Every consumer site wants user generated content for free but is not willing to share a tiny bit of the revs.
This signals desperation than proper business development. Reddit should look at Snapchat: today they have a Nike filter live. This is smart monetization and gives more bucks than this affiliate hack. Besides, Reddit should have done this affiliate thing themselves and not employed Viglink. Any intermediate will not just take their cut, they take more and send lower reports in general (if a CPA deal).
HighUpManager: "We aren't hitting our expected KPI's, we need to find ways to increase affiliate revenue. Is there any way we can increase affiliate-link exposure?"
MiddleManager: "Well, I guess I could have my team modify the ranking algorithm so that our affiliate links rise to the front-page faster and stay there longer. However..."
Why on Earth would they go through Viglink, rather than modifying the URLs themselves? Is it that hard to add `&tag=reddit` to the end of an amazon.com url?
It's a maintenance nightmare. And using services like viglink your code only deals with a single provider, like you say, you add a single tag and it works with plenty of metchants.
Potentially this also opens for other use cases such as substituting the product name with a link to buy, maybe useful in some specific subreddits.
I think this is a great attempt by Reddit to become sustainable that isn't purely based on display advertising.
I personally dislike affiliate links just like most others but unlike ads they don't ruin my browsing experience and are generally very transparent.
The real issue here in my opinion is how this was announced, as a "we're doing this, FYI". I'd instead open up a discussion with mods of large communities to get feedback and once they understand the goal get them to show support.
And if they had gone the route of involving large communities they could have also done a tiny rev share, similar to how YouTube compensates content creators.
I have to say, I vehemently disagree on all points.
The largest valid reason people dislike affiliate links is because it changes the motivation for posting. When you see someone recommend a product behind an affiliate link, you can be certain that they are motivated in part by money. That may not be the whole reason; they could very well be recommending the product because they actually believe in it, but you only know for sure that they intend to make money off the recommendation.
A secondary reason people don't like affiliate links is because people don't like the idea of someone "making money off of" them. In my opinion, this is kind of irrational. It doesn't cost the user anything extra.
Interestingly, Reddit's plan is pure in this regard. They are simply making money off recommendations people are already making. Their not posting the affiliate links, they're simply seizing the opportunity presented when someone else honestly and organically links to a product.
Lastly, you mention a revenue share. Ironically, this proposal would do what you are actually concerned about: incentivize users to post something inauthentic which they normally wouldn't. I think your proposed solution would actually turn this non-issue into the very issue you're trying to prevent in the first place!
In the interest of full disclosure, I run websites which profit from affiliate links. I suspect my opinion would be the same if I didn't, however.
> unlike ads they don't ruin my browsing experience
It's yet another piece of javascript that connects to some other site that will cause degraded responsiveness. Worse when Viglink's servers are unreachable.
It is kind of strange that online shops are in with this. I mean the links are there anyway, there is no additional benefit for the shops but they still have to pay additional costs in that way.
From reading through that thread it seems this is being done with JS, so the links still look like before but when you click them, something else happens to cause a redirect. IMHO that's not very honest behaviour, but fortunately sounds easy to block.
However, I have a feeling that some of the users will simply start rewriting links to not look like links.
> I’m an affiliate marketer with links to an online retailer on my website. When people read what I’ve written about a particular product and then click on those links and buy something from the retailer, I earn a commission from the retailer. What do I have to disclose? Where should the disclosure be?
> If you disclose your relationship to the retailer clearly and conspicuously on your site, readers can decide how much weight to give your endorsement.
> In some instances – like when the affiliate link is embedded in your product review – a single disclosure may be adequate. When the review has a clear and conspicuous disclosure of your relationship and the reader can see both the review containing that disclosure and the link at the same time, readers have the information they need. You could say something like, “I get commissions for purchases made through links in this post.” But if the product review containing the disclosure and the link are separated, readers may lose the connection.
> As for where to place a disclosure, the guiding principle is that it has to be clear and conspicuous. The closer it is to your recommendation, the better. Putting disclosures in obscure places – for example, buried on an ABOUT US or GENERAL INFO page, behind a poorly labeled hyperlink or in a “terms of service” agreement – isn’t good enough. Neither is placing it below your review or below the link to the online retailer so readers would have to keep scrolling after they finish reading. Consumers should be able to notice the disclosure easily. They shouldn’t have to hunt for it.
> Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?
> Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate.
I can totally understand this intent, but back when I was looking into something similar for forums, I found that doing so was generally against the TOS of places like Amazon?
Is there an opt-in/out button clearly visible in the early section of your profile / settings? If not reddit would be considered clickbait and this would cause a huge drop in user and social attendance and lost revenue. This move is more than foolish.
My main issue with this is that this is some behavior that is typically present in malware. Why is it acceptable when a website you visit does this, but unacceptable when an application you download an use does this?
This seems very underhanded. I really don't think I'll support this. I think I may need to write a Chrome/Firefox extension that grabs all of those links and rewrites them to be affiliate links to a charity.
"but are there any decent alternatives to Reddit?"
You're on it. You're using it right now. This is it.
I've been an active user and contributor to (in order) local BBS, Fidonet, Usenet, Slashdot, Kuro5hin, digg/reddit, HN, and in my opinion, HN is the best, most interesting and functional discussion board that has ever existed.
4chan's been here for a while for anyone looking for anonymity-first minimal moderation forums. Of course, it isn't the most pleasant site and definitely isn't for everyone.
As much as I would like to see this, censorship-resistant networks don't fare well in today's political climate (because of child porn and copyright). There's always a point of failure; if nothing else, it's the contact between the real world and the virtual world(s).
We can see this today in the case of TOR. The network is censorship-resistant from within, but it's still vulnerable externally - if governments put its users into jail, that's effectively censoring the whole network instead of some specific content.
8chan is quite close to what you described. Although the anonymity-first censorship-resistance thing might give you more than you bargained for once you get there.
Moderation is hard especially against bots and spammers. Moderation on a p2p environment would be harder.
Reddit had the advantage that the subreddit is a natural partition point so it's not quite as hard a problem as something more granular, but still: p2p social network is hard.
Hey, I'm working on something similar to what you're describing (focused on mobile right now) and would love to get your thoughts. My email is in my profile, please reach out and I'll show you what we've got so far.
Now why do you say that? What is an alternative means to earning dollars that you do support? I am an online entrepreneur so I am truly interested in knowing. .. ty!
[+] [-] greenspot|9 years ago|reply
This signals desperation than proper business development. Reddit should look at Snapchat: today they have a Nike filter live. This is smart monetization and gives more bucks than this affiliate hack. Besides, Reddit should have done this affiliate thing themselves and not employed Viglink. Any intermediate will not just take their cut, they take more and send lower reports in general (if a CPA deal).
[+] [-] orng|9 years ago|reply
HighUpManager: "We aren't hitting our expected KPI's, we need to find ways to increase affiliate revenue. Is there any way we can increase affiliate-link exposure?"
MiddleManager: "Well, I guess I could have my team modify the ranking algorithm so that our affiliate links rise to the front-page faster and stay there longer. However..."
HighUpManager: "Great! Make it so."
[+] [-] deegles|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kup0|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asd|9 years ago|reply
https://www.reddit.com/r/changelog/comments/4ldk0r/reddit_ch...
[+] [-] sbierwagen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelukelugames|9 years ago|reply
1) Maybe Viglink offered a deal to get exposure. I never heard of them until today.
2) They claim to cover 30k merchants.[1] Maybe there is a lot of money for reddit in the 29,999 other sellers too.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VigLink
[+] [-] andyh2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ominous|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ecesena|9 years ago|reply
Potentially this also opens for other use cases such as substituting the product name with a link to buy, maybe useful in some specific subreddits.
[+] [-] arielm|9 years ago|reply
I personally dislike affiliate links just like most others but unlike ads they don't ruin my browsing experience and are generally very transparent.
The real issue here in my opinion is how this was announced, as a "we're doing this, FYI". I'd instead open up a discussion with mods of large communities to get feedback and once they understand the goal get them to show support.
And if they had gone the route of involving large communities they could have also done a tiny rev share, similar to how YouTube compensates content creators.
[+] [-] ryangittins|9 years ago|reply
The largest valid reason people dislike affiliate links is because it changes the motivation for posting. When you see someone recommend a product behind an affiliate link, you can be certain that they are motivated in part by money. That may not be the whole reason; they could very well be recommending the product because they actually believe in it, but you only know for sure that they intend to make money off the recommendation.
A secondary reason people don't like affiliate links is because people don't like the idea of someone "making money off of" them. In my opinion, this is kind of irrational. It doesn't cost the user anything extra.
Interestingly, Reddit's plan is pure in this regard. They are simply making money off recommendations people are already making. Their not posting the affiliate links, they're simply seizing the opportunity presented when someone else honestly and organically links to a product.
Lastly, you mention a revenue share. Ironically, this proposal would do what you are actually concerned about: incentivize users to post something inauthentic which they normally wouldn't. I think your proposed solution would actually turn this non-issue into the very issue you're trying to prevent in the first place!
In the interest of full disclosure, I run websites which profit from affiliate links. I suspect my opinion would be the same if I didn't, however.
[+] [-] chiph|9 years ago|reply
It's yet another piece of javascript that connects to some other site that will cause degraded responsiveness. Worse when Viglink's servers are unreachable.
[+] [-] mej10|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunshiney|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] herbst|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] userbinator|9 years ago|reply
However, I have a feeling that some of the users will simply start rewriting links to not look like links.
http://superuser.com/questions/513323/how-to-open-hxxp-or-ot...
[+] [-] DanBC|9 years ago|reply
EDIT: Here's what the FTC says: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
> I’m an affiliate marketer with links to an online retailer on my website. When people read what I’ve written about a particular product and then click on those links and buy something from the retailer, I earn a commission from the retailer. What do I have to disclose? Where should the disclosure be?
> If you disclose your relationship to the retailer clearly and conspicuously on your site, readers can decide how much weight to give your endorsement.
> In some instances – like when the affiliate link is embedded in your product review – a single disclosure may be adequate. When the review has a clear and conspicuous disclosure of your relationship and the reader can see both the review containing that disclosure and the link at the same time, readers have the information they need. You could say something like, “I get commissions for purchases made through links in this post.” But if the product review containing the disclosure and the link are separated, readers may lose the connection.
> As for where to place a disclosure, the guiding principle is that it has to be clear and conspicuous. The closer it is to your recommendation, the better. Putting disclosures in obscure places – for example, buried on an ABOUT US or GENERAL INFO page, behind a poorly labeled hyperlink or in a “terms of service” agreement – isn’t good enough. Neither is placing it below your review or below the link to the online retailer so readers would have to keep scrolling after they finish reading. Consumers should be able to notice the disclosure easily. They shouldn’t have to hunt for it.
> Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?
> Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate.
[+] [-] verroq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mynewtb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pxtl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stesch|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mynewtb|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kmfrk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrmondo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robbiemitchell|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gravypod|9 years ago|reply
This seems very underhanded. I really don't think I'll support this. I think I may need to write a Chrome/Firefox extension that grabs all of those links and rewrites them to be affiliate links to a charity.
[+] [-] petetnt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stesch|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] B1FF_PSUVM|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeoNatan25|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] razzmataz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shrugger|9 years ago|reply
I've tried Voat, but it's literally just Reddit.
The world needs a p2p, anonymity-first, censorship resistant link-sharing and discussion site/app/thing.
If anyone could point in some such direction, I sure would appreciate it.
[+] [-] rsync|9 years ago|reply
You're on it. You're using it right now. This is it.
I've been an active user and contributor to (in order) local BBS, Fidonet, Usenet, Slashdot, Kuro5hin, digg/reddit, HN, and in my opinion, HN is the best, most interesting and functional discussion board that has ever existed.
Enjoy it! It won't last forever.
[+] [-] DanBC|9 years ago|reply
Every single time that's been tried it tanked because either pathological arseholes overwhelmed everyone else, or no-one wanted to use it.
But since you ask for an example that you can use: The "free" hierarchy of Usenet. It was set up to have no rules.
[+] [-] Anon1096|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomp|9 years ago|reply
We can see this today in the case of TOR. The network is censorship-resistant from within, but it's still vulnerable externally - if governments put its users into jail, that's effectively censoring the whole network instead of some specific content.
[+] [-] avnfish|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frabrunelle|9 years ago|reply
I am also interested by Yours (https://www.yours.network), which is built using Bitcoin.
And you can see a list of other related projects here: https://github.com/yoursnetwork/yours-core/blob/master/docs/...
[+] [-] Pxtl|9 years ago|reply
Reddit had the advantage that the subreddit is a natural partition point so it's not quite as hard a problem as something more granular, but still: p2p social network is hard.
[+] [-] notduncansmith|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeckalpha|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robbiemitchell|9 years ago|reply
As for alternatives, what about The Pirate Bay? Links, comments, anonymity.
[+] [-] drhodes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unlinker|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notduncansmith|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unlinker|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TelAviv_1|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ksou32|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunshiney|9 years ago|reply