Here it is, almost 2017, and it seems like there's a new spy tool popping up every week. It's great for some.. but how about when you're deriving a competitive advantage by running a unique custom lander, have a unique angle, or other form of ad creative that's totally UNsaturated?
There was a thread awhile back for a burgeoning SaaS product that would protect from this:
http://stmforum.com/forum/showthread...ng+page+ripped
But it never came to fruition. In the thread it's referenced that big affiliates may have in house solutions for this. Granted there's nothing to be done against manual social spying..
And sure, the page can be encrypted so that when ripped it won't work, but the smart and motivated affiliates will simply screenshot and get it recreated.
What can be done against these new tools?
This topic is evergreen, I think who will come up with SaaS product with anti-spy tool, will be very rich, ahaha.
Generally, just stop focusing on spy tools, instead focus on your process.
You seem to be already step ahead if you are creating your own angles and landing pages that nobody uses.
Just keep doing it, they will always be behind you.
As you said, there always will be methods to find your landing page.
There are affiliates in every geo, they can spy on you and behave as your target visitors, there is nothing that can stop them doing so.
What you can do instead is add some more difficulty to simply copying your work.
What I mean by that is encrypting your LP, or adding traffic hijacker scripts etc. so even when you get ripped, you still can have something from it back.
Hahaha I very much agree.
You make a good point about encrypting the LP.. I have to give a little plug to Banners and Landers. They're in the middle of some work for me. I spoke pretty extensively with their lead dev, Miro, about their solutions for stealing code etc.
He said they use triple encryption that ensures if someone rips your page and then finds the hidden hijacking script, removing it will completely break the lander. This is probably about as good as it gets..
In all honesty - I'm coming up with my own angles, yes, but a big part of my process is very meticulous spying.. then innovating on landers/copy/angles. In a way it's a very beautiful part of this job, that creativity and thinking outside of the box could mean millions.
That said - at least in nutra on fb, everyone is using the same 3-4 landers with the same 2-3 angles. And it's still working. The lazy thing to do is accept comfortable CTR/ROI... but the smart money is definitely in innovating and testing.
Thankfully accounts and payment solutions preclude your average noob from jumping all over fb/nutra. I do think that with the quick proliferation of these social spy tools, the baseline easy stuff won't be effected much, but the innovative stuff will probably start to saturate in 1-2 weeks as opposed to months.
It will always be a cat and mouse game between cloakers and spy tools.
Like Erik said, focus on your process.
You should also focus on your strengths. The ones that have some protection against ripping are people with a technical background. If you don't have such knowledge, it's probably best to figure out other things that can make your work harder to copy, or more profitable than for the person who copies it.
You can also consider partnering with a technical person but that's no guarantee you will be able to protect against people ripping your landing page.
It's a pipe dream given that if anyone can see your page then they can make an image capture of it and just create it from scratch.
It's not like many affiliate-style landers out there use innovative, cutting edge technology that is difficult to imitate and reproduce.
Thus any anti-spy/anti-ripping tools would do nothing to stop someone who had a development/design team that just created things themselves.
The bigger strength of anti-spy and anti-ripping tools is actually to keep affiliate networks and traffic sources from seeing your landers, it's not so much about other affiliates.
. And my guess is that the alt-traffic sources don't either.
Method removed 