The ShoeMoney vs. SEOmoz Link Discosure Debate
Filed Under Adsense, Affiliate Marketing, Blogs, Link Discosure, Pay Per Post, Yahoo Publisher Network | Comments Off
Everyone seems to be talking about the link disclosure debate between ShoeMoney’s Jeremy Schoemaker and SEOmoz’s Rand Fishkin. They are debating whether disclosure is necessary when a paid review is posting on a blog, or when an affiliate link is used for a recommended product. I think this gets down to two distinct issues.
- Whether or not paid reviews posted on blogs should be disclosed as paid reviews. These are the reviews where a company pays the blogger directly or through an intermediary like Sponsored Reviews, PayPerPost and ReviewMe
- Whether or not an affiliate link should be disclosed if a product is being recommended.
Paid Blog Reviews
I want to discuss the paid blog reviews first. Currently both ReviewMe and Sponsored Reviews require paid reviews to be disclosed as such. PayPerPost does not require disclosure. I feel disclosure is up to the blogger and Rand Fishkin agrees with me on this:
OK, let me first say that I agree with Jeremy’s opinion about blogger disclosure policies or some sort of blog organization that lords over bloggers with codes of conduct. I’m not a fan of it in the SEO world, and I’m not a fan of it in the blogosphere either. It’s up to individual bloggers to decide and individual audiences to trust or reject what they read.
The essence of this issue is trust. Can readers trust a blogger’s message if they are getting paid to write? I think that depends on the blogger. A blogger with integrity will write their true opinion of a product or service whether they are paid or not. If a blogger writes a positive review of a product they would not themselves use, then they are being dishonest to their readers. As Fishkin says, the readers will have to decide for themselves whether they can trust the blogger’s opinion.
Jeremy Schoemaker writes the following opinion:
In fact every time I see a blog post or basically anything including conversation I assume someone is benefiting from mentioning the product they are talking about. Even if they are not paid directly for reviewing or mentioning the product directly I assume they are hoping the users find the information useful or maybe even the product owner will see the review and pay them in the form of mentioning them back or advertising on there site…
…So basically my disclosure policy is you should assume I am getting paid for or will get paid for anything I ever mention…
…I think these blogger disclosure policies while noble and all that good stuff are extremely silly. Everyone gets paid one way or another.
Schoemaker makes the point that you should assume he is making money from everything he mentions, so there is no need for disclosure. While I don’t agree with the premise of his position that everything is paid for everything they write, I do agree that no one should be required to do anything. I am not currently paid for what I write on this blog. I offer my honest opinion on subjects I have knowledge of. But I do believe in the blogger’s freedom to choose whether they want to disclose or not. It is no one’s business but the blogger’s, and they are the one who has to decide.
Why would anyone disclose at all if it is the blogger’s prerogative? Bloggers will disclose when they feel it is necessary because they want to build the trust of their readers. If readers do not trust a particular blogger’s opinion they will move on to another blog they can trust. Popularity in blogging is all about the trustworthiness of the information that is presented. Bloggers who use the pay per post services have to do a balancing act of choosing companies and products that their readers will be interested in and those they can honestly recommend. I think readers will smell a dishonest blogger a mile away. Once they do, they will never come back.
Affiliate Link Disclosure
The second issue being discussed is whether or not affiliate links should be disclosed as affiliate links when a product is recommended on a blog or a website. While there are some instances when the disclosure of a link as an affiliate link can be advantageous, as a rule I don’t think it is necessary.
The same rules that govern the trustworthiness of a blogger also govern disclosure of affiliate links. If the blogger is simply promoting anything and everything they can make money from through an affiliate program and omitting everything that doesn’t have an affiliate program, then the reader should use his brain and read someone else’s review or recommendation. The onus is on the consumer of information to consider the source. If the source is considered trustworthy, then the advice is assumed solid. If not, then find another source.
The debate about link disclosure has long been fermenting and is just now coming to a head. As more and more pay per post programs crop up, the affiliate marketing and internet marketing community have to come to grips with what they consider ethical.
I trust the market in these circumstances, and I believe the paid reviews market has spoken on the issue of disclosure. Two of the three pay per post programs mentioned above require some form of disclosure of a paid review. None of the affiliate networks I know of require the disclosure of a link as an affiliate link. Most advertising platforms like Google Adsense and Yahoo Publisher Network have integrated disclosure into their ad units. The market deems disclosure necessary is most cases, except for affiliate links.
Rigorous debate is a sign of a healthy community, but I would oppose any legal requirements because they would infringe on the freedom and rights of the individual blogger. I think this is something that both Fishkin and Schoemaker would agree on.
