3 ms·

I...always thought they were pretty up front that their revenue model was affiliate marketing.

fipple 9y ago
They are, but they've always claimed that the presence of an affilate link, or the percentage they got from it, didn't affect their recommendation and they would happily recommend the best product even if they got no $ from it. Anyone living in the real world knew that was 100% bullshit.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  How do you know it's BS? It is possible to be genuine and honest (I'm not claiming that's the case here). I'd ask what proportion of recommendations didn't have affiliate links, as a marker.
  - fipple 9y ago
    It's BS because no media company has ever operated its editorial fully independently of its revenue model, and if any has come close it's the old-school newspapers owned by fat cats, not startups reviewing tech products.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >How do you know it's BS? It is possible to be genuine and honest (I'm not claiming that's the case here). From the proof in TFA, for one.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    From the article, the CEO, who is soliciting the kickbacks, claims that he is also writing review articles. So that right there proves they are lying about keeping editorial and business separate. As for top products without an affiliate link, I am yet to find one.
hunter23 9y ago
While they have been upfront about affiliate marketing, they haven't been upfront that a product that is shortlisted in their guides would be downgraded if it didn't have an affiliate program. Essentially no one would assume that a vendor having (or not having) an affiliate program would affect the relative ranking of the guide's recommendations.
coldtea 9y ago
Affiliate marketing when it's offered is one thing. Requesting affiliate marketing when it's not offered, is another (but still OK). Pushing for affiliate marketing and when not getting it, changing your review, is something totally else and NOT OK. And of course, considering only products with affiliate marketing, is the opposite of "objective review site".
- jjeaff 9y ago
  And pushing for affiliate revenue, then changing your review, then lying that the new top pick does not have any affiliate revenue either is even worse. (They claimed their new top pick also didn't have an affiliate relationship. But the way back machine archive showed that they were in fact linking to the new desk via an Amazon affiliate link.)

They are, but they've always claimed that the presence of an affilate link, or the percentage they got from it, didn't affect their recommendation and they would happily recommend the best product even if they got no $ from it. Anyone living in the real world knew that was 100% bullshit.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
How do you know it's BS? It is possible to be genuine and honest (I'm not claiming that's the case here). I'd ask what proportion of recommendations didn't have affiliate links, as a marker.
- fipple 9y ago
  It's BS because no media company has ever operated its editorial fully independently of its revenue model, and if any has come close it's the old-school newspapers owned by fat cats, not startups reviewing tech products.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >How do you know it's BS? It is possible to be genuine and honest (I'm not claiming that's the case here). From the proof in TFA, for one.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  From the article, the CEO, who is soliciting the kickbacks, claims that he is also writing review articles. So that right there proves they are lying about keeping editorial and business separate. As for top products without an affiliate link, I am yet to find one.

hunter23 9y ago

While they have been upfront about affiliate marketing, they haven't been upfront that a product that is shortlisted in their guides would be downgraded if it didn't have an affiliate program. Essentially no one would assume that a vendor having (or not having) an affiliate program would affect the relative ranking of the guide's recommendations.

coldtea 9y ago

Affiliate marketing when it's offered is one thing. Requesting affiliate marketing when it's not offered, is another (but still OK). Pushing for affiliate marketing and when not getting it, changing your review, is something totally else and NOT OK. And of course, considering only products with affiliate marketing, is the opposite of "objective review site".

jjeaff 9y ago
And pushing for affiliate revenue, then changing your review, then lying that the new top pick does not have any affiliate revenue either is even worse. (They claimed their new top pick also didn't have an affiliate relationship. But the way back machine archive showed that they were in fact linking to the new desk via an Amazon affiliate link.)