Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

llsocial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

#31

Post by sliverstorm »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #7
dpark wrote: post #2

They should disclose this, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It's a good way to make a little money that costs the users nothing (except for users who've attempted to use their own affiliate links).

Why do you think they should disclose it? (I'm actually curious). The only users affected are those using their own affiliate links so it would have no effect on the vast majority of users. It seems to me that companies are being asked to disclose more and more these days even when it doesn't really affect users and the company has no reason to disclose the information.

When you make money off someone, it's generally seen as bad form to be secretive about it.

Re: Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

#32

Post by notJim »

wiredd wrote: post #29
k-mcgrady wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why does that matter? What does anyone gain from knowing that they are using affiliate links? What does anyone lose from not knowing?

I don't think there is an effective way to hide the use of affiliate links, so they may as well disclose it in their FAQ or TOS just to avoid complaints that they're not being genuine towards their users.

I can think of a couple of ways that might (!) work to hide affiliate links:

1. Add a click handler to your anchor tags that redirects to an affiliate-linked version of the href. 2. Modify the url on mousedown (since it happens before click.) I think someone told me this doesn't actually work, but I don't remember for sure.

Re: Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

#33

Post by k-mcgrady »

wiredd wrote: post #29
k-mcgrady wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why does that matter? What does anyone gain from knowing that they are using affiliate links? What does anyone lose from not knowing?

I don't think there is an effective way to hide the use of affiliate links, so they may as well disclose it in their FAQ or TOS just to avoid complaints that they're not being genuine towards their users.

I don't think they should hide it but I still see no reason to disclose that. I sort of understand your position but I don't understand how not disclosing something that doesn't affect users is disingenuous.

Re: Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

#34

Post by notJim »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #7
dpark wrote: post #2

They should disclose this, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It's a good way to make a little money that costs the users nothing (except for users who've attempted to use their own affiliate links).

Why do you think they should disclose it? (I'm actually curious). The only users affected are those using their own affiliate links so it would have no effect on the vast majority of users. It seems to me that companies are being asked to disclose more and more these days even when it doesn't really affect users and the company has no reason to disclose the information.

It could definitely piss off users who have their own affiliate links [someone upthread said the service they're using won't remove existing affiliate links, btw.] That's a small number of users to be sure, but they may be important users: consider people who run taste-making blogs that make money via affiliate links. If a number of popular blogs like this realized their affiliate links were being removed, and complained about it, it could make for some pretty bad PR for pinterest, and it would be well-targeted bad PR, since that's exactly the community pinterest appeals to.

I think leaving this undisclosed would be a bad idea, as the rumor mill could start up, and spread misinformation about what's happening with affiliate links. It would also be a good opportunity to get feedback on policy.

Re: Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

#35

Post by nhangen »

Really surprised that no one has a problem with this.

How would we feel if PG turned every Apple, Amazon, or other ecommerce link into an affiliate link, with our name pinned to it? Horrible decision on their part, and I think it's going to bite them in the ass when the average user gets wind of it.

Re: Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

#36

Post by kreutz »

nhangen wrote: post #35

Really surprised that no one has a problem with this. How would we feel if PG turned every Apple, Amazon, or other ecommerce link into an affiliate link, with our name pinned to it? Horrible decision on their part, and I think it's going to bite them in the ass when the average user gets wind of it.

The average "Pinterest User" has no idea what an affiliate link is.

Re: Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

#38

Post by loceng »

thegyppo wrote: post #19

I have absolutely no issues with this: 1. It's the most scalable way for them to generate revenue without shoving ads down your throat. 2. Skimlinks doesn't "modify" your links, they simply put it through a redirect to see if it affiliates. The link you've submitted to Pinterest will likely stay as is. 3. If users submit affiliate links already, then services like Viglink/Skimlinks don't overwrite your cookie (i.e. R…

I would think the affiliate programs would be the ones who would have an issue. No affiliate link to adding one costs them profits they wouldn't otherwise have to give away.

What's Pinterest going to do if this option doesn't exist, remove the links? No.. they could change the display algorithm to display links with their affiliate code more often, but that may mess with quality of content and click-rates..

Re: Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

#39

Post by colinsidoti »

thegyppo wrote: post #19

I have absolutely no issues with this: 1. It's the most scalable way for them to generate revenue without shoving ads down your throat. 2. Skimlinks doesn't "modify" your links, they simply put it through a redirect to see if it affiliates. The link you've submitted to Pinterest will likely stay as is. 3. If users submit affiliate links already, then services like Viglink/Skimlinks don't overwrite your cookie (i.e. R…

It's awesome that skimlinks exists...years ago I worked for a company that relied on affiliate revenue and we had someone working full time to maintain relationships. I imagine they lose some of the pickier affiliate programs, but this is an awesome way to test out the revenue model.

It also brings up another interesting point. If this revenue model works for pinterest, it means it could also work for pinterest users. Someone can create a browser plugin that automatically converts user links to affiliate links when they get posted to pinterest, and kicks back the commission to the poster. Probably too hard to distribute the plugin, but still thought it was worth mentioning.

Re: Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue

#40

Post by colinsidoti »

rapind wrote: post #37

It seems like almost no one here takes issue with this... Would it be cool if Google inserted affiliate codes in it's search results (those that apply)? Slippery slope perhaps? Is it really that different?

Even on Google, that doesn't affect the user at all. I wouldn't mind.

However, it would definitely piss off the affiliate program...who should just boot Google from their program.

Now that I think about it more, that's the real problem with this. The businesses are most likely getting sales anyway, and pinterest can't argue that they're doing anything special to generate the sale. Since pinterest can't censor links to these merchants, they'll probably end up getting booted from their programs.

Post reply on HN