How Affiliate Websites Work

I got a bitter and cynical complaint yesterday (which I didn't publish) about all the positive camera reviews on TOP. I thought it might be an opportunity to explain how all this stuff actually works. I know a lot about this subject, having made all or part of my living from this for eight years now. I'm one of a relatively few people who manage that.

For starters, Jim's Fuji X-E1 review is a particularly poor example of a possible sell-out, because I have zero input on what Jim chooses to write about and he gets zero dollars from writing for TOP. (He's asked not to be paid because he's retired and does this for fun. Besides, I can't afford his fee, and we both know that.) So there's a hard disconnect between whatever he chooses to write and any money that might thereby spill into TOP's coffers. Before a few days ago, I had no idea he'd even bought a Fuji X-E1, much less that he was writing about it, much less what he would say about it when he wrote about it.

But yes, like a lot of people, I make my bones by selling stuff. Two Fuji X-E1's have appeared on my B&H Photo Transaction History Report so far (a few more Fuji items might sell as a result of the review—there's sometimes a bit of a lag between the sales and the reports) and I got $35.97 for each sale. So TOP got $71.94 (at least) to put toward a new office, courtesy of two readers who are about to receive new X-E1's. (I'll let you know in a few days how much Fuji equipment we sold as a result of Jim's posts, total.) I don't mean to be reticent about this—I'm TRYING MY HARDEST to get you to link to B&H and Amazon from TOP for whatever you buy, so I can keep this fun job forever. Don't think I'm not grateful.

You should also know that not only is Jim not being bought, he can't be bought. That is, if he wrote a negative review of the XPRN and I said, "Sorry, Jim, you must rewrite this and make it positive," there's no way that would happen. Even if I tried to buy him off by giving him my whole $71.94. Or, say, $1,500. I know Jim; that little word "integrity" most definitely applies. I'm not sure I could coerce him to change a negative sentence, much less a negative review. It would take a lot of discussion to change one sentence, if it involved getting him to say something he didn't believe or not say something he did. (Believe me, I've had those discussions with writers.)

But even beyond the specific situation, such conspiracy theories don't really reflect how affiliate programs actually work. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, let me 'splain.

It's purely a numbers game. If I get 24,000 page views today (about what I expect), some smaller number represents the separate individual people who visit (some people come several times, or might view more than one page while they're here). Somewhere between .5% and 5% of those readers will click through to one of our affiliates, and somewhere between 2% and 20% of the ones who do will buy something, big or small, and I will get somewhere between 3% and 10% of whatever money they spend. It all adds up. (You could calculate the range of TOP's daily earnings from that, you perceive, except that one number is left out.)

The profit of running a website is entirely wrapped up in that phrase "it all adds up." It's not that a specific review of a specific item leads to sales of that specific item which leads to profits (at least, it doesn't work that way at TOP). I would say that the only thing that reliably correlates to more sales is more inline links, and the only thing that correlates to more sales of a particular product is more discussion or mention of that item over time. And it all correlates to the size of the audience. That's about it.

Conspiracy theories also assume that positive reviews influence sales positively, which I think is assuming facts not in evidence (as the lawyers say). For instance, someone might read a negative review of the X-E1 and it might be the final straw that tilts them over to a purchase of an Olympus OM-D, which they've been considering for months. I haven't run hard data, but my sense is that a negative review can result in just as many click-throughs and just as many purchases as a positive one. In some cases more, since negative reviews tend to be more controversial and more people come in from far and wide to read them.

In fact, knowing what I know about my business, which is a whole lot, I bet I could run a profitable web business publishing nothing but entertainingly negative reviews. It's just that I don't want to, because I don't think it's fun being negative for its own sake. (Well, more than once in a while. Ahem.)

Note for instance that the post below this one, about the backpack on sale, is not a review and is neither positive nor negative. It functioned just fine to inspire click-throughs—it sold 33 backpacks, and would have sold more except that B&H ran out of them.

A little experiment to test my point:

• Hot off the presses, Joyland is author Stephen King's tribute to the classic paperback crime genre. Even its cool cover art pays tribute to the pulp fiction of old. For this reason, though, the master of suspense is not allowing this brand-new title to be released in e-reader format yet! For the time being, at King's insistence, you can only buy it in paperback. Take that, Kindle!

• THIS IS CHEATING!!! You keep this clever little thingy in your top pocket while you're playing golf. See that round button? Press it, and, if you're on a golf course—any golf course—a little voice will pipe up and tell you how far away you are, in yards, from the next hole ahead of you. You're supposed to estimate by eye how far the shot is—devices like this are forbidden by the rules of golf! Still, it's gotta help.

• Sorry to get all macho, but a man is not a man unless he has a really great drill-driver. I love my DeWalt. But it cost twice as much as this one, and came with half as many accessories. If your father is the kind of guy who uses a drill and he makes do with a crappy old one just because he always has, don't look now, but we have a Father's Day idea for you.

None of those things would normally be things I'd mention, link to, or sell. Bet we sell one of each. I'll let you know in a few days.

Again, the keys are: the content draws the visitors; the links make the connections to the affiliate sites; and then people buy whatever they want. I'm really not convinced that positive reviews necessarily drive more sales...

...Even if we were willing to sell out and publish positive reviews just for the sake of sales, which I'm not. 

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to write a negative review of a camera they hate, be my guest. It would have to conform to all the other conditionals we place on things we publish, to wit: it has to be well written and entertaining to read; you have to be straightforward about your biases and level of expertise; and you have to be honest about what you really think and accurately support what you say. But of course you can do all those things and still be negative, if you try.

Mike
(Thanks to Frank P)

P.S. Wow, that took forever to write. Sorry. I'll get Ctein's column up ASAP.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jeremy: "Very interesting read, I need to remember to buy via click-through to support people I like. I always end up going direct to B&H etc, once I've made my decision, when I could be helping out a good cause without any negative impact to me. A key factor in your equation is the amount of daily traffic you start with, and those numbers won't be significant (25K) unless you are interesting and/or informative, which you can't really be if you give off the vibe of being a 'sell-out' (the cool kids can always sniff them out)."

John Goldsmith: "I wrote a rather negative review of the Fuji X-100 several years ago after a friend loaned me his for a week. That camera was truly all hype, at least for anyone into fast (or even slow!) moving objects. Following that writeup, I'm confident no camera manufacturer will send me any gear to try, unless of course I'm first paid the full price. If you want the link, let me know. In any event, thank you for the insider view. Pretty fascinating."

Mike replies: That's another misconception, actually. Camera manufacturers generally don't even make any attempt to influence reviewers, except by being friendly. The majority of them wouldn't punish you for writing an unfavorable review.

Although I have known exceptions to that. Hasselblad was by far the worst in my personal experience.

Chad Thompson: "Jim's articles were the main reason I held on to my [new] Camera Arts subscription for as long as I did. Well after B&W ceased to be relevant (to me at least). I'm glad to see him back at it even if only in this somewhat limited capacity. Of course I probably said this exact same thing the last time he posted...."

adamct: "For what it's worth, here is how I deal with Wishlists in order to still give TOP credit for the sale. I put things into my Amazon wishlists because it is convenient. Then, when I am ready to buy, I open my TOP Amazon bookmark in one window, and my wishlist in the other. I copy the description of each item from my wishlist into the clean Amazon/TOP window, and add them one by one to my shopping cart. It sounds complicated, but it is actually very, very fast in practice."

Mike replies: Bless you, friend.  :-)

Comments

[Mark Kirkpatrick]

Love you Mike, and also love my OM-D that you don't love ... but that I bought (like much else) by clicking through TOP. Your writing is brilliant. As my high school Latin teacher (of all people) said: Keep on keepin' on!

[Ed]

Ah, Mike,

The really ugly truth is that there are no really bad camera's anymore. Even the iPhone can do a great job in the right hands (as was proven here). So how are you to badmouth a camera. Slow autofocus? Still lightning fast compared to manual. Bad high ISO behaviour? Try using Tri-X pushed. The only thing is ergonomics that seperates a GH3 from an OM-D. Or a Sony RX1 from a D600. Testing camera's is a dying art Mike. Of course there's still good and better, but at a level that is completely irrelevant to the most of us. Image quality wise for the A4 to A2 prints we usually make, come on if Mike can find a camera lens combination that is in a store today and that is not capable of doing that (and is a serious camera/lens and not a SLR Magic toylens, pinhole or something like a lensbaby), with some serious PS work, well he would be a magician.

So Mike can only tell what he likes or dislikes about camera and Mike's dislikes can be my likes. And so you have to check a reviewer that sort of uses your style of camera these days, his likes will be your likes. Steve, Thom, and Ken have there respective preferences as well.

My only gripe is I can't buy at BHPhoto....wouldn't make sence due to import taxes and posting and handling charges.

Greets, Ed.

[Jim Bullard]

And then of course there is the fact that there aren't really any BAD cameras out there. The technology today is uniformly good to excellent so what ever negative things one can say about a new camera are basically a matter of personal preference ("I would have included..." or "I wish they had done..."). Maybe some of these complainers aren't old enough to remember some of the junk that was sold as cameras in the '50s,'60s and '70s. OTOH Some people actually think the Holga is wonderful. There's just no explaining human nature.

[Mike Anderson]

I'm sure only a very, very, very small percentage of your readers question your integrity. Anyone that makes the rounds of photo blog/sites knows TOP is one of the more considerate soft sell sites.

[Jim]

It's really a shame that you have to expend so much energy essentially defending your integrity. I for one realize how much time and effort a site like this takes and am grateful people like you actually do it and (unlike some others) don't charge dime. I'm happy for whatever money you get and hope you'll keep providing the great content I've come to rely almost daily for many years.

[Charles Lanteigne]

Negative and controversial?

I could write you a review of the little darling of the hour, the Fuji X100S—I bought it and was thoroughly, irredeemably disappointed. I would have so many points to raise, though, that I fear it would become a long and arduous read!

[Dave]

Bravo - I'm glad you're able to run TOP sustainably via affiliate links, and I don't think there's anything about the model that strains credibility or integrity. I do have a question, though: I'm in the market for an X20, and when I decide to buy it, I'd like the purchase to benefit TOP. Do I have to hunt down a link to the X20 product page somewhere on the site, or will any Amazon link do the trick if I then navigate from its target to my desired item?

[Tom M]

Is that a Speed Graphic the girl on the cover of Joyland is holding. Another photo book. and you said you would not link to things like this.

[olli]

Only just noticed that the Book Depository is one of your affiliates. I buy the odd photobook from them from time to time. Next time I'll try to link through TOP.

[John Camp]

You may have screwed yourself on the rangefinder sales by saying that they are illegal. In fact, they are legal if the local (golf club) committee says they're permitted, and most clubs have done that. My club actually has laser reflectors on top of the pins so you can use a laser rangefinder and get distances down to a couple of inches. The devices are only allowed to provide you with the distance, and not other information such as wind speed or uphill slope angle.

The reason for this exception is simple -- to speed play. Instead of having golfers trying to locate distance makers and then pacing it off, you get the distance with a quick click of a button. And pro golfers, of course, employ caddies who measure the courses, and can tell a player right down to the yard how far away the pin is, so allowing amateurs to use rangefinders hardly violates even the concept of "outside aids." It's possible that the local committee outlaws rangefinders on the week that a pro tournament is being played, which is why you don't see them during tournaments.

[Tim Franklin]

Mike,
there's golfers on the forums. Have you got a guilty secret? Hmmm, been golfing in your seconds away from the TOP desk? Anyway, if I win the the Lotto today the new TOP HQ will be yours
Tim

[Manuel]

Sorry, Mike, you'll never talk me out of Black & Decker drills...;)

[Bryan Willman]

Let us also contemplate the positive selling value of the negative review. (Really.)
I look at reviews of things (on amazon, etc.) this way:
1. Look at the broad statistics (400 reviews and average rating is 0.3 stars? Bad sign.)
2. Read the 1 star and 2 star reviews, filtering out the unreasonable, irrelevent, or irrelevent to me.
a. This leaves reviews like: "The X feature doesn't work with Y attachment because of specific problem Z". Those are killer if I care about attaching Y to X.
b. Also, *patterns* of "I've had 3 break in 2 days" - anybody can get a bad unit, and any one person can kill lots of one thing. But if they often fail for several people, that's a warning.

And so, "negative" reviews are important for reporting the "found limits" - what does not work, what breaks, what seems cool but is in practice useless. Until they are written, you don't know where the limits of the device are.

[Bryan Willman]

By the way - I really appreciate it when any entity on the Web explains their business model. I often don't care what it is, so long as I understand it. Because that model reveals the biases and limits, and warns of possible future abuses.

So, is Mike going to feature posts/articles about really boring things that you need tensor calculus to understand? No. Bad for readership. Articles about why people should abandon photography and take up meditation? Not likely.

Is Mike going to post lots of links to really crappy stuff, on purpose? No. Because if too many of us decide "that was a crappy link, don't follow any more" well the game is up.

[Mark]

Mike, in the fewest words I can muster: your integrity is above reproach.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Actually, if you're serious you want something more like this. The higher battery voltage makes it more "manly", you see, and hammer mode makes masonry drilling go much faster.

(Hope I got the TOP affiliate tag right!)

[Greg]

I have another question about how the links operate. It's likely I'm going to go to Amazon a number of times before I buy a big item or even little items. I frequently add items to my Wish List and will go directly to Amazon when I'm ready to buy. I think you know where this is going. If I create a Wish List item after clicking on your buy link, do you make anything when I eventually buy it? What if I go to Amazon from your site and buy it from the Wish List? Does it matter if I'm already logged into Amazon?

I also use a macro program to search on Amazon, can I make the search macro credit you? The macro creates the URL. I just tried adding "?tag=theonlinephot-20" to the string that I had and it still took me to the site. What should the URL ideally look like?

[Greg, we only get credit for things you select AND buy when you go to Amazon from TOP. Nothing in your Wish List, even if you came from TOP when you added it to your Wish List.

However, we get credit for everything you select and buy, even if it has nothing to do with our link or with photography. --Mike]

[Scotto]

It's sad you should feel the need to apologize for or justify making money. I think your business plan is fairly transparent. Anyone who thinks your site's business is some sort of conspiracy, might also be surprised to learn that Budweiser may have other motives for playing those funny 30 second films during the superbowl.

Regular visitors enjoy your site for your biases and your opinions. Thank you for not publishing the bitter and cynical complaint, because it is insulting to your regular readers.

[Will]

The complaint seems rather preposterous to me, because you make absolutely no claim of covering the camera space thoroughly. It would be one thing if you published a review of every camera that hit the market and all the reviews were positive. That's not the case. TOP features very few camera reviews (relative to most sites), and I'd wager that most of those reviews are written by folks other than you. It seems pretty logical to me that the bulk of the reviews, then, are written by contributors that have encountered something they really like, and they feel compelled to share their enthusiasm. Reading Ken's columns, for example, it has come up that he's bought numerous cameras that he's never written much about (he mentions them in passing while discussing another topic). He's also written some very enthusiastic pieces about other cameras he's bought. It's not hard to figure out that the ones he's writing about are pretty special, to him at least. None of that makes him, or you for that matter, a shill. It just means that some people prefer to share something worth someone else's time rather than those things that aren't worth getting excited about.

[Mandeno Moments]

Too many plugs can make a blog seem like an infomercial or a begging letter, however yours is far, far away from that sad situation. Also:

1)You're providing a service by pointing out deals.
2) Your blog is a pure free market (people visit and click by choice rather than compulsion), so if you make bad recommendations or false reviews the word will get around, people will vote with their mouse, and you'll realise that you've shot yourself in the foot. In other words, in a free market the behaviour of sellers and service providers is regulated by the effect that reputation has on profit, so there's no need to fear shyster bloggers (you are a service provider).
3)I view clicking on a link so that you get a slice (at no cost to myself, moreover) as a simple case of quid pro quo.

[Peter]

Mike,

Like Greg, I'd be curious to know how the "rules" work for B&H.

[Crabby Umbo]

I'm interested in reading anything any professional or pro-sumer user has to say about any camera, good or bad. It helps me make up my mind about the thing and see if it's applicable for my uses...and many times, a user/reviewer says "I loved this", and when they describe it, I know I'd hate it! The opposite happens too...

Now, many times, I can't trust the users/reviewers experience, because, lets face it, they're not a professional and don't have professional uses, but I'm wearing big-boy pants now, and I can figure it out...there's almost something of value in every review / homage / slam...

[Bart]

Mike, integrity wins in the long run. German Computer magazine C'T has a very strict separation between editing staff and their advertisement section and they would not hesitate to burn a product down to the ground in a review.

Not surprisingly, the magazine price was higher than average because the number of ads was lower.

And not surprisingly, sales soared and brought them to be one of the best selling magazines in Europe, and the advertisements followed.

And now they have a photography magazine that is equally good. The classic American magazines, on the other hand, I do not want them even for the $5 per year subscription they go for; there's just too much ad-driven drivel in them.

In the end, the readers will decide, and I'm sure TOP will thrive because of that.

[John]

I have bookmarked the links to Amazon from TOP (which reads http://www.amazon.com/?tag=theonlinephot-20) and the one to B&H (which reads simply http://www.bhphotovideo.com/). Have I made a mistake with B&H? Will they work for you? These are the links I always use to go these sites both for browsing and buying.

[Mark Walker]

Just to restore balance to the obvious hate campaign derived from cleverly manipulated comments of a mastermind who plans to undermine Fuji fixed lens cameras : I love mine, man - there go ahead and show this if you are truly integretious..integretyable..full of integrity.
Yours, in anticipation,
Name witheld.
Oh, alright, Mark Walker, but you'll never find me !

[Roger]

Your reviews have nothing to do with items I buy at Amazon since I use your affiliate link as my Favorite Bar link for Amazon so you get something from all of my purchases. It's my small way of helping keep TOP in business. I do the same with BH but I don't make many purchases from them.

[Bill]

Mike replies: That's another misconception, actually. Camera manufacturers generally don't even make any attempt to influence reviewers, except by being friendly. The majority of them wouldn't punish you for writing an unfavorable review.

Although I have known exceptions to that. Hasselblad was by far the worst in my personal experience.

Remember the monograph: "32 ways to jam a Hasselblad." I can't remember for sure, but probably by David Vestal.

[Michael]

I don't think I've ever bought anything from Amazon that's photography-related, and nothing from B&H in the last eight years (I live in Australia).

But when I buy something random from Amazon I make sure I click through from here, and -- like adamct -- I make sure I 'start from scratch' because I know that you'll only get paid for items added in that session. If I valued my time more I'd probably be better off just making another direct donation, but I like to entertain the possibility that this time my purchase might just be the one that tips you over into the next commission bracket at the end of the month.

[Frank]

Hey Mike sorry I didn't mean to sound bitter and cynical about you, Jim, or TOP... I'm just overloaded with reverse FujiDenfreude.... overloaded with all these blogs going on and on over the Fuji X- series....

[Thespiralquirk]

I'm amazed that people can have any issue with your affiliate links because you are always so upfront and honest about them. I'm also amazed that I am such a dipshit that I didn't realise I could buy -anything- off amazon.uk using your generic affiliate link :( I won't make that mistake again :)

Now, if you want to start a rant on those people whose blog's sole purpose is to get viewers in order to make money from any old advertiser on their site, and who attracts viewers by posting other people's photographs (especially when they don't properly credit or link those photos) .... please go ahead ;-o

[Bob Goldstein]

I am a grateful subscriber, and also an active user of Amazon. So my bookmark for visiting Amazon is labeled Amazon-TOP, and goes through TOP's link, whether of not I am reading TOp at the moment. Thus, everything I buy at Amazon is generating a bit of revenue for your web site. I'd do it for BHPhotovideo, except that I rarely visit there, trying to keep my hobby expenses down, and don't use a bookmark for it.