How Gawker Brings in Millions in Affiliate Sales | Hacker News Reader

How Gawker Brings in Millions in Affiliate Sales

wsj.com

52 pointsnichodges14 comments

As for the Velcro ties, 31,535 readers have purchased a 100-pack on Amazon, which currently run for $4.99. That’s $157,000 in cable ties, which could add $6,300 into Gawker’s coffers, assuming a 4% cut.

All told, the 10 best-selling items from a Gawker list posted in September might have brought in about $345,000 in revenue for the media company. To be sure, prices may have changed, and Gawker could receive a better rate than 4% on some items, so that revenue figure is potentially higher.

This is a poorly-researched article because at least with Amazon Associates if the buyer buys anything after clicking through the affiliate link for 24 hours, the referrer gets the commission, whether it be cable ties, or a set of speakers. Calculating Gawker's take would be far more complicated than reporting second-hand on what the Amazon widget on one article page shows.

This is a really good point. If someone buys an $800 camera through a $4 velcro link, it's a significantly higher rate.

Also, Amazon's own site notes that referral rates are based on a wide variety of factors: https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/join/comp...

For most general products, though, Gawker's volume alone would suggest referral rates of around 8.50%, though electronics fall to around 4%.

Nonetheless, Gawker's strategy in creating ad code referrals is very smart. It's the math that's more complicated here.

I think this is what the future of media will/should look like: building your reader's/consumer's trust in your publication by quality [1] content to make them come back to you when they need advice on a buying decision. The beauty of this model is that this advice can (and will [2]) be honest, because amazon and other retailers/appstores etc. do not care about what the customer actually buys as long as it is from them, which allows the publication to lead the reader to the best product while still making money. Of course there are still imperfections [3], for example sending them to a specific retailer like amazon when another would be better for them, but this is a lot better than advertising for stuff you do not need or one-sided sponsored content.

[1] "quality" is not meant as an absolute value here, but relative to the publication's target - so a "quality" article on Gawker will of course (and rightfully so) be different from one you will find in the New Yorker

[2] as long as they make the same money from two options it is in the interest of the publication to choose the honest one, because they want you to come back

[3] these imperfections are unfortunately the only thing the advertising market lives on, because if everyone could figure out what they need they would buy exactly this from the best/cheapest retailer which would kill every incentive for any kind of advertising/referral money. This will also be a problem google will face some time in the future: if their search engine gets too perfect there is no need to advertise anymore, because if the user would actually want it they would find it anyways and if not the money is wasted

I hope the "future of media" doesn't revolve around optimizing purchasing decisions. I'd rather think of this as the future/now of marketing where the line between content and advertising is increasingly blurred.

We're doing much of this with PricePlow, and the readers DEFINITELY let you know when you take it too far.

A top ten list is exactly what it is. Readers are in buying mode there. But for other content, if you can educate the consumer and cite sources (our last major article has 110 citations), they don't mind you showing some links to stores.

The fact what we're showing up to date price comparisons also helps with trust.

But the second you over shill without backing out up with research... You will hear about it and lose fans.

Readers aren't as stupid as the media loves to believe. Anyways keep that in mind.

I hate Gawker because they mastered the art of manufacturing outrage.

Yes, yes they have. Hate them for the exact same reason.

Sometimes outrage is completely necessary though. As in the case of ongoing scams....

Outrage is necessary for social change. Gawker doesn't want social change. Gawker cries sexism and racism at every out of context quote to sell electronics. If something heinous is happening then the story will be reported with less sensationalism on a more reputable site.

Yeah I was speaking in terms of actual product scams, when discussing products.

Sensationalist journalism and then throwing affiliate links in is indeed slime.

It's impressive how good Gawker is at this racket. But I think the best part is that they never hide their motives for doing so—like too many other sites of their nature do. They strike an impressive balance between commerce and content, and a lot of the reason they are so good at it is because the things they uncover are generally great deals.

Lifehacker in particular is well-optimized in its balance between editorial content and commerce.

Good for them but that explains why Gawker is held in such low esteem. If editors start acting like salesmen then you can’t trust anything a medium has to say.

I would say that they are held in low esteem because the majority of their content is pap and clickbait, I rarely see an article of substance on gawker media properties.

Reddit had an ad that did something like this — I assume by a third-party, but can't remember.

The image was a nostalgic item from the 90s era Nickelodeon, with a title that made you go "what, that actually exists?" — a link to an item, out-of-stock (not sure if it ever had stock), but tagged with an affiliate link.

It was around the holiday purchasing season, so I'm assuming they raked in quite a few sales.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com