Re:The New York Times is buying the Wirecutter for more than...
by sparky_z on Monday October 24, 2016 @12:51PM
(#12780542)
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. They've cultivated a reputation for independence, despite possible conflicts of interest, but that's more difficult to maintain when your customer base knows you are exposed to advertiser pressure. Hopefully they can pull it off.
Re:The New York Times is buying the Wirecutter for more than...
by AdamN on Monday October 24, 2016 @01:20PM
(#12780796)
The difference of a fixed percentage on a variable cost is very minor. If you're recommending a $100 monitor with a 4% affiliate fee, that's $4. A $150 monitor is $6. Making good recommendations (i.e. stuff people want to buy) will easily outweigh the payment difference.
Still, it's important to have a policy about it and be transparent - which Wirecutter (and the NYTimes surely) has.
Re:The New York Times is buying the Wirecutter for more than...
by sparky_z on Monday October 24, 2016 @01:58PM
(#12781147)
That's one way to look at it. Another is that, when affiliate fees are your only source of revenue, replacing all your $4 fees with $6 fees increases revenue by 50%. That's potentially huge. If you're running the company, you have to take it on faith that keeping your integrity will continue to improve word-of-mouth sales by more than 50% over the long run. And there's a constant temptation to change your mind, especially if your growth curve starts to taper off.
I'm just saying the math isn't so cut-and-dry that we consumers don't have to remain vigilant.
You're right that its percentage based, so there may be a slight bias toward higher priced items, but I haven't seen it. I bought a recommended non-stick pan off thesweethome yesterday, and they explicitly talk about price range being good to go a bit cheaper and just buy a new one more often, rather than a more expensive one (to minimize the effects of wear that hit even expensive ones). So they recommend a cheaper pan than they could have.