<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are Affiliate Links Unethical Without Disclosure?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:24:19 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Barnhart</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-2067</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Barnhart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:15:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-2067</guid>
		<description>Excluding twitter for the moment, why not use an existing paradigm to deal with affiliate links - semantically as &lt;a href=&quot;http://microformats.org/about/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;microformats?&lt;/a&gt;. Something as simple as rel=&quot;affiliate&quot; might be sufficient.  A more complex microformat might identify the advertiser or network (a la rel=&quot;license&quot; microformat&quot;).

This way, the small percentage of people who may be concerned can download the inevitable plugin if needed, management and links to privacy and disclosure pages automated, etc.  Of course, the real drivers of this may need to the actual affiliate programs - if CJ for example put this in their auto code generation tool.  

As for Twitter, the major URL shorteners like BudURL could simply set up a complementary domain for affiliate/sponsored links and maintain the disclosure on their site via a link preview function.  Again, it would help if Twitter then autotagged the URL.

A modest proposal, at least.  And requires no one else&#039;s permission to start!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excluding twitter for the moment, why not use an existing paradigm to deal with affiliate links &#8211; semantically as <a href="http://microformats.org/about/" rel="nofollow">microformats?</a>. Something as simple as rel=&#8221;affiliate&#8221; might be sufficient.  A more complex microformat might identify the advertiser or network (a la rel=&#8221;license&#8221; microformat&#8221;).</p>
<p>This way, the small percentage of people who may be concerned can download the inevitable plugin if needed, management and links to privacy and disclosure pages automated, etc.  Of course, the real drivers of this may need to the actual affiliate programs &#8211; if CJ for example put this in their auto code generation tool.  </p>
<p>As for Twitter, the major URL shorteners like BudURL could simply set up a complementary domain for affiliate/sponsored links and maintain the disclosure on their site via a link preview function.  Again, it would help if Twitter then autotagged the URL.</p>
<p>A modest proposal, at least.  And requires no one else&#8217;s permission to start!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Majento</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-1896</link>
		<dc:creator>Majento</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 03:16:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-1896</guid>
		<description>Friday again, just read this, great post, nothing&#039;s wrong with affiliation links as long as trust is maintained, no one smart would keep following a friend that sends out irrelevant or non authentic recs. 
If one can&#039;t keep the trust of friends, it would be best to unplug and head for the woods, cheers.
&lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/majento&quot; title=&quot;@Majento&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Friday again, just read this, great post, nothing&#8217;s wrong with affiliation links as long as trust is maintained, no one smart would keep following a friend that sends out irrelevant or non authentic recs.<br />
If one can&#8217;t keep the trust of friends, it would be best to unplug and head for the woods, cheers.<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/majento" title="@Majento" rel="nofollow"></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly Powell</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-1877</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly Powell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 17:23:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-1877</guid>
		<description>Help someone help me! Twitters are hypnotizing me through the 15&quot; screen in front of me and forcing me to wait, wait; I&#039;m going to do it! No, stop! ugh. I did it I clicked on their affiliate link! 

Just a little humor here. It&#039;s a choice we make to click on an affiliate link or NOT. Just as it&#039;s a choice to click on a posted blog post or NOT. The twitterers of the world for the most part are not out to get people.

Have I used affiliate links in tweets? Yes. Have I used affiliate links in blogs? Yes.

Do I twist somebody&#039;s arm to click on them? No. I like to think that most twitterers are conscious, breathing, and for the most part ethical folks who either have reviewed a great product. Now, that it not to say that there are folks out there who are just spamming folks with affiliate links for every Tom (read Eban), Dick (read Kern), and Harry (read Ed) guru out there. :-)

People, you still have a choice...to click OR not to click. To unfollow or follow that is the question!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Help someone help me! Twitters are hypnotizing me through the 15&#8243; screen in front of me and forcing me to wait, wait; I&#8217;m going to do it! No, stop! ugh. I did it I clicked on their affiliate link! </p>
<p>Just a little humor here. It&#8217;s a choice we make to click on an affiliate link or NOT. Just as it&#8217;s a choice to click on a posted blog post or NOT. The twitterers of the world for the most part are not out to get people.</p>
<p>Have I used affiliate links in tweets? Yes. Have I used affiliate links in blogs? Yes.</p>
<p>Do I twist somebody&#8217;s arm to click on them? No. I like to think that most twitterers are conscious, breathing, and for the most part ethical folks who either have reviewed a great product. Now, that it not to say that there are folks out there who are just spamming folks with affiliate links for every Tom (read Eban), Dick (read Kern), and Harry (read Ed) guru out there. :-)</p>
<p>People, you still have a choice&#8230;to click OR not to click. To unfollow or follow that is the question!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-1863</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 12:42:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-1863</guid>
		<description>You sum it up in a single line, &quot;I’d never attach my name to something I didn’t believe in&quot;.  It&#039;s really that simple.  Whether you make a buck or not when recommending something/one shouldn&#039;t make any difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You sum it up in a single line, &#8220;I’d never attach my name to something I didn’t believe in&#8221;.  It&#8217;s really that simple.  Whether you make a buck or not when recommending something/one shouldn&#8217;t make any difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alicia Navarro</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-1815</link>
		<dc:creator>Alicia Navarro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 11:59:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-1815</guid>
		<description>Fantastic conversation, I&#039;ve been following the debate and discussion around disclosure of affiliate links, especially in Twitter, so this has been a refreshing read, particularly as its the most sensible.

My view is that most of us try to earn a living from the internet, and affiliate marketing is a very fair way to do this, more so than traditional banner advertising, as its very traceable and measurable for merchants, and doesn&#039;t fill a website with too much advertising. This view that people shouldn&#039;t make money from their work creating a website seems a little naive.

The answer - in my opinion - is to embrace commercialism in a way that doesn&#039;t compromise the quality of the content. If the quality is compromised, you lose your users, so there is an incentive to stay high quality. If you monetise that content using affiliate marketing, I have no problem with it at all, as if I don&#039;t like it, I just don&#039;t buy the product. Unless a site is a charity, I am always going to assume there is a commercial push behind a product recommendation, but that doesn&#039;t mean the quality of the content is bad. If anything, I am willing to reward the site for the referral and buy the recommended item.

Sites have to make money, and its harder to do so with traditional advertising. Lets focus on the quality of the content rather than on what they do to make money. There is always a little feeling of &#039;sigh&#039; when you know something is an advertisement: I hate ads on TV and its frustrating to have so many ads in newspapers... but it is what keeps the content I like affordable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fantastic conversation, I&#8217;ve been following the debate and discussion around disclosure of affiliate links, especially in Twitter, so this has been a refreshing read, particularly as its the most sensible.</p>
<p>My view is that most of us try to earn a living from the internet, and affiliate marketing is a very fair way to do this, more so than traditional banner advertising, as its very traceable and measurable for merchants, and doesn&#8217;t fill a website with too much advertising. This view that people shouldn&#8217;t make money from their work creating a website seems a little naive.</p>
<p>The answer &#8211; in my opinion &#8211; is to embrace commercialism in a way that doesn&#8217;t compromise the quality of the content. If the quality is compromised, you lose your users, so there is an incentive to stay high quality. If you monetise that content using affiliate marketing, I have no problem with it at all, as if I don&#8217;t like it, I just don&#8217;t buy the product. Unless a site is a charity, I am always going to assume there is a commercial push behind a product recommendation, but that doesn&#8217;t mean the quality of the content is bad. If anything, I am willing to reward the site for the referral and buy the recommended item.</p>
<p>Sites have to make money, and its harder to do so with traditional advertising. Lets focus on the quality of the content rather than on what they do to make money. There is always a little feeling of &#8217;sigh&#8217; when you know something is an advertisement: I hate ads on TV and its frustrating to have so many ads in newspapers&#8230; but it is what keeps the content I like affordable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Dammann</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-1814</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Dammann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 05:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-1814</guid>
		<description>I am ok with anything that is targeted. Anything that has to do at least something with the reason that I have entered your website.
If there is a paid and disclosed advertising for something like an ebook about Twitter on a website about Mortgages, it distracts.
I think that when you have a status where people take your word and recommendations, then you also have a responsibility to pick and choose who you advertise wisely.

Mike</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am ok with anything that is targeted. Anything that has to do at least something with the reason that I have entered your website.<br />
If there is a paid and disclosed advertising for something like an ebook about Twitter on a website about Mortgages, it distracts.<br />
I think that when you have a status where people take your word and recommendations, then you also have a responsibility to pick and choose who you advertise wisely.</p>
<p>Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Firuze Okten Gokce</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-1809</link>
		<dc:creator>Firuze Okten Gokce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 19:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-1809</guid>
		<description>I cannot go over all of the (106) comments. So I hope this is not going to be a double version. 
I think the dilemna is in our evaluation of social media tools. Social media Tools are for communicating, sharing opinions or having debates. It is not necessary to find monetizaiton models everything that we are consuming. ( yes it&#039;s true for the developers of that tool, they need find a way to monetize it) It is unnatural to try to promote stg in 140 characters. However, if you are genuely believing in some product ( not thousands of them) only then there is no harm to put any link which is an affiliate link or not.

The best thing about twitter is the way it let us to find valuable resources and people. So Twitter cannot constantly consumed as a revenue stream. Instead it is a place to talk and share just like we meet  new people in any physical social environment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I cannot go over all of the (106) comments. So I hope this is not going to be a double version.<br />
I think the dilemna is in our evaluation of social media tools. Social media Tools are for communicating, sharing opinions or having debates. It is not necessary to find monetizaiton models everything that we are consuming. ( yes it&#8217;s true for the developers of that tool, they need find a way to monetize it) It is unnatural to try to promote stg in 140 characters. However, if you are genuely believing in some product ( not thousands of them) only then there is no harm to put any link which is an affiliate link or not.</p>
<p>The best thing about twitter is the way it let us to find valuable resources and people. So Twitter cannot constantly consumed as a revenue stream. Instead it is a place to talk and share just like we meet  new people in any physical social environment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 5ubliminal</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-1808</link>
		<dc:creator>5ubliminal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 17:55:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-1808</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;@&lt;b&gt;Lisa Barone&lt;/b&gt;: If I invited you over to my house for dinner, would you ask me if I had a contract with my butcher?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;b&gt;Would you (your butcher) charge me for dinner?!&lt;/b&gt; If you did, I&#039;d ask you how much you getting from the butcher. Actually, I would not pay for dinner / desert.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>@<b>Lisa Barone</b>: If I invited you over to my house for dinner, would you ask me if I had a contract with my butcher?</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Would you (your butcher) charge me for dinner?!</b> If you did, I&#8217;d ask you how much you getting from the butcher. Actually, I would not pay for dinner / desert.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Barone</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-1800</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Barone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 19:20:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-1800</guid>
		<description>Alan: Thanks. I think. :) For me, blogging is relationships. So if we have a relationship that is based on trust, I&#039;m almost offended if you ask me to disclose whether or not a link is an affiliate.  If I invited you over to my house for dinner, would you ask me if I had a contract with my butcher?  You either trust me or you don&#039;t. I&#039;ve either been successful at showing you that I would never screw you over or sell you out, or I haven&#039;t. If I haven&#039;t, then I don&#039;t deserve you clicking on my link to begin with.  Don&#039;t waste your time with me if you don&#039;t trust me. Go find someone else.  It&#039;s like dating. Let&#039;s not force it. :)

Jill: I&#039;ll accept that. You can&#039;t be right all the time. ;)

Adrienne: I&#039;m not completely sure I&#039;m following. Am I Will Smith or Johnny Depp? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan: Thanks. I think. :) For me, blogging is relationships. So if we have a relationship that is based on trust, I&#8217;m almost offended if you ask me to disclose whether or not a link is an affiliate.  If I invited you over to my house for dinner, would you ask me if I had a contract with my butcher?  You either trust me or you don&#8217;t. I&#8217;ve either been successful at showing you that I would never screw you over or sell you out, or I haven&#8217;t. If I haven&#8217;t, then I don&#8217;t deserve you clicking on my link to begin with.  Don&#8217;t waste your time with me if you don&#8217;t trust me. Go find someone else.  It&#8217;s like dating. Let&#8217;s not force it. :)</p>
<p>Jill: I&#8217;ll accept that. You can&#8217;t be right all the time. ;)</p>
<p>Adrienne: I&#8217;m not completely sure I&#8217;m following. Am I Will Smith or Johnny Depp? :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrienne Doss</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/affiliate-marketing/disclose-affiliate-links/#comment-1799</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrienne Doss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 18:18:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=1801#comment-1799</guid>
		<description>We&#039;re talking about two opposing business philosophies here.

The more traditional idea is to appeal to a broad mainstream audience. The more controversial route involves actively challenging your audience, and a resistance to subdue yourself or your message.

Will Smith vs. Johnny Depp. Both successful in totally different ways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;re talking about two opposing business philosophies here.</p>
<p>The more traditional idea is to appeal to a broad mainstream audience. The more controversial route involves actively challenging your audience, and a resistance to subdue yourself or your message.</p>
<p>Will Smith vs. Johnny Depp. Both successful in totally different ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
