TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Making $1 million from affiliate links on "Ad-Free" blog

256 点作者 iamchmod超过 12 年前

31 条评论

kevinalexbrown超过 12 年前
This discussion is quite long, but for me it's really simple:<p>You don't say your site is ad-free if you get paid for links. Especially inside the donations pitch.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p><a href="https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/" rel="nofollow">https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_marketing" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_marketing</a>
评论 #5240839 未加载
评论 #5241146 未加载
评论 #5241043 未加载
aresant超过 12 年前
I am surprised that the FTC's position on this issue is a footnote of the original article and the HN discussion.<p>From FTC Assistant Deputy Rich Cleland: "a disclosure must be made when a blogger is recommending something and using an affiliate link. He went on to say that “the recommendation triggers the disclosure requirement.”(1)<p>There is no wiggle room here.<p>Maria Popova needs to disclose the relationship with her advertisers (Amazon).<p>The FTC has a gargantuan job ahead of them w/regard to enforcement, but that's no excuse especially given the content that Popova writes about.<p>(1) <a href="http://lovell.com/corporate-blogs/ftc-guidelines-include-affiliate-links/" rel="nofollow">http://lovell.com/corporate-blogs/ftc-guidelines-include-aff...</a>
评论 #5241433 未加载
评论 #5242239 未加载
paulsutter超过 12 年前
Affiliate links are absolutely a form of advertising. It's called CPA (cost per action), and its one of the two major categories of performance advertising. The other category of performance advertising is CPC (cost per click), which is most common in search advertising but is also used by Google for their Adwords on-page ads. Banner ads are often sold as CPM (cost per thousand), which is often called brand advertising as opposed to performance.<p>Setting aside semantics, ad-free publications are expected to be influence-free. The minute a publication starts to optimize their affiliate links, they are allowing their advertising revenue to influence their publication.<p>Finally, as another poster has pointed out: using affiliate links is not her mistake. Her mistake is claiming to be ad-free when she is not. And claiming to be supported solely by donations, when she is not.<p>Both of these mistakes are fraud according to the FTC and also under California law (which applies to her readers in California). She is most exposed to a class-action lawsuit from a lawsuit mill. Literally, there are law firms whose main line menu says "press 4 if you have received a class-action lawsuit from us".<p>Changing the wording in response to a complaint, then changing it back after creating an LLC will be the crucial step that the law firm uses to pursue the case against her personally and against the LLC.
评论 #5243494 未加载
run4yourlives超过 12 年前
I don't get this at all.<p>So she has a site full of affiliate links because (holy crap) she wants to make some cash. Is OP mad about this? If so, meh, get a life.<p>So she says her site is 100% ad free. It is. Affiliate links aren't "ads" in any definition a reader would have unless it is somehow immoral to make a living.<p>So she asks for donations in order to keep ads off her site while at the same time employing affiliate links. I missed the part where there is a law about having multiple sources of income, and so did the company you most likely work for. Would you be happier if she put this entire thing behind a paywall?<p>I really don't understand the logic behind the critique. She provides a service, if you like the service, you get to consume it <i>completely without payment</i>. Now you're bitching because you've found out that she has found a way to continue to offer this service to you <i>for free</i>?<p>The beauty about "reviews" is that if you don't like them - for whatever reason - you stop listening. It's irrelevant whether the person is paid or not for a favourable review if you actually like the end product and agree with the review!<p>The entire idea of "immorality of paid reviews" screams of teenage "your band sold out because lots of people like you".
评论 #5241095 未加载
评论 #5240924 未加载
评论 #5240753 未加载
评论 #5240904 未加载
评论 #5241534 未加载
评论 #5240893 未加载
评论 #5240848 未加载
评论 #5242022 未加载
评论 #5240796 未加载
评论 #5241289 未加载
评论 #5241172 未加载
jonknee超过 12 年前
Curious that I didn't see this quoted...<p><a href="http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/donate/" rel="nofollow">http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/donate/</a><p>&#62; Keeping it a clean, ad-free reading experience — which is important to me and, I hope, to you — means it’s subsidized by the generous support of readers like you: directly, through donations, and indirectly, whenever you buy a book on Amazon from a link on Brain Pickings, which sends me a small percentage of its price.<p>Update: it looks like that and the site's footer explanation of Amazon links were both added recently (they don't appear in the Wayback Machine: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20130116024042/http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/donate/" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20130116024042/http://www.brainpi...</a> )
评论 #5240555 未加载
swanson超过 12 年前
If anyone is interested in turning on Amazon Affiliates for a technical blog, I collected some data over the past few months.<p>I put a single affiliate link on my technical book reviews (sample: <a href="http://swanson.github.com/writeup/2012/10/29/complications.html" rel="nofollow">http://swanson.github.com/writeup/2012/10/29/complications.h...</a>).<p>The numbers: <a href="https://gist.github.com/swanson/4711006" rel="nofollow">https://gist.github.com/swanson/4711006</a><p>Not exactly rolling in cash yet :)
评论 #5240299 未加载
kmfrk超过 12 年前
A, perhaps, more nuanced analysis:<p>1. <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/02/13/blogonomics-maria-popova-edition/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/02/13/blogonomics...</a><p>2. <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/02/16/maria-popovas-blogonomics-part-2/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/02/16/maria-popov...</a>
评论 #5240289 未加载
psadri超过 12 年前
I agree with the main point of the article.<p>However, I can tell you that your $1M in affiliate revenue on 1.2M UV for a literary blog is way off. Your assumption of 10% conversion is off by at least an order of magnitude.<p>The more likely rate is probably less than 1%. This would bring the total amount to around $100K in your calculation.
评论 #5240226 未加载
评论 #5240373 未加载
评论 #5240231 未加载
评论 #5240922 未加载
JacobAldridge超过 12 年前
I've been following this story, as my co-founder and I are in the midst of an advertising-policy debate.<p>I think the main issue was Popova not disclosing, even in some tiny font somewhere, that there were affiliate links. She may have avoided that in order to hold the "ad-free" moral high ground.<p>The FTC guidelines on this are an interesting read if you make endorsements, even affiliate links, on your site. I'll track it down.<p>EDIT - Here it is: <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides...</a>
评论 #5240309 未加载
评论 #5240523 未加载
评论 #5240434 未加载
entangld超过 12 年前
I've read the books she recommends on her website and they are usually thoughtful pieces of writing.<p>I don't think her statement, that she uses Amazon data to find other books her readers enjoy, is an admission of immoral conduct. She said a quarter of the books she recommends are from information she gained from Amazon. I believe she's referring to how she discovered them and not the reason she recommends them. Of course I am giving her the benefit of the doubt because the quality of the content on her site is generally high.<p>She serves her niche of intellectuals fairly well and I think spamming with lower quality content for the sake of making money would be noticed quickly by them. The donations on top of the affiliate links seems a bit much, but I think people might still donate and or purchase in order to show support for her work.
评论 #5240320 未加载
micahgoulart超过 12 年前
Here's Maria's response to these accusations: <a href="http://www.scilogs.com/next_regeneration/internet-curator-maria-popova-responds-to-unfair-accusations-with-civility/" rel="nofollow">http://www.scilogs.com/next_regeneration/internet-curator-ma...</a><p>In particular, she states, <i>"Regarding his Tumblr article – first of all, those numbers are ludicrous! If Amazon gave me even a tenth of that a year after Uncle Sam takes his fair share, I’d be delighted. Delighted!"</i>
评论 #5240786 未加载
评论 #5240932 未加载
zallarak超过 12 年前
This post seems too dramatic - it looks like she is simply admitting to learning from what her readers read. If you build an audience writing a certain way, it's likely that your readers also have something of value to contribute and inspecting what they read and in turn offering it to other readers on your website is clever, if anything.<p>Also, it's just not nice to publish personal email communication. Just bring it up with her over a coffee or something.
评论 #5240590 未加载
rflrob超过 12 年前
&#62; the simplest summary question I can think to ask is: What do you think Richard Feynman would do in your situation?<p>At the risk of getting downvoted for a silly comment, there's the Feynman Flowchart: <a href="http://onionesquereality.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/what-would-feynman-do/" rel="nofollow">http://onionesquereality.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/what-would...</a>
jessep超过 12 年前
Funny thing is: she could make more money by telling people she gets support from the links. She just needs to spin it correctly.People want to buy these books, knowing it is helping her would only make them want to buy them more.<p>I worked at a non-profit tech company that did a campaign where we got people to use our affiliate code to make purchases on Amazon. People liked doing it, it made them feel good. It also gave them excuse to feel good about going on a buying spree on Amazon.<p>I bet she could significantly increase revenue buy having a button under each book she links to that said, "Help keep this site going, buy this book".<p>And it would also sidestep this whole controversy.
评论 #5243261 未加载
jonknee超过 12 年前
&#62; There are typically 3 articles published per day, and most pages have more than one article, but for the most conservative number of ad impressions let's assume one article per page, yielding 6 ads per page. At 3M page views per month, this is about 18M affiliate ads served per month, or 216M impressions per year.<p>It's cute that the author thinks number of links = "impressions" and that it has some sort of effect on the number of sales. In reality it's mostly the same people viewing the site every day and very few will end up buying a book, even fewer from the affiliate link (there appears to also always be a link for finding it in your local public library). You could put 100 links in a post and have no more sales than with 1, what matters is if your readers find the book interesting enough to want to pay to read it.
评论 #5241032 未加载
geuis超过 12 年前
Couple of issues with this:<p>1) The screenshot mentioned in the story shows no clear indications of the advertising he refers to. <a href="http://on-advertising.tumblr.com/post/42994492644/donation-pitch-included-at-the-end-of-each-brain" rel="nofollow">http://on-advertising.tumblr.com/post/42994492644/donation-p...</a><p>2) Author has included a massive wall of text with little structure. No headings or sections. Makes it harder to get through it.<p>3) Most important of all, the author does not provide a clear link to the site of the person he is criticizing. This makes it harder for third parties (us) to evaluate his claims.
fatalerrorx3超过 12 年前
It looks she now has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that says they participate in the Amazon Affiliate program which allows website owners the ability to earn a commission for products that are linked to.
评论 #5240499 未加载
评论 #5240345 未加载
stuffihavemade超过 12 年前
"from Amazon after her readers click the ads in her articles and go on to make purchases (she sees, and makes commissions off of, the other items they place in their shopping cart, including books that she didn’t link to)."<p>How does this work exactly? Is there a cookie with the affiliate's id set when you click on an affiliate's link?
评论 #5240441 未加载
评论 #5240414 未加载
评论 #5240418 未加载
评论 #5240417 未加载
binaryorganic超过 12 年前
I'm not sure what her support page used to say, but it seems perfectly clear at present. In the same sentence she both says she wants to keep the site ad-free AND confirms that one of the way she does this is through affiliate links:<p>"Keeping it a clean, ad-free reading experience — which is important to me and, I hope, to you — means it’s subsidized by the generous support of readers like you: directly, through donations, and indirectly, whenever you buy a book on Amazon from a link on Brain Pickings, which sends me a small percentage of its price."<p>Seems like she's being fully transparent.
评论 #5241970 未加载
TWAndrews超过 12 年前
Does the math in the post seem plausible to anyone who uses affiliate links? A .001 click-through rate to Amazon seems plausible, but unless I'm mistaken the author of the post is using that a conversion percentage (i.e. a click-through + purchase), which seems way too high to me, by an order of magnitude or more.<p>Does anyone have solid numbers for click-through to purchase rates of affiliate links?
评论 #5242625 未加载
ommunist超过 12 年前
Capitalism rewards skilful deception. Yes, she does unethically, but she is rewarded by the system! And read her, she is doing a good job for her readers. Ask yourself - are Google and Yahoo and Yandex doing all right by placing everyone into their individual search bubbles to extract more ad money from AdSense? Probably not.
kriro超过 12 年前
Looks like someone got some free A/B-testing on add-free vs banner-free out of the exchange :P
dpweb超过 12 年前
Competitor of hers maybe? Don't totally disagree but the implication at the end this woman may be engaging in tax irregularities? - that's unfounded and a bit slanderous.<p>Agree though - aff links are ads. You shouldn't say 'ad-free'.
philip1209超过 12 年前
Could a lack of disclosure about affiliate links be a violation of the Amazon terms of service and get her affiliate account canceled?
bjourne超过 12 年前
Usually, when referring to someone in print, we use their last name. Out of courtesy. So it's "Popova" not "Maria."<p>Also, <i>Bleymaier</i>'s estimates on donation and affiliate income are just ludicrous. 50k-100k/year in donations from 1.2 million visitors/month? Yeah, right. :) They take away from the original point he was trying to make, which he could have made without making numbers up out of thin air.
ibudiallo超过 12 年前
Nothing wrong with trying to make money. It's not like she is scamming her readers
评论 #5241726 未加载
评论 #5241039 未加载
评论 #5243673 未加载
sogen超过 12 年前
Affiliate links are ads, hers'
humanspecies超过 12 年前
The author of this article came across as a major creep to me. They guy checks emails from 6 months ago and keeps going back to her blog to verify stuff....WTF? I'd be more concerned about this guy than her silly affiliate links.
thoughtcriminal超过 12 年前
I'm not an accountant, but what The Brain Pickings is doing sounds like tax fraud to me, especially the non-profit bit.
yourmind超过 12 年前
scammer.
simonhamp超过 12 年前
Oh dear god. One more hypocrite makes illegitimate gains and has whistle blown by jealous, over-zealous loser who believes themselves to be the moral judge/jury/executioner of us all. Next