
How Gawker Brings in Millions in Affiliate Sales - nichodges
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-gawker-brings-in-millions-selling-headphones-chargers-and-flashlights-1451579813
======
dkrich
_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.

~~~
shortformblog
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...](https://affiliate-
program.amazon.com/gp/associates/join/compensation.html)

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.

------
bjenik
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

~~~
chishaku
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.

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

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

~~~
kelukelugames
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.

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

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

------
shortformblog
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.

------
elorant
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.

~~~
hobs
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.

------
joshmn
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.

