4 ms·

I don't quite understand the argument that some people made here. This person wrote a blog post with a few Amazon links under his affiliate code. Some people r

I don't quite understand the argument that some people made here. This person wrote a blog post with a few Amazon links under his affiliate code. Some people read his blog post, click the links, (and probably read the reviews), and decided to buy the book. The person gets the kickback, the interested readers get the books they want to read, and everybody is happy. But why am I reading stuff like "getting away with murder", "purity", and etc? Why such negativity/hate?

Tangurena 15y ago
I think the "hate" is that this blogger still gets his affiliate code to work, while those in many other states (such as mine) were disabled because Amazon got into a disagreement with states over sales taxes.
- vijayr 15y ago
  But, how is the "hate" going to help anyone? He is not responsible for Amazon's tax issues?
rudiger 15y ago
He gets paid if you buy anything after clicking the affiliate link, not just the books he linked to. A lot of people just happened to be buying stuff on Amazon over the weekend with his affiliate cookie set. Edit: I'm not saying I agree with the negativity. It's just an answer to the parent's question.
- cek 15y ago
  I still don't understand the hate. What's wrong with this? Person purchasing the 'other stuff' never knows/cares. Amazon is happy. Affiliate is happy. Who's hurt/injured?
  - rudiger 15y ago
    I didn't say anything was wrong with this, or that anyone was hurt. I simply answered the parent's question. It's a stretch, but you could argue that prices are slightly higher because Amazon has to pay the affiliates.
  - sbraford 15y ago
    Want to understand what's going on here psychologically? To some people, whenever anyone is making a profit, however small ... some people believe that someone, somewhere, has to be getting the raw end of the deal. Note: I'm not saying putting Amazon links on your blog means you can be still be 100% objective (you can't), but rather pointing out a deep-seated belief that I have noticed among some, especially those who've found a way to make a living on GPL'd code, for example, and think iPads should be free.
- bad_user 15y ago
  And why do you consider this unfair? Does the payment come out of your pocket or something? Leaving aside that I have to ask this question (WTF dude?) for a $12 book you get something like 60 cents, considering a 7% referral fee. And you can make less than that per the number of items sold, as lots of people end up buying something a lot less expensive, like an MP3 (since they buy from Amazon and are right there anyway), with the more expensive items helping to balance that. And I haven't sold any tractors. So the total fee pales in comparison with the revenue Amazon generated from that article and if Amazon wouldn't do that, then the affiliate program would be basically a joke. (edit: misspellings)
  - rudiger 15y ago
    I didn't say I considered it unfair. I'm just offering an answer to the question.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      Sorry then for misjudging (I haven't downvoted you btw). This is why online communications are though and no substitute for real world interactions - there's no body language to read between the lines and so you have to be pretty specific in expressing yourself.
- awj 15y ago
  So ... he won the amazon affiliate race condition lottery, and somehow this is a bad thing? You could argue that he sent you to amazon, possibly having a non-negligible impact on your purchasing something from them. Also, seriously, his cut doesn't get added to your bill. Almost nothing happens totally for free, and I'd rather have free-to-view content with affiliate links than buy my way through a paywall for every damn thing on the internet.
  - rudiger 15y ago
    I didn't say it was a bad thing. I simply answered the parent's question.
eli 15y ago
It's a pretty simple argument: having affiliate links creates incentives that may not align with faithfully serving your readers. It does not automatically bias your writing, but it can certainly create the appearance of bias. A concrete example would be writing an especially glowing review of the new Kindle because you have a vested stake in people buying them. Or, perhaps, NOT writing a glowing review because you fear it will be perceived as shilling for affiliate cash. It's the reason why most reputable newspapers do not allow their ad sales staff to communicate with the editorial staff about content. In fact On The Media recently did a story about the Washington Post struggling with whether or not to include Amazon affiliate links in its book reviews. I think it presents both sides of the argument: http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/nov/11/web-links-money-makers/transcript/ http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/nov/11/web-links-money-makers...
- bad_user 15y ago
  This is a pretty good argument. I updated the article with it, hope you don't mind.
  - eli 15y ago
    Neat - happy to contribute
- tjr 15y ago
  Understandable concerns, but shouldn't the content speak for itself? If someone writes a meaningful glowing review of the new Kindle, then there should be information and details in the content of the writing that explains why they think it is so great. If there is no such information in the article, then the article probably isn't very helpful, and neither the presence nor absence of affiliate links will change that. But what if it is an awful fluffy review written for the express purpose of making an affiliate sale? Is this wrong, per se? If something in the article either directly or indirectly prompts a reader to click on the link and they make the purchase, then what harm has been done? Newspapers likely disallow such practices in order to maintain journalistic integrity, but a blog author who is writing posts on purpose to sell things is probably not interested in maintaining journalistic integrity. The blog author is just interested in selling stuff. Maybe the blog posts are well-written and interesting, or maybe they are not. If they are not, then readers who care principally about content will likely avoid the blog on the lack of merit of the content itself.
alphamale3000 15y ago
Because pure hackers create profit, but don't collect it. We need Business Hacker News. We need to educate them so they can get rid of the suits.

Tangurena 15y ago

I think the "hate" is that this blogger still gets his affiliate code to work, while those in many other states (such as mine) were disabled because Amazon got into a disagreement with states over sales taxes.

vijayr 15y ago
But, how is the "hate" going to help anyone? He is not responsible for Amazon's tax issues?

rudiger 15y ago

He gets paid if you buy anything after clicking the affiliate link, not just the books he linked to. A lot of people just happened to be buying stuff on Amazon over the weekend with his affiliate cookie set. Edit: I'm not saying I agree with the negativity. It's just an answer to the parent's question.

cek 15y ago
I still don't understand the hate. What's wrong with this? Person purchasing the 'other stuff' never knows/cares. Amazon is happy. Affiliate is happy. Who's hurt/injured?
- rudiger 15y ago
  I didn't say anything was wrong with this, or that anyone was hurt. I simply answered the parent's question. It's a stretch, but you could argue that prices are slightly higher because Amazon has to pay the affiliates.
- sbraford 15y ago
  Want to understand what's going on here psychologically? To some people, whenever anyone is making a profit, however small ... some people believe that someone, somewhere, has to be getting the raw end of the deal. Note: I'm not saying putting Amazon links on your blog means you can be still be 100% objective (you can't), but rather pointing out a deep-seated belief that I have noticed among some, especially those who've found a way to make a living on GPL'd code, for example, and think iPads should be free.
bad_user 15y ago
And why do you consider this unfair? Does the payment come out of your pocket or something? Leaving aside that I have to ask this question (WTF dude?) for a $12 book you get something like 60 cents, considering a 7% referral fee. And you can make less than that per the number of items sold, as lots of people end up buying something a lot less expensive, like an MP3 (since they buy from Amazon and are right there anyway), with the more expensive items helping to balance that. And I haven't sold any tractors. So the total fee pales in comparison with the revenue Amazon generated from that article and if Amazon wouldn't do that, then the affiliate program would be basically a joke. (edit: misspellings)
- rudiger 15y ago
  I didn't say I considered it unfair. I'm just offering an answer to the question.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    Sorry then for misjudging (I haven't downvoted you btw). This is why online communications are though and no substitute for real world interactions - there's no body language to read between the lines and so you have to be pretty specific in expressing yourself.
awj 15y ago
So ... he won the amazon affiliate race condition lottery, and somehow this is a bad thing? You could argue that he sent you to amazon, possibly having a non-negligible impact on your purchasing something from them. Also, seriously, his cut doesn't get added to your bill. Almost nothing happens totally for free, and I'd rather have free-to-view content with affiliate links than buy my way through a paywall for every damn thing on the internet.
- rudiger 15y ago
  I didn't say it was a bad thing. I simply answered the parent's question.

eli 15y ago

It's a pretty simple argument: having affiliate links creates incentives that may not align with faithfully serving your readers. It does not automatically bias your writing, but it can certainly create the appearance of bias. A concrete example would be writing an especially glowing review of the new Kindle because you have a vested stake in people buying them. Or, perhaps, NOT writing a glowing review because you fear it will be perceived as shilling for affiliate cash. It's the reason why most reputable newspapers do not allow their ad sales staff to communicate with the editorial staff about content. In fact On The Media recently did a story about the Washington Post struggling with whether or not to include Amazon affiliate links in its book reviews. I think it presents both sides of the argument: http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/nov/11/web-links-money-makers/transcript/ http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/nov/11/web-links-money-makers...

bad_user 15y ago
This is a pretty good argument. I updated the article with it, hope you don't mind.
- eli 15y ago
  Neat - happy to contribute
tjr 15y ago
Understandable concerns, but shouldn't the content speak for itself? If someone writes a meaningful glowing review of the new Kindle, then there should be information and details in the content of the writing that explains why they think it is so great. If there is no such information in the article, then the article probably isn't very helpful, and neither the presence nor absence of affiliate links will change that. But what if it is an awful fluffy review written for the express purpose of making an affiliate sale? Is this wrong, per se? If something in the article either directly or indirectly prompts a reader to click on the link and they make the purchase, then what harm has been done? Newspapers likely disallow such practices in order to maintain journalistic integrity, but a blog author who is writing posts on purpose to sell things is probably not interested in maintaining journalistic integrity. The blog author is just interested in selling stuff. Maybe the blog posts are well-written and interesting, or maybe they are not. If they are not, then readers who care principally about content will likely avoid the blog on the lack of merit of the content itself.

alphamale3000 15y ago

Because pure hackers create profit, but don't collect it. We need Business Hacker News. We need to educate them so they can get rid of the suits.