posted an unambiguous packet log to that effect: http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/images/claria-venus123-log-101705.html .

I have more such packet logs on file.  In short: Hula can be shown to have received traffic directly from spyware vendors, not just via &quot;brokers.&quot;  Hula ought to take responsibility for these placements, not try to blame others.

Also, it is striking that Hula does not defend its practices of automatically reloading ads (as often as every nine seconds) and of stacking and covering ads with other ads.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hula is mistaken when it claims that its sites are served up through spyware only through &#8220;multi-broker relationships.&#8221;  Consider e.g. the example I posted last October: ContextPlus spyware (installed without consent) sent traffic directly to Hula&#8217;s clickandtrack.net (a domain registered directly to Hula, not to any intermediary).  To be quite clear: The spyware vendor sent traffic to Hula directly, not to any ad network or other middle-man.  And I posted an unambiguous packet log to that effect: <a href="http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/images/claria-venus123-log-101705.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/images/claria-venus123-log-101705.html</a> .</p>
<p>I have more such packet logs on file.  In short: Hula can be shown to have received traffic directly from spyware vendors, not just via &#8220;brokers.&#8221;  Hula ought to take responsibility for these placements, not try to blame others.</p>
<p>Also, it is striking that Hula does not defend its practices of automatically reloading ads (as often as every nine seconds) and of stacking and covering ads with other ads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

