5 ms·

If you’re reading their content why wouldn’t you click their affiliate links? You’re costing them server hours and purposefully not giving them revenue despite

by soared 5y ago

If you’re reading their content why wouldn’t you click their affiliate links? You’re costing them server hours and purposefully not giving them revenue despite it costing you nothing.

callmeal 5y ago
>If you’re reading their content why wouldn’t you click their affiliate links? Because they blackmail companies into affiliate revenue with the threat of "unrecommending" their products. See: https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to-play-model https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to...
- Bud 5y ago
  That accusation is actually not supported by the facts, as detailed elsewhere in this thread.
coolso 5y ago
Are you saying I should be giving them revenue for not being terribly open about the fact that they only review products which can earn them a commission, and that furthermore, they deserve revenue from me for recommending products I spent about $500 or more in total for, only for them all to have significant flaws?
- newfonewhodis 5y ago
  I don't know what you are referring to but plenty of times they link directly to a retailers' website where they don't earn commissions. It's also a reasonable way for them to make money that isn't: 1. Invasive tracking 2. Nasty ads 3. Direct subscriptions Take your entitlement elsewhere.
  - coolso 5y ago
    > Take your entitlement elsewhere. What are your thoughts regarding ad blocking? Specifically, do you also find people who use adblockers (I assume you don't use one of course) entitled?
    - newfonewhodis 5y ago
      Absolutely (I am one of them though I'm a member of or otherwise monetarily support publications I frequent). The thing I hate is people who try to come up transparently disingenuous reasons for why they are entitled to not support organizations they extract value out of ("ehh I don't like your CSS so I'm going to not give you any money").
- CubsFan1060 5y ago
  You are consuming the product. They have an asking price for the product (which includes affiliate links and ads). If you don't like the asking price, that is 100% fine. Don't consume the product. You seem to be wanting to decide what is a fair price for product that they produced and set a price for.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  Yikes. The overwhelming sense of entitlement is very strong here.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    In both directions. I've never seen clicking on affiliate links as price to be paid for a service. That's also sure as hell not what the ToS say. Using affiliate links to pay for content creation/hosting is reasonable. Bypassing affiliate links is also reasonable. If you want to be owed something, put it in the ToS.
- williamsmj 5y ago
  "the fact that they only review products which can earn them a commission" So you're saying https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/about/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/about/ is a lie?
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > Are you saying I should be giving them revenue for not being terribly open about the fact that they only review products which can earn them a commission It's right on the top of their front page: "Wirecutter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more."
  - coolso 5y ago
    You missed the key word "only" in my comment. Yes, they certainly make it clear they earn affiliate commission, which is fine. But what they do not make clear is the fact that they will totally ignore products that do not allow them to earn a commission, or at best, they will put them very far down on the list for some strange reason that doesn't really align with their explanation or lack thereof. This is very misleading.
    - BeetleB 5y ago
      Do you have hard evidence for the "only" portion? Based on their response to NextDesk, they do review items for which they don't get a commission: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/
    - Cd00d 5y ago
      That's simply not true. I've bought products from Wirecutter recommendations that simply link a clean merchant url - no affiliate link.
mindslight 5y ago
Affiliate links are a cancer along with the rest of the advertising-surveillance industry, and it's best to avoid contributing however you can. I do all my product research with a different nym (separate browser VM and IP address) from what I actually login and checkout with. In general the web was at its best decades ago, when people published because they knew things and were internally compelled to share. Despite the drop in quality and overwhelming prevalence of shameless blogspam (from which Wirecutter is one or two steps up), I prefer to continue acting as if that information sharing is still the overriding motivation.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  "In general the web was at its best decades ago, when people published because they knew things and were internally compelled to share." What does this mean, "internally compelled"? If someone is providing systematic reviews of products, it takes time and resources to do so. Why would they do this for free?
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I mean when someone's motivation comes from what they themselves are interested in and their wanting to pass along their knowledge to help others, as opposed to say the external incentive of being financially compensated. I know this seems completely foreign in this age of played out incentives, but such publishing used to be quite common before independent sites were drowned out by webspam. You'd do a search, dig through a few pages of results, and hit upon an information-dense (likely plain text) site of someone thoroughly geeking out about your topic.
    - donmcronald 5y ago
      RIP JohnnyGuru dot com :-(
    - debaserab2 5y ago
      I think you're waxing nostalgically about a time that wasn't nearly as good as you think it was. There's orders of magnitudes of more useful information on the internet today than there was decades ago. Yes, it's more often on platforms and not usually personal websites anymore, but there are still plenty of creators doing it out of passion, even if sometimes - but definitely not always - they also have financial incentive as well.
hermes8329 5y ago
There is no agreement that I have to click their crap. And the server time is their problem not mine. I never said I'd click anything the freely published content they made specifically available to me

by soared 5y ago

If you’re reading their content why wouldn’t you click their affiliate links? You’re costing them server hours and purposefully not giving them revenue despite it costing you nothing.

callmeal 5y ago

>If you’re reading their content why wouldn’t you click their affiliate links? Because they blackmail companies into affiliate revenue with the threat of "unrecommending" their products. See: https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to-play-model https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to...

Bud 5y ago
That accusation is actually not supported by the facts, as detailed elsewhere in this thread.

coolso 5y ago

Are you saying I should be giving them revenue for not being terribly open about the fact that they only review products which can earn them a commission, and that furthermore, they deserve revenue from me for recommending products I spent about $500 or more in total for, only for them all to have significant flaws?

newfonewhodis 5y ago
I don't know what you are referring to but plenty of times they link directly to a retailers' website where they don't earn commissions. It's also a reasonable way for them to make money that isn't: 1. Invasive tracking 2. Nasty ads 3. Direct subscriptions Take your entitlement elsewhere.
- coolso 5y ago
  > Take your entitlement elsewhere. What are your thoughts regarding ad blocking? Specifically, do you also find people who use adblockers (I assume you don't use one of course) entitled?
  - newfonewhodis 5y ago
    Absolutely (I am one of them though I'm a member of or otherwise monetarily support publications I frequent). The thing I hate is people who try to come up transparently disingenuous reasons for why they are entitled to not support organizations they extract value out of ("ehh I don't like your CSS so I'm going to not give you any money").
CubsFan1060 5y ago
You are consuming the product. They have an asking price for the product (which includes affiliate links and ads). If you don't like the asking price, that is 100% fine. Don't consume the product. You seem to be wanting to decide what is a fair price for product that they produced and set a price for.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
Yikes. The overwhelming sense of entitlement is very strong here.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  In both directions. I've never seen clicking on affiliate links as price to be paid for a service. That's also sure as hell not what the ToS say. Using affiliate links to pay for content creation/hosting is reasonable. Bypassing affiliate links is also reasonable. If you want to be owed something, put it in the ToS.
williamsmj 5y ago
"the fact that they only review products which can earn them a commission" So you're saying https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/about/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/about/ is a lie?
BeetleB 5y ago
> Are you saying I should be giving them revenue for not being terribly open about the fact that they only review products which can earn them a commission It's right on the top of their front page: "Wirecutter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more."
- coolso 5y ago
  You missed the key word "only" in my comment. Yes, they certainly make it clear they earn affiliate commission, which is fine. But what they do not make clear is the fact that they will totally ignore products that do not allow them to earn a commission, or at best, they will put them very far down on the list for some strange reason that doesn't really align with their explanation or lack thereof. This is very misleading.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    Do you have hard evidence for the "only" portion? Based on their response to NextDesk, they do review items for which they don't get a commission: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/
  - Cd00d 5y ago
    That's simply not true. I've bought products from Wirecutter recommendations that simply link a clean merchant url - no affiliate link.

mindslight 5y ago

Affiliate links are a cancer along with the rest of the advertising-surveillance industry, and it's best to avoid contributing however you can. I do all my product research with a different nym (separate browser VM and IP address) from what I actually login and checkout with. In general the web was at its best decades ago, when people published because they knew things and were internally compelled to share. Despite the drop in quality and overwhelming prevalence of shameless blogspam (from which Wirecutter is one or two steps up), I prefer to continue acting as if that information sharing is still the overriding motivation.

bobthechef 5y ago
"In general the web was at its best decades ago, when people published because they knew things and were internally compelled to share." What does this mean, "internally compelled"? If someone is providing systematic reviews of products, it takes time and resources to do so. Why would they do this for free?
- mindslight 5y ago
  I mean when someone's motivation comes from what they themselves are interested in and their wanting to pass along their knowledge to help others, as opposed to say the external incentive of being financially compensated. I know this seems completely foreign in this age of played out incentives, but such publishing used to be quite common before independent sites were drowned out by webspam. You'd do a search, dig through a few pages of results, and hit upon an information-dense (likely plain text) site of someone thoroughly geeking out about your topic.
  - donmcronald 5y ago
    RIP JohnnyGuru dot com :-(
  - debaserab2 5y ago
    I think you're waxing nostalgically about a time that wasn't nearly as good as you think it was. There's orders of magnitudes of more useful information on the internet today than there was decades ago. Yes, it's more often on platforms and not usually personal websites anymore, but there are still plenty of creators doing it out of passion, even if sometimes - but definitely not always - they also have financial incentive as well.

hermes8329 5y ago

There is no agreement that I have to click their crap. And the server time is their problem not mine. I never said I'd click anything the freely published content they made specifically available to me