I Am No Longer an Affiliate
29 February 2008 – 11:03 amThe other day, I thanked Jason Calacanis for hitting the Affiliate Summit attendees, and therefore the affiliate marketing community, in the face with a big fish of a keynote address. It was a “wake the hell up” message that I believe strongly that we needed to hear.
I’ll also give Wayne Porter a long overdue public thank you for his own eye opening commentary. Wayne and I go way back and I think he knows he has my utmost respect. I implore you to take the time to read Wayne’s essays. Especially those in response to Jason’s recent spotlight on affiliates. It is true that some of them read like they were designed for the Dr.Awkward MIT Puzzle solving team, but if you can extract only 10% of Wayne’s meaning, you’ll come out ahead.
In this one, Wayne begs us to stop referring to ourselves as “affiliates”. I’ve been in this space for a long time, and that term is burned in my brain as much as my own name. It’s hard to drop it. I even refused the change over to “publisher” when my employment changed over to Commission Junction (who uses the term publisher instead of affiliate) for a short time due to an acquisition. Not all affiliates are publishers.
I’ve since moved on to be a so called “affiliate”. The stigma and confusion that term carries along as baggage is such that maybe I should shed that label. Is “affiliate” really synonymous to “spammer” in the Valley? I thought even Google had the smarts to differentiate and write a document to define he term “thin affiliate”. But if I’m going to get lumped in with the spammers, call me something else.
Actually, I am a publisher. We develop websites that are useful to people. Our largest website has more visitors than most of the merchants that we promote. I just so happen to monetize with affiliate marketing relationships.
During Jason’s keynote address, after he talked to us about affiliate spam for an hour almost as if that’s all we did, someone asked, and I can only paraphrase, “What do we have to do to not be spam?” Jason’s answer was, “Label your links. Disclosure.”
And since then, he’s gone so far as to ask the question, “Should we ban unlabeled affiliate links from Mahalo?” In it he shows a screenshot of very polite rejections from a Mahalo editor to a coupon site that they have been rejected due to hidden or misleading affiliate links.
That reply, with no elaboration, implies that they’re something sneaky going on at the site they declined. And maybe there was. I just think they didn’t like the site, maybe cast a “thin affiliate” label on it, and gave that response as a PC cop-out instead of saying that they thought the site was crap. As if that website owner put some disclosure on the links that it would make it onto that Mahalo page. NFW.
But from there, Jason asks the extreme question, should all unlabeled links be banned? If his own answer to that question is yes, maybe they should start with Mahalo’s darling ThisNext, whose board Jason is on, which has monetized links all over the place with no (obvious anyway) disclosure that the links are monetized.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the way ThisNext links out. The content is fantastic, and it’s an engaging community. They have monetized links. So clearly Jason’s own answer to his question is “no”, at least based on his current behavior. ThisNext is an example of an affiliate site that has somehow risen above what Jason is calling “affiliates” where the links out don’t matter.
Why? They add value. Link to sites that you think are “good” and don’t link to sites that you think are tricky or misleading or spammy. But clearly by Jason’s own example (he’s on the board of ThisNext), unlabeled monetized links are not always bad. Perfect. Base your judgement on whether a website is good or not, not whether they’re disclosing their business model.
Happy users don’t care.
Let me close with an example of my own. I have a post here on this blog which has been held up a few times in public as a great example of “good affiliate marketing”.
This post about repairing a television has an affiliate link for a place to buy the part required in the repair. There are nearly 1000 happy people who have taken the time to comment on it’s worth, making this page pretty undeniably valuable. I don’t say that I get a couple bucks each time someone buys through that link. If I did, it certainly wouldn’t hurt. It might even make these elated people more careful to click the link. The point is, it’s really not important as long as I’m not taking advantage or misleading the consumer.
That is the real measure of linkworthyness. I would hope that the most relevant page on the Internet for replacing the broken color wheel on your television would not get rejected just because it’s got an unlabeled affiliate link in it.
What’s ironic is that the power of Mahalo’s human editors is such that they can actually make that evaluation of useful vs. misleading at a mere glance.
Should Mahalo impose a global ban due to an “affiliate” fingerprint that could blindly dispose of the best page on the Net on any given search?
That is thinking like a search engine algorithm.
Is that as good as you can do, Jason?
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed
27 Responses to “I Am No Longer an Affiliate”
How deep in the red before all the Amazon and Ebay links at Mahalo turn into affiliate links?
By Jason Forthofer on Feb 29, 2008
Jason’s service is not the issue. We, you, are defined by what we do.
Thank you Scott. The MIT Puzzle’s were pattern disruption.
By Wayne Porter on Feb 29, 2008
It is my coupon site in question. Nice post. I totally agree with ‘Happy users don’t care’. I have spent years building a loyal user base. I don’t rank well in the search engines and I could care less. I focus on happy customers. They are the ones that tell their friends. I do this by building a relationship with my users thru my blog, by answering all emails, and going the extra mile to exceed customers expectations. But yet I get declined by Mahalo because I don’t say by each link “the link you are about to click is an affiliate link and I will get paid a commission if you follow it”. But like you said, if I did post that statement, my users would probably be more likely to follow it and help me pay my bills! Just my 2 cents.
By Kyle on Feb 29, 2008
“I Am No Longer an Affiliate”
Well, that’s just sad. I still am, actually I call myself an affiliate marketer. That’s what we are, marketers. I find a lot of these blog posts after this event amazing. It’s like he made of bunch of you feel so bad about what you do. Snap out of it.
By Jonathan (Trust) on Feb 29, 2008
I don’t for a second feel bad about what I do.
My point is, don’t label me based on anything but what I do, as Wayne summed up nicely in a few words. (how’s that for role reversal?)
By Scott on Feb 29, 2008
First of all, I would like to start by saying that I agree whole-heartedly with you! Although Jason Calacanis is not exactly an authority on affiliate marketing or performance based marketing he does call us to the mat on a few issues that we, as a group, cannot dismiss. Like it or not there are those in our industry that employ ‘black hat’ tactics in order to make a quick buck, that’s simple reality. I witnessed other affiliates bragging that they are actively seeking out these methods. I am new to this business and I have seen these techniques at their absolute worst “Buy Viagara/Cialis/etc etc”… It’s up to you and I to choose to work above the fray and truly add meaningful web content that enriches the online experience of our visitors. You can choose to do one of two things;
Whine, complain, and ignore Mr. Calacanis’ insight ,OR find a way to apply his perspective to your site and to your business in order to improve your service to your visitor.
In regards to labeling monetized links as advertisements, I disagree with Mr. Calacanis. If a publisher recommends ACME Inc. and is being compensated on referrals, you had better believe that there are competing brands that also offer compensation. There is nothing to prevent the publisher from providing an impartial review or recommendation of ACME Inc. Further, there are many instances in which the visitor will receive an added benefit such as a discount or free accessories by using the affiliate link.
One thing I know for sure, Jason Calacanis managed to get 3000 active online marketers to talk about his non-stop for the last week! What marketing genius.
By Nathan Smith on Feb 29, 2008
Nathan,
Actually the reach is much farther than 3000, and we are concerned with who- not how many. Paredo Function…We know that well.
As I said Jason is not the issue. He was given welcome feedback on Mahalo- and I hope he does well. It is stereotyping that is the problem.
Jason is a viral shell. We don’t want the ideas attacked- we want them released. Thus Jason is attacked, viral shell keeps fragile memes intact. It propagates because Jason is well- Jason.
He is now continuing the dialog and that is great. That is a bonus.
-wayne
By Wayne Porter on Feb 29, 2008
“Wayne summed up nicely in a few words. (how’s that for role reversal?)”
Highly unusual.
By Wayne Porter on Feb 29, 2008
I am proud to be an affiliate. It’s only a matter of time before Google bumps Calacanis down a notch for making them look like idiots that don’t know how to control their own spam problem. If it’s one thing that Google doesn’t like it’s being made a fool out of. And Calacanis’s source of income IS GOOGLE. He ruined Netscape, and he ruin’s everything he touches. It’s just a matter of time before he sells Mahalo to some sucker company, and is off on his moral crusade on the next big thing. Why do people even pay attention to him? If you don’t pay attention to him he’ll go away - it’s that simple. Stop linking to his blog, and stop talking about him!
I AM PROUD TO BE AN AFFILIATE, YOU SHOULD BE PROUD TOO.
By Mike on Mar 1, 2008
I agree, this has really gotten out of control. It’s not like we aren’t aware of the black hat vs white hat situation. We all have made our stands and do what we feel comfortable with, no ranting is going to change that. The idea of labeling every affiliate link is ridiculous. Most people don’t care one way or the other.
I, for one, will keep on producing the best content that I can and that is the model I am most comfortable with and proud of.
By Chris O'Byrne on Mar 1, 2008
I prefer “affiliates” and “affiliate marketing”, but I could care less what it’s called. It still works.
When CJ switched from “affiliates” and “merchants” to “publishers” and “advertisers” years ago, my earnings neither increased nor decreased. It just confused things. I’m an affiliate, but I advertise — so why am I called a publisher?
I went to the AFFILIATE Summit last week.
When I go to a merchant’s site and look for their AFFILIATE program, I usually find it through a link titled AFFILIATES.
It’s all just semantics. And no matter what it’s called, the bad players will follow along and polute the pool. Companies who do things wrong are the ones who usually change their names. I would rather see us focus on cleaning up the bad players rather than hiding behind new names.
By Michael Coley on Mar 1, 2008
@Mike: I’m guessing that you’re proud of being entrepreneurial, working for yourself, your accomplishments, the cool stuff you do.
If you’re proud of the title “affiliate”, are you proud of the spammers who carry that same title and put your business at risk because they use the same types of links that you use when monetizing?
@Michael: I’m not looking for a name change. I agree this isn’t about semantics.
Yes, it’s called “affiliate” marketing and we went to “affiliate” summit. I monetize with “affiliate” relationships.
I don’t like being associated with spammers and when someone who owns a search engine is considering putting the hammer down on “affiliates”, that’s because of the spammers out there.
If the “affiliate” label is ruined, I don’t want a label. Don’t classify me based on how I monetize my work. Judge me on what I do.
By Scott on Mar 1, 2008
Scott- to answer your question: spammers do not carry the same title as affiliates. Spammers are called spammers. Plain and simple. You cross the line of being a spammer when you knowingly and deliberately send out mass commercial messages to people that didn’t opt in to receiving them.
Also you shouldn’t be concerned with someone like Jason, because he really has no power against affiliates. Mahalo is not a search engine. It’s a glorified directory. And when he starts putting the hammer down on us - no one will listen because he is a megalomaniac.
The affiliate label is not ruined. The definition of the word affiliate defines what we do as programmers. We are literally subsidiaries of the company we promote. There is nothing wrong with that, and I am still proud of what I do. But it will be a cold day in hell when I disclose my affiliate links.
By Mike on Mar 1, 2008
“spammers do not carry the same title as affiliates”
I would hope that’s the case, but it seems that the line is blurring.
This isn’t about Jason or Mahalo. It’s about a mindset that he possesses and very likely shares with others.
Surely, you cannot deny that some affiliates are spammers.
Is that increasing in number? As a percentage of affiliates? If so, it doesn’t matter how you or I define “affiliate”. The spammers who are getting in the face of the search engines will define it for all of us.
Stop thinking about yourself and how you do “affiliate marketing” for a second, and look at how the rest of the world might look at it. And if it reaches a tipping point where it’s causing more harm than good, what happens then?
By Scott on Mar 1, 2008
I don’t think the line between spammers and affiliates is blurring at all. The second you cross the line and spam you become a spammer. This doesn’t mean you can’t cross the line again and change your ways. I deliver customers to companies that pay me for them. I am an affiliate. I don’t spam. Why must I have to hear his accusation about my industry in general? I don’t- and won’t take it. Thats the only thing I can do to fight that mindset. And people respect what I do when I tell them about it. They understand because I teach them about it. And I am certain they don’t walk away and think “he’s a spammer”.
Jason and his mindset is extreme. He is an extremist and his sole purpose in giving that talk was to plug his own site. He looked like an idiot up there dropping the F bomb - what an unprofessional! Do you really NEED to take him seriously? No. Who cares about his opinion of us? He can call us spammers when he doesn’t even know us - or know what we do - he said it himself - he doesn’t know that much about our industry. I call him a spammer for spurting his blogiarrhea about his site. What does he think about my opinion? Nothing. It’s the same way we should treat his opinion.
There’s no question there are some bad apples out there. But there are bad apples in every industry. So what?
By Mike on Mar 2, 2008
So what?
Again… stop thinking about yourself and how you do “affiliate marketing” for a second, and look at how the rest of the world might look at it. And if it reaches a tipping point where it’s causing more harm than good, what happens then?
Yes, there are bad apples in every industry, and as a result some industries have become regulated.
Do you know any financial advisors with websites? Ask them about what they can say on their websites. Pretty much nothing without having it reviewed by regulators.
I’m not saying it is or isn’t going to happen. Of course I don’t know. But as an industry (not you or me), don’t you think we tolerate many of the bad apples?
By Scott on Mar 2, 2008
Let me just add that I really don’t hold the (extreme) view that we’re on the verge of regulation. We’re not exactly tricking people out of their money when we send them to an offer for some product or service. When I talk about regulation, I’m getting away from my point.
That point is that others are defining us based on our actions as a group, not individuals.
Interestingly, you called them bad apples. How does the rest of that proverb go again?
By Scott on Mar 2, 2008
I am not thinking about myself here. I’m saying I don’t do anything that would cause the rest of the world to look at it and say “stop - that is wrong.” I’ve already had numerous people ask me what I do, and I explain it to them - and they don’t think I am doing ANYTHING wrong. I know that there is no question that people do bad things online and spam - but really why are we whining about it? There are much worse things in this world.
Just because there are regulations in the financial industry doesn’t mean fraud doesn’t go on. There already are regulations in our industry. It’s against the law to spam. So I don’t send out mass commercial emails without opt-in consent. What other regulations will there be on us? Will someone say no, you can’t make a website unless you contribute something that is considered worthwhile of value on it? Who defines what is valuable? If I want to create a complete piece of crap website with 1 picture on it - I can. Thats freedom. Do I create sites like that? No. But I can.
As an industry, yes we tolerate many of the bad apples. You attended an event where many bad apples attended. But that is business. In business and in the real world, there is good and bad. Take the good and learn from it, and take the bad and learn from it. There will always be bad apples. And if you ask me, I think we’ve done a good job of keeping most of them out. Can we improve? Sure. But that doesn’t mean we should feel ashamed of who we are or what we do.
Guilt is a powerful mind control tool - and I don’t let it run my life. I will never feel guilty for what I do or what the industry does. And I will never change calling myself what I am.
By Mike on Mar 2, 2008
“Take the good and learn from it, and take the bad and learn from it.”
Really, that’s all I’m saying. Plus look at what your role in all of that is, and if you can do anything about it, do it.
thanks for the discussion.
By Scott on Mar 2, 2008
It’s funny, this just happened to me.
A page was mine was rejected for this very reason. I started a new page at Mahalo and recommened a bunch of links across the whole internet, because I happen to be interested in the subject.
One referrence was to a primer about the subject at my personal blog and include affiliate links. I got an email that it was rejected, because I did not disclose the links.
First of all is it not clear to me how I would be able to disclose the links in a way that it is clear and that it does not hurt the usability of the main content, but I added a page to my site where I link to from every other page that includes a disclosure. I send an email back to the editor, but never got an answer back.
Okay, my tone was a little bit sarcastic, but I said and asked basically the same as you did.
If the content is great, does it matter how it is monetized? Should I rather add less targeted AdSense ads instead of the highly targeted and specific affiliate links?
By Carsten Cumbrowski on Apr 13, 2008
Oh, the Mahalo page I was talking about is this one.
By Carsten Cumbrowski on Apr 13, 2008