3 ms·

This discussion is quite long, but for me it's really simple: You don't say your site is ad-free if you get paid for links. Especially inside the donations pit

This discussion is quite long, but for me it's really simple: You don't say your site is ad-free if you get paid for links. Especially inside the donations pitch. I don't care if you take donations, have a paywall, or sell advertisements (the ballet does all three, and that's awesome). Just be honest. A maxim I use when trying to establish honesty: If you write a sentence that a substantial number of readers are misinterpreting, it's usually fair to call it an inaccurate sentence. If it's knowingly left there, it's usually fair to call it dishonest. Exceptions would include technically difficult material. Edit: In this case, both the group paying her (Amazon) and Wikipedia refer to affiliate links as ads. I haven't polled her general readership, but that's a reasonable proxy for how the terms "ad-free" and "affiliate links" are interpreted. https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/ https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_marketing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_marketing

arbuge 14y ago
There's more than honesty at stake here... I'm pretty sure you could run into problems with the FTC (in the USA) if you disregard this principle. See for example http://bvyer.net/info/conduct http://bvyer.net/info/conduct. Other countries might have similar rules.
radley 14y ago
The difference is between solicited and unsolicited paid promotions. Popova thinks there's an obvious difference which goes without saying. Bleymaier thinks there's no difference and therefore attacked Popova for being morally bankrupt. Sound about right?
- greyman 14y ago
  I would side more with Popova here regarding the aff links. She seems to having read hundreds and hundreds of books, and then she picks those which she found interesting and blog about them. But what I see a bigger problem is that her asking for donation is presented to the reader as something which keeps the site ad-free, while it seems to be just another revenue stream.
- cubicle67 14y ago
  The deception seems not about how to classify affiliate links, but rather deliberately leading the reader to infer that the blog's only income source is donations
  - radley 14y ago
    Maybe so. It all boils down to recommendation versus promotion. I hate ads yet I'm totally comfortable with affiliate links on blog, so I consider her site to be ad-free. Oddly, I don't like affiliate links in forums like HN.
    - chobo 14y ago
      Why do you think one is okay but not the other?
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - harlanlewis 14y ago
        I feel the same as grandparent, but it's a blurry line. Ideally, promoted ads should be recommendations. Buy more than just reach to a demo, instead ensure a qualified voice authentically highlights your benefits - more akin to social recommendations from friends than banner ads. This is rarely attempted in a world of publications that depend on ad volume and outsourced ad buyer supply, but examples exist. The webcomic Penny Arcade recently ran a Kickstarter to achieve freedom from ads, but found itself answering questions like "What if I love ads?" (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2012/07/20/what-if-i-love-ads http://www.penny-arcade.com/2012/07/20/what-if-i-love-ads) because they'd built a reputation of only advertising products they would feel comfortable endorsing even without an adbuy (can't find a direct link to when they talk about this, but it's out there somewhere).
    - cubicle67 14y ago
      It all boils down to recommendation versus promotion No, I think that's a sidetrack. The issue, at least how I read it, is saying to the dear reader "please donate as that's my only income source"* when it's not true. It's deliberately deceptive. What's odd is that there's nothing wrong, that I can see, with just being upfront about affiliate links - "Hey, want to support this blog? I get a small amount of money from any purchases made by clicking on the amazon links" * Yes, I realise that's not the words she's using, but it sure is the message that's conveyed
larrys 14y ago
"both the group paying her (Amazon) and Wikipedia refer to affiliate links as ads" I believe that the reason that Amazon does this (I have an account) was intended to get around the sales tax issue by calling the payments for advertising as opposed to something that a State could take as "reseller" and translate to a presence and have a stronger leg for state sales tax from Amazon (not relevant given the recent changes but it was back when this practice started).

arbuge 14y ago

There's more than honesty at stake here... I'm pretty sure you could run into problems with the FTC (in the USA) if you disregard this principle. See for example http://bvyer.net/info/conduct http://bvyer.net/info/conduct. Other countries might have similar rules.

radley 14y ago

The difference is between solicited and unsolicited paid promotions. Popova thinks there's an obvious difference which goes without saying. Bleymaier thinks there's no difference and therefore attacked Popova for being morally bankrupt. Sound about right?

greyman 14y ago
I would side more with Popova here regarding the aff links. She seems to having read hundreds and hundreds of books, and then she picks those which she found interesting and blog about them. But what I see a bigger problem is that her asking for donation is presented to the reader as something which keeps the site ad-free, while it seems to be just another revenue stream.
cubicle67 14y ago
The deception seems not about how to classify affiliate links, but rather deliberately leading the reader to infer that the blog's only income source is donations
- radley 14y ago
  Maybe so. It all boils down to recommendation versus promotion. I hate ads yet I'm totally comfortable with affiliate links on blog, so I consider her site to be ad-free. Oddly, I don't like affiliate links in forums like HN.
  - chobo 14y ago
    Why do you think one is okay but not the other?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - harlanlewis 14y ago
      I feel the same as grandparent, but it's a blurry line. Ideally, promoted ads should be recommendations. Buy more than just reach to a demo, instead ensure a qualified voice authentically highlights your benefits - more akin to social recommendations from friends than banner ads. This is rarely attempted in a world of publications that depend on ad volume and outsourced ad buyer supply, but examples exist. The webcomic Penny Arcade recently ran a Kickstarter to achieve freedom from ads, but found itself answering questions like "What if I love ads?" (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2012/07/20/what-if-i-love-ads http://www.penny-arcade.com/2012/07/20/what-if-i-love-ads) because they'd built a reputation of only advertising products they would feel comfortable endorsing even without an adbuy (can't find a direct link to when they talk about this, but it's out there somewhere).
  - cubicle67 14y ago
    It all boils down to recommendation versus promotion No, I think that's a sidetrack. The issue, at least how I read it, is saying to the dear reader "please donate as that's my only income source"* when it's not true. It's deliberately deceptive. What's odd is that there's nothing wrong, that I can see, with just being upfront about affiliate links - "Hey, want to support this blog? I get a small amount of money from any purchases made by clicking on the amazon links" * Yes, I realise that's not the words she's using, but it sure is the message that's conveyed

larrys 14y ago

"both the group paying her (Amazon) and Wikipedia refer to affiliate links as ads" I believe that the reason that Amazon does this (I have an account) was intended to get around the sales tax issue by calling the payments for advertising as opposed to something that a State could take as "reseller" and translate to a presence and have a stronger leg for state sales tax from Amazon (not relevant given the recent changes but it was back when this practice started).