4 ms·

The big question is, how would good reviewers get paid? Affiliate relationships are a conflict of interest, but people won’t pay for reviews.

by tomcam 3y ago

sanderjd 3y ago
Being a component of a popular media subscription bundle ... like the New York Times. That seems like the right model to me.
throw9away6 3y ago
Nobody really needs reviews of shitty products. A review site really only needs to write long form reviews of products they recommend due to quality or value. The affiliate stuff then really isn’t that much of a conflict if every product provides equal revenue.
- Given_47 3y ago
  > every product provides equal revenue Though I’d imagine most places have differing affiliate structures depending on the brand
- tomcam 3y ago
  Well yeah but… a lot of the time you don’t know up front that something is shitty, right?
frognumber 3y ago
A lot of people DO pay for reviews. Consumer Reports is an example. It's also possible to do transparent governance and have firewalls between reviewers and monatization. Few do, but it's a good idea.
- tomcam 3y ago
  Consumer Reports appears to be a shell of its former self though. I like the firewall idea a lot but modern media are so lacking in credibility that I’m not convinced it would work.
rodgerd 3y ago
The Consumers' Institute of New Zealand has people sign up for membership, and that funds their reviewing and advocacy. I think that models like that, co-ops, and the like are the only real way to make it work. As soon as your reviews run on advertising, affiliate links, whatever, you've immediately got pressure to be mindful of revenue streams.
patmcc 3y ago
I think part of why I used to trust Wirecutter was all the links (that I saw, at the time) were just Amazon Affiliates - it mitigated the conflict of interest if I knew whichever of the 8 headphones I buy they're getting the same cut from Amazon. Why would they lie about which is best? But then with per-brand affiliate deals, yeah, I'm much more suspicious.
- KingMob 3y ago
  > Why would they lie about which is best? If the affiliate cut was a percentage they have an incentive to recommend pricier options (assuming they can't predict the price-volume tradeoff of their readers). If the affiliate is a flat fee per item, they have an incentive to recommend cheaper options, so more people buy. And in either case, they have a disincentive not to recommend a category at all. None of these are complete trust-killers, I'm just pointing out that getting paid out by Amazon instead of the brands doesn't eliminate incentives. All it does is ensure any incentive is consistent.
  - daft_pink 3y ago
    I agree. I often wondered if they recommended pricier products before, because some things I bought were expensive. However, when they just were through amazon, they didn't have to have conversations with the company to get a commission. What happens if they test something and it's great, and the company making the great product refuses to give them a commission? If something is a good deal for them, will they not update the review, because the affiliate setup is making a lot of money and they don't want to adjust it? What happens if they don't like the affiliate system the company's website uses, because it doesn't track cookies well enough? Do they have to call the company after the test and have them setup a specific affiliate system? It just seems like a terrible idea and there all these conflicts when they are negotiating a side deal with the company they review vs just collecting a consistent cut from a large marketplace like amazon.

The big question is, how would good reviewers get paid? Affiliate relationships are a conflict of interest, but people won’t pay for reviews.

by tomcam 3y ago

The big question is, how would good reviewers get paid? Affiliate relationships are a conflict of interest, but people won’t pay for reviews.

sanderjd 3y ago

Being a component of a popular media subscription bundle ... like the New York Times. That seems like the right model to me.

throw9away6 3y ago

Nobody really needs reviews of shitty products. A review site really only needs to write long form reviews of products they recommend due to quality or value. The affiliate stuff then really isn’t that much of a conflict if every product provides equal revenue.

Given_47 3y ago
> every product provides equal revenue Though I’d imagine most places have differing affiliate structures depending on the brand
tomcam 3y ago
Well yeah but… a lot of the time you don’t know up front that something is shitty, right?

frognumber 3y ago

A lot of people DO pay for reviews. Consumer Reports is an example. It's also possible to do transparent governance and have firewalls between reviewers and monatization. Few do, but it's a good idea.

tomcam 3y ago
Consumer Reports appears to be a shell of its former self though. I like the firewall idea a lot but modern media are so lacking in credibility that I’m not convinced it would work.

rodgerd 3y ago

The Consumers' Institute of New Zealand has people sign up for membership, and that funds their reviewing and advocacy. I think that models like that, co-ops, and the like are the only real way to make it work. As soon as your reviews run on advertising, affiliate links, whatever, you've immediately got pressure to be mindful of revenue streams.

patmcc 3y ago

I think part of why I used to trust Wirecutter was all the links (that I saw, at the time) were just Amazon Affiliates - it mitigated the conflict of interest if I knew whichever of the 8 headphones I buy they're getting the same cut from Amazon. Why would they lie about which is best? But then with per-brand affiliate deals, yeah, I'm much more suspicious.

KingMob 3y ago
> Why would they lie about which is best? If the affiliate cut was a percentage they have an incentive to recommend pricier options (assuming they can't predict the price-volume tradeoff of their readers). If the affiliate is a flat fee per item, they have an incentive to recommend cheaper options, so more people buy. And in either case, they have a disincentive not to recommend a category at all. None of these are complete trust-killers, I'm just pointing out that getting paid out by Amazon instead of the brands doesn't eliminate incentives. All it does is ensure any incentive is consistent.
- daft_pink 3y ago
  I agree. I often wondered if they recommended pricier products before, because some things I bought were expensive. However, when they just were through amazon, they didn't have to have conversations with the company to get a commission. What happens if they test something and it's great, and the company making the great product refuses to give them a commission? If something is a good deal for them, will they not update the review, because the affiliate setup is making a lot of money and they don't want to adjust it? What happens if they don't like the affiliate system the company's website uses, because it doesn't track cookies well enough? Do they have to call the company after the test and have them setup a specific affiliate system? It just seems like a terrible idea and there all these conflicts when they are negotiating a side deal with the company they review vs just collecting a consistent cut from a large marketplace like amazon.