The Haggler Within

Written by Brook Schaaf

There is a pattern I’ve long observed but never quite been able to name — maybe you can help me out. This pattern is a sort of “heads I win, tails you lose” game vis-à-vis other online advertising channels and affiliate marketing.

Heads: a dubious dollar deluge, a veritable flood of cash that swells the walled gardens and open-web programmatic advertising, even though much of the justifying data is exaggerated or even fake. Tails: an attitude of self-flagellation by insiders, enforced by undue criticism by outsiders. 

Take “SussexGate,” which dragged on for almost a month. One blogger (hat tip to Mike McNerney) said to her audience: “Some of you found the idea of royalty [Meghan Markle] using affiliate links to be icky, some found it hilarious, others found it despicable, and personally — i [sic] found it a little disappointing.” The blogger characterized the posting of affiliate links on Markle’s ShopMy page — with full disclosure — as “dystopian.” A guest on a podcast said it was the “collapse of the Meghan-as-humanitarian narrative.”

Typical celebrity gossip? Sure, but I think it’s representative of a broader attitude that is both insidious and invidious. Would a traditional corporate sponsorship or posted banner ad have been met with similar criticism? Unlikely. No one would have blinked. If you disagree, send me a comparable story. This reception is probably not encouraging to any other influencer considering adding affiliate. Methinks this no accident. 

To complement this chilling effect, we have frequent omission. A shopping comparison toolbar called Phia recently launched, and Digital Commerce 360 made nary a mention of “affiliate,” although its monetization would seem to be an obvious point to address. I often come across product launches and think “affiliate must be in the picture,” but it goes unmentioned.

When affiliate does not go unmentioned, as in eMarketer’s US ad channel comparison last year, it often is obscured by an alternative name like commerce. Affiliate marketing is suitably clear, distinct, and neutral that it should stand on its own without exclusion, misrepresentation, or derision. 

Admittedly and thankfully, the picture is not entirely bleak. Marketing Brew later provided neutral, informative coverage of Markle’s monetization. Forbes did cover Phia’s monetization, though Forbes… kind of has to, no? 

The whole situation feels a bit like a “mean girls” club, complete with total hypocrisy on the part of those with the highest social status — walled gardens and open-web programmatic, which peddle fake users, fake clicks, fake views, fake incrementality, per the research of Dr. Fou. This is the heads of the coin flip.

Our space operates on relationships, as opposed to the impersonal command-and-control advertising platforms. Counter-intuitively, this otherwise pleasing aspect of our work world often stirs up competitive, suspicious, and even hostile feelings toward certain parties and counter parties. As with haggling in a bazaar, the process may be entertaining and necessary but also enervating.

This selective scrutiny stifles innovation while rewarding less-accountable players. If advertisers want a healthier digital marketplace, the sneering “mean girls” mentality must be ditched and all channels must be held to the same standards.

What do you think? Is this an accurate representation of the situation? If so, what can we do to remedy it? Reply and let me know your opinion.