Using affiliate links: good or bad?

October 26, 2007 / Filed under: Blogging, Integrity, Links

John Fitzsimmons has a good post today about affiliate linking, in which he debates whether it is appropriate (or moral) to use links that provide a monetary "kick back" for each click-through. He mentions using Twitter to share links, and considered using LinkShare to generate a "kick back" on links that other Twitter followers click on.

What if you honestly think something is cool, interesting, of value and want to tell other people? Is it wrong then to use an affiliate link?

It's only wrong if you don't let your audience know.

I am a big fan of the status bar in browsers, because it shows the URL when you hover over a link in the browser. Often times, when someone is referring something, I'll discreetly check the status bar to see how the link is being directed. If it looks like it's an affiliate link, I won't click through, unless the author made it clear that the link is providing him/her a "kick back," and I find value in the product or idea behind the link.

I really don't like when authors attempt to "trick" readers into clicking through a link, which is only there to generate clicks, and more money for the author.

As John states, it only serves to compromise your integrity. And nobody wants to read a shady author.

It's easy to let your audience know. This could be under a section called "Affiliate links," or like I have here: "Advertisements." You could even include a short message such as, "If you click on this link, I get a small kick-back." Just make it clear to your readers that you're not out to scam them - you are simply using affiliate links to help pay for hosting costs, as an example.

Once you let them know, your readers will decide if they find the link useful enough to click through. If so, they'll have no problem providing you a "kick back," since they find value in it.

Comments/Mentions

# John Fitzsimmons at 10/26/2007 1:01 pm cst

Thanks for the props!

And I agree... but maybe it's just the whole idea of reputation management on twitter. On blogs it's easy to disclose affiliate links and also for people to see your other posts. It's easier for them to get an idea of what kind of a person you are.

But when dealing with only 140 characters posts that people may only see for a few seconds the wrong impression could be made. Followers could drop you thinking you are just some guy posting affiliate links all day.

Also, I may be reading too much into this, but twitter to me is more personal than a blog post. The things you tweet are the things you'd say in casual conversation with friends. And would you try to profit off your friends? I mean, you might... nothing technically wrong with it. But, still, it feels strange.

I'm probably over thinking it though... ;P

# Matthom at 10/26/2007 1:48 pm cst

John, good points.

I agree it's much harder to show your "true intentions" on Twitter, since it's really just a slew of incoming text snippets and links. Your avatar and Twitter bio page also does little to shed light onto who you really are.

In my opinion, I'd like Twitter much more without links. It would force people to actually say things, as opposed to just linking to it. But who am I kidding, this is the web. What is the web without links?

I guess my stance is this: If it feels strange, don't do it. I am more inclined to grab affiliate link money off random visitors to my blog (or regular visitors who know me and trust the value of my links), than I am in the two-second window it takes someone to glance at my latest Twitter update.

With Twitter, you have much less time to form an impression on someone since their "Recent" list could have incoming updates every second.

It's a good thought, and something I'm going to think more about...