There’s been a lot of talk about sponsored conversations lately as Guy Kawasaki continues to get new cars, the FTC takes on the burden of trying to regulate sponsored conversations (good luck with that, BTW), and as Izea gets ready to launch a full pay-per-tweet network. Personally, I think the minute the FTC decides they need to regulate Twitter the world has officially gone to hell in a hand basket. We’re now living in a society where the words “FTC” and “Twitter” have ended up in the same sentence.

Wrap your head around that for a moment.

Here’s the thing, the FTC is not going to be able to regulate sponsored tweets in any sort of impressive fashion. Whatever ethic stick they try to wave at it will wreak of their outdated-ness and will miss the point entirely. Brands will still need to figure out how to make sponsored conversations profitable and you won’t find that in your new leather bound FTC rule book. And that’s what you should be thinking about right now – making sponsored conversations profitable. Not worrying about the FTC.

The FTC will fail at regulating sponsored conversations the same way Google has failed at trying to do the exact same thing. There is no clear way to identify what is or is not bought and paid for, because when it comes down to it, only the payer and the payee really know the terms of the deal. I wouldn’t want to have to define what is paid, sponsored, encouraged or natural when it comes to blogging or tweeting because it’s all far too subjective. And because, frankly, everything is bought and paid for in some way. I can’t tell by looking whether or not my favorite blogger is writing a favorable post about Neutrogena because they gave her a free sample a year, six month, three months ago. Neither can Google. Neither can the FTC. There are may too many shades of grey to tackle.

But that won’t stop the FTC from creating “guidelines”. Let them. Because the guidelines they create, will have nothing to do with the “guidelines” you need to create for yourself to make these conversations profitable. Hopefully your competitors will be so focused on the first set, they’ll forget about the second.

SHOCKING: Disclosure is not what will make the sponsored conversations you start successful or unsuccessful. The trust, relationships and social contracts you create on the Web are what will determine this.

Not too long ago I wrote that affiliate links require trust, not disclosure. If you’re on my Twitter stream or on this blog, I would hope part of that reason you’re here is because you trust I’m not going to feed you a line of crap to make $30. I think my actions are pretty transparent and the relationship that we’ve both opted into here is worth much, much more to me than that. And it should be.

If you’re a brand participating in sponsored tweets or if you’re on the other side as Twitterer with a power account, that’s what you need to remember. It doesn’t matter what the FTC says. Because you can use whatever fancy hashtag you want to disclosure your sponsored tweet, if you have a history of being a shilling douchebag or if you haven’t matched your product to the right thought leader, it doesn’t matter how disclosed it is. No one is going to care.

If you want to be successful with sponsored conversations, you’d be much wiser to ponder the question laid out in Chris Brogan’s piece than in the argument in the one by Brian Solis (though Solis is an expert in his own right). Because that’s what your success is going to be based on. Which, really, shouldn’t be too surprising. Marketing has always been centered on relationships.

How do you profit off sponsored conversations?

If you’re a brand:

• Go after the right thought leaders. Don’t go after the same five people everyone else is using. Find the people who are the most connected to your audience and will therefore give you the most credibility and targeted exposure.
• Be a friend. People are becoming more discriminating with the people and brands they associate themselves with online. I know I’ve personally closed down my Twitter and Facebook accounts much more so than in the past. I only want to be connected to people I have real, tangible relationships with. Your goal as a brand is to make me feel like I have this relationship with you.

If you’re a power blogger or Twitterer:

• Don’t be a douchebag. Don’t sell people out. If you wouldn’t recommend the product naturally, don’t recommend it for cash. I don’t care what the price is. You’ll be losing more than you gain.
• Be trustworthy. Don’t ever give one of your followers a reason to question your motives. End of story.

Let the FTC run around trying to define what a sponsored conversation is, who’s a brand, and what is or is not “ethical” on Twitter. You’re not going to gain people’s trust simply by labeling a tweet with “spon”, “$”, or “paid”. You also won’t do it by creating specialized landing pages that define the term “paid”. You do it by creating relationships before you have a need to act on them and by being someone whose motives people don’t question, even when there is money involved. Worrying about whatever guidelines the FTC will eventually create around sponsored conversations won’t make me money. Learning how to use them will.

Personally, I think the few “guidelines” above are the only ones we need in sponsored conversations. And maybe in life.

Now it’s time for Amazon.com is to learn the same lesson. And they’ve chosen to learn it the hard way. Someone get the club.

A really interesting post came out of Search Engine Journal today. Joshua Odmark shared his recent experience trying to get Amazon.com to pay a commission on a link distributed through Twitter and Facebook. Joshua had found a product he was interested in, used social media and his reputation to promote it, earned some sales, and then was surprised to find a big $0.00 in his Amazon commissions column. According to Amazon.com, in order for Joshua to earn his commission, the link must be passed through a site he owns. Using a URL shortener or passing a link through Twitter or Facebook voids the transaction. No love for Joshua or social media.

Joshua asked:

If you really think about it, what is the difference between posting a link on my blog, which is read by subscribers who are interested in what I have to say, as compared to the followers who are following me because they are interested in what I have to say? Seems to me a simple matter of semantics. Oh, and that whole character limit thing.

I agree 100 percent. There isn’t a difference.

Affiliate links live and die on trust. If I pass a link through my blog or decide to do it through Twitter, it’s the same link, for the same product. Someone will still either click or not click on that link based on my endorsement and my reputation for passing on good stuff. It shouldn’t matter what medium I used to share it. And while I can sympathize with Amazon.com that URL shorteners can complicate the process, the burden to figure it out falls on them. Because they’re the ones getting rich off the system they’ve created. I don’t want to hear the Google excuse. We live in a URL shortener world. You need to adapt and do right by your affiliates. Otherwise, pack up shop now.

But they’re not doing right. Instead, Amazon.com is doing their affiliates a great disservice and not valuing what they bring to the table. And that’s not okay.

The fact that you’re a big dog in the space today does not give you the right to be a bully. It doesn’t matter if you’re Amazon, Google or someone else. Keep bullying the people who have made you successful and they’re going to go somewhere else. You open the door for a new service to rise up and fill the void you’ve just created by isolating your affiliates. By not evolving, you’re voluntarily taking yourself out at the knees.

If Amazon wants to take this stance against affiliates, let them. Over time, affiliates will go elsewhere. As Rae Hoffman commented, how long until Barnes & Noble announces they DO honor commission from social media? How long until an entirely social based affiliate system launches that capitalizes on the explosion of URL shorteners? My guess is not long.

You can’t force people into living behind the times just because you can’t figure out how to get with them. You either evolve or you alienate your audience and die. When you fail to adapt, you invite people to steal your place in the market. It doesn’t matter what your business is. If you sell greeting cards, if you own an insurance business or if, say, you’re Amazon.com and run one of the largest affiliate programs in the world. When you act like a bully and screw over the people who made you what you are, they leave.

Well done, Amazon. Can’t wait to read the upcoming TechCrunch obituary on the collaspe of your affiliate program. Bet I know where the story will start.

Jeremiah Owyang says that when it comes to affiliate links on Twitter it’s all about intent. To make sure you’re playing inside the lines of what’s “ethical” in social media, you need to exercise of strategy of disclosure, full transparency and yet even more disclosure. Over at Econsultancy, Patricio Robles agrees, dropping the words “disclosure” and “transparency” a dozen or so more times for good measure. Personally, I don’t care what they think. I want to know what you think.

And I’m asking you: How do you feel about affiliate links in blog and Twitter posts? Do you want full disclosure that the link-dropper is getting something out of it or is your trust in the person enough?

My thoughts? If you don’t trust me, then you can unfollow me and unsubscribe right now. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

If you don’t trust me not to throw BS in your face, then what are we doing?  I don’t want you clicking on my link. Whether it’s clean or affiliate, it doesn’t matter. I value real relationships and if you’re questioning my intentions then we’ve already failed as a couple. Stop wasting your time on me and go find someone you do trust. Because that’s the point of this whole “social” thing.

I’ll be real. I have never included an affiliate link in a blog post or on Twitter. But I’m not against doing it. And if I did do it, I wouldn’t feel the need to surround the link in flashing lights or set off the sirens. Instead, I’d hope that you’d trust my intentions because you trust me. That you know I value my followers and my readers more than I value the couple bucks I’d get from a referral and that I’d never attach my name to something I didn’t believe in.

Both Jeremiah and Patricio tried to liken affiliate links to the whole Magpie disaster. To me, they’re completely different. I don’t support Magpie. That’s using your Twitter followers to shill products you know nothing about. You sell a set number of your tweets and allow third-party companies to do and push whatever they want with them.  The issue there isn’t an affiliate link. It’s whether or not it’s okay to openly sell out people who trusted you.

I suppose I could play by Jeremiah and Patricio rules. Before I throw out an affiliate link I could:

• Be “sincere” by making a quick PSA that I’m about to tweet an affiliate link.
• Write a post explaining how affiliate links work, how to identify them and how to remove my code.
• Get transparent about the rising cost in cat food and how my cats are hungry.
• Apologize for finding a viable way to use my brand to support myself.

Or, I can choose to believe that you’re not stupid and never take advantage of your trust.

If you feel the need to disclose that [!THIS IS AN AFFILIATE LINK!], then I’m worried for you and the reputation you must have with your community. Because it clearly needs work.

Personally, I choose to act transparently so that my links speak for themselves. I think it’s pretty well established that I wouldn’t vouch for something I didn’t believe in and that when  it’s a choice of “being truthful” or “not burning bridges”…I often have to invest in a new boat.

But tell me if I’m missing it. Do you mistrust recommendations that come with affiliate links? What are the rules for proper disclosure? It’s Friday. You’re allowed to get outspoken.