Its Really Nice Idea, But would you tell me how did you acheive this ?

are you fetching data from affiliate netwroks ? or you have a special agreement from affiliate networks ?

What is the logic behined this product, how you actually creating normal link to affiliate link, also is cookie still be managed by affiliate network ?

Looking forward to hear from you

Thanks
Saqib

Kind regards,
Alicia Navarro
CEO – Skimlinks

I think I get it; very cool:
(a) publishers write reviews and other blog posts.. (b) and Skimbit creates automated? links that point back to the publishers article?

Nice.

I’ll check here and your site though to see what criteria you use to policy the creation of automated links? Thanks

You list ShinyShiny as a client, where is it disclosed on its website? If you were to point us to a skimlink so we can see how it is disclosed actually on the page, and when the link it clicked, that would be helpful thanks. I don’t have any problem with affiliate marketing, as long as it is clearly disclosed.

‘They also can result in commissions being effectively stolen form editors, writers and reviewers that will have sent spent much time reviewing and recommending a product only to have their commission taken due the “last click wins” model that most affiliate networks employ.’

You’re argument is idealistic, there’s no such thing in business and the market decides who the commission belongs to. Why should a review have a monetary value when the public creates this sort of content for free and shares it online?

I do see real problems with the OFT since the trader is paying, the editorial is written to earn the commision, how else does the business earn from that content, unless I have misunderstood.

It’s great to see a UK start-up getting funding in this climate – I hope there’s more to come in the next quarter!

As she has also mentioned Google also have there own affiliate network (http://www.google.com/ads/affiliatenetwork/ )

You can even read more about Google’s stance on affiliate marketing here (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=76465 ), what they essentially say is that Google “believes that pure affiliate websites do not provide additional value for web users”. These are exactly the kind of sites that we at Skimlinks do not work with. Providing additional value and a good user experience is a keystone in our policies.

Google also goes on to say “If you participate in an affiliate program, there are a number of steps you can take to help your site stand out and to help improve your rankings.” … “Use your website to build community among your users. This will help build a loyal readership, and can also create a source of information on the subject you are writing about. For example, discussion forums, user reviews, and blogs all offer unique content and provide value to users.” This is an exact description of the kind of sites we do work with, sites that provide a great deal of added value to the user and help the user when they are looking for honest recommendations on decisions they are making.

“I expect any decent journalist to direct me to a link that enables me to collect the commission. I don’t agree it’s a business model for editorial given 100% cashback websites”. The cashback sites that you mention here are actually generally frowned upon and are indeed banned by many advertisers and affiliate merchants. They often offer little to no extra value to then end user and don’t generally add anything to the overall value chain from the advertiser to the customer. They also can result in commissions being effectively stolen form editors, writers and reviewers that will have sent spent much time reviewing and recommending a product only to have their commission taken due the “last click wins” model that most affiliate networks employ.

Ultimately our publishers have complete control over their own content, and can write whatever they like. Our Merchants do not solicit posts form any of publishers and there is no “paid links” being automatically created, only the links that our publishers choose to create.

I hope this has help eased some of your worries Rasy, we pride our selves on honesty and our ethical behaviour. If you do have any more concerns please feel free to get in contact with me personally ( Ciaran AT skimlinks DOT com) or reply here.

Thanks again for your input,
CIaran Rooney
CTO – Skimlinks

However, I do wonder how neutrality will be maintained once an editor knows they will be remunerated for writing about certain retailers. The temptation, especially in this climate, to focus on favorable reviews of participating retailers will be significant.

As she has also mentioned Google also have there own affiliate network ( http://www.google.com/ads/affiliatenetwork/ )

You can even read more about Google’s stance on affiliate marketing here ( http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=76465 ), what they essentially say is that Google “believes that pure affiliate websites do not provide additional value for web users”. These are exactly the kind of sites that we at Skimlinks do not work with. Providing additional value and a good user experience is a keystone in our policies.

Google also goes on to say “If you participate in an affiliate program, there are a number of steps you can take to help your site stand out and to help improve your rankings.” … “Use your website to build community among your users. This will help build a loyal readership, and can also create a source of information on the subject you are writing about. For example, discussion forums, user reviews, and blogs all offer unique content and provide value to users.” This is an exact description of the kind of sites we do work with, sites that provide a great deal of added value to the user and help the user when they are looking for honest recommendations on decisions they are making.

“I expect any decent journalist to direct me to a link that enables me to collect the commission. I don’t agree it’s a business model for editorial given 100% cashback websites”. The cashback sites that you mention here are actually generally frowned upon and are indeed banned by many advertisers and affiliate merchants. They often offer little to no extra value to then end user and don’t generally add anything to the overall value chain from the advertiser to the customer. They also can result in commissions being effectively stolen form editors, writers and reviewers that will have sent spent much time reviewing and recommending a product only to have their commission taken due the “last click wins” model that most affiliate networks employ.

Ultimately our publishers have complete control over their own content, and can write whatever they like. Our Merchants do not solicit posts form any of publishers and there is no “paid links” being automatically created, only the links that our publishers choose to create.

I hope this has help eased some of your worries Rasy, we pride our selves on honesty and our ethical behaviour. If you do have any more concerns please feel free to get in contact with me personally ( Ciaran AT skimlinks DOT com) or reply here.

Thanks again for your input,
CIaran Rooney
CTO – Skimlinks

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/19/insidious-new-seo-ad-product-will-be-hard-for-google-to-detect/

For what it is worth, we care about these issues deeply, and have worked hard to manage the potential issues surrounding integrity and ethics (we even speak often at conferences about how to monetise social media in an ethical way).

Here are some of our initiatives to address your concerns:
1. We encourage all our publishers to write objective content and not be swayed by the fact that there is potential monetisation potential. We believe in the long run, a publisher retains a more loyal user-base if they write objective fair editorial: it may not generate revenues in the short term, but will result in their editorial containing more weight.

2. Some of our publishers do not share the list of merchants we work with with their editors, to not influence editorial integrity.

3. We encourage all our publishers to include in their About Us and Privacy Policy sections that they use us as a means of generating revenue, so there is full disclosure.

4. Many of our merchants are well-known generic online retailers, and publishers are seen to be performing a useful service to their readers when they link to a product they have just (fairly and objectively) reviewed on these sites.

5. We don’t create links where none existed before, we only automate the creation of affiliate links on behalf of the publishers based on the links they have already added to their content. Publishers could do it themselves, and most of our publishers have wanted to for a long time, but haven’t had the resources or technical skill to do it well. This is why we are different from the paid Text Links products Matt Cutts has issues with. Matt Cutts has also publicly stated he is ok with affiliate marketing (Google has an affiliate network!) as long as its contextual, doesn’t do cookie-stuffing, and doesn’t take the user to a page other than what the editor intended.

We differ from PayPerPost in that the publishers have complete control over their own content, and can write whatever they like. Merchants don’t solicit posts.

We are big believers that publishers need something new to help them stay afloat. Traditional advertising isn’t enough, and many publishers are now moving to affiliate marketing. All Skimlinks does is allow publishers to outsource the creation of affiliate links to us: we do it in a quality way that respects the user experience.

I hope that has answered your concerns – thank you for taking the time to raise interesting points. Feel free to contact me personally if you have additional questions?

Alicia Navarro
CEO – Skimlinks

Weldone!