That figure of 1% is absolutely wrong – it is, in fact 10% – and when the links do change, then visitors will end up with numerous blank spaces on our sites where the JavaScript links should be, but are obviously not, because JS will be turned off!

Where does this figure of 10% come from? From none other than the well respected W3C site: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Where does CJ’s 1% come from? They’re most likely citing the percentage of browsers which use their links which are not capable of supporting JS – which is a whole lot different to the number of browsers with JS turned off.

Without doubt earnings will go down. This is just a bad thing all around, and their claim that JS links are the way that the modern web is going is complete garbage. I would imagine, and hope, that we’ll see a large-scale exit of merchants from CJ to affiliate programs which practise much better business sense.