[aimazon]

I can't even begin to understand how they think this will succeed. The defence so many influencers employ when advertisers turn out to be doing shady things is "You can't hold me responsible! It's not my fault, how can I know what my advertisers are doing?" but as soon as an advertiser does something that harms the influencer, it's a problem?

Honey's business model has always been obvious to anyone with any understanding of affiliate marketing, their innovation was that they created a browser extension: that's it. Coupon code websites were doing exactly the same thing for decades before, retailmenot being the one we're probably all familiar with from the early 2000s.

The claim that these influencers have lost affiliate commissions because Honey's method is true but it's also true that these influencers are losing affiliate commissions to one another. Amazon is the preferred e-commerce platform for affiliate marketing because they are extremely generous with how they attribute: if you click an Amazon affiliate marketing link and then make any purchase in the next 30 days the affiliate will get paid regardless of whether they were advertising the product you bought or not. And guess how Amazon attributes? Last click!

If Influencer A includes an affiliate link for "Expensive Camera" and Influencer B includes an affiliate link for "Cheap Toy" and you click on "Expensive Camera" then click on "Cheap Toy" and then buy the expensive camera, Influencer B is getting paid for that purchase expensive camera purchase, despite Influencer A influencing you to buy it.

Affiliate marketing is adversarial, it's a fight for attribution at the expense of everyone else. Holding Honey to a different standard isn't going to work for them. Wilful ignorance of how a company operates isn't a defence against being harmed by them, it's embarrassing.

[ageitgey]

> Holding Honey to a different standard isn't going to work for them.

I think the perceived difference is that influencer A or B got someone to click a link to a store while Honey used a browser extension to reset the affiliate attribution when the user was already at the store on the checkout page about to click to purchase. They didn't drive the user to the store. That's a big difference.

[_fjg8]

Cart abandonment is a big problem in ecommerce, reducing cart abandonment is an entire field of business.

https://www.shopify.com/blog/shopping-cart-abandonment

"According to Baymard Institute, 70.19% of online shopping carts are abandoned. Think about that. For every 100 potential customers, 70 of them will leave without purchasing. How much would your revenues increase if you were capturing those sales instead of losing them?"

Honey provides value to merchants because it reduces cart abandonment: it's easy for Honey to argue that without Honey these sales would not have completed and therefore Honey deserves the commission on the sale.

Even in cases where Honey didn't find a discount, Honey can argue that by searching for coupons on behalf of the user the user gains confidence that the price they're paying is the best price and that's why they complete their purchase.

[aimazon]

My prediction for the response from Honey:

* Affiliate marketing attribution is understood to be imperfect, the best effort nature of it is priced in to the commissions

* Affiliate marketing uses multiple attribution strategies with varying trade-offs including coupon codes (e.g: "use code INFLUENCER at checkout for a 10% discount") vs. links ("click the link in my description") because of the imperfect nature

* Affiliate marketing is adversarial, all of these influencers have "stolen" attribution from each other

As Honey will have no problem proving:

* The advertisers (e.g: NordVPN) understand that affiliate marketing attribution is not an exact science, that n sales driven by an influencer does not translate to n affiliate commissions, and that the amount they offer to influencers per sale accounts for that

* The agencies that work on behalf of influencers to negotiate deals with advertisers understand the challenges of attribution and have negotiated based on this imperfect art of attribution

* The agencies/influencers/advertisers choose whether to engage in affiliate marketing by weighing up the benefits of being paid per sale vs. being paid per video or views

* There will be pages and pages and pages of emails within these influencer agencies where discussions have taken place on the choice to use affiliate marketing based on the audience of a video, e.g: link based affiliate marketing is less effective for an audience that watches videos on TV, vs. an audience primarily watching the video on a computer

* Honey was not receiving an equivalent rate to what the influencers were receiving, the influencers would not have earned their per sale commission x the number of sales if Honey had not captured the attribution (which demonstrates that this is all priced in)

Maybe PayPal will settle but given the harm this drama has caused to the Honey business, I doubt they have any intention of doing so.

[whilenot-dev]

Disclaimer: I'm an active adblocker and avoid all social media besides HN, IANAL

> The defence so many influencers employ when advertisers turn out to be doing shady things is "You can't hold me responsible! It's not my fault, how can I know what my advertisers are doing?" but as soon as an advertiser does something that harms the influencer, it's a problem?

Yes, if the damage is directed towards you then that's a case for a defence.

Inluencers are just providing advertisement space like any other media platform (TV, websites etc.). So if a sponsor bought this advertisement space and turns out to be shady, why should influencers, TVs, websites etc. be held accountable? Hasn't their reputation been damaged as well? They usually just don't go after it because it's a tough case to quantify and any legal trouble can be exceedingly tiresome.

> If Influencer A includes an affiliate link for "Expensive Camera" and Influencer B includes an affiliate link for "Cheap Toy" and you click on "Expensive Camera" then click on "Cheap Toy" and then buy the expensive camera, Influencer B is getting paid for that purchase expensive camera purchase, despite Influencer A influencing you to buy it.

It's the last click, yes. There's a difference between [A] you actively clicking an affiliate button to land on a product page and [B] you being tricked into a last button click right before checkout with the (void) promise of free coupons. You stated it perfectly, yet you don't understand the difference?

As for "Expensive Camera - Cheap Toy": What get attributes how is a technical challenge and cookie domains seem to be the solution that gets picked by the affiliate stores. I think there could be a more fine-grained solution that wouldn't be so difficult to implement, agree, but it seems like there's no work being done in this space?

[imtringued]

Uhm no? If Honey was running a legitimate affiliate marketing scheme, they would be upfront about the fact that they get an affiliate commission and that you benefit from this arrangement, because they are giving you part of the affiliate commission as cashback. This in itself is a very honest way of running an affiliate marketing business.

Except Honey doesn't do that. Online shops pay Honey to ignore the best coupons, so that the customer will pay more than if they had looked for the coupons themselves. They run a cashback scheme that is no different than e.g. payback cards, but they deceptively fund it using affiliate marketing, meaning that the user is getting a pittance in savings in comparison to what honey gets.

[aimazon]

You're getting caught up in the social media hysteria. Honey's partnership with merchants to create Honey-specific coupons is relatively new, Honey was sold to PayPal long before they had any partnerships with merchants, Honey's value (as a business) and revenue comes from the pure affiliate marketing: getting attribution for sales. Honey has never hidden this: https://web.archive.org/web/20191121204313/https://help.join...

[Hikikomori]

They never made it clear that they always replaced others affiliate links, like the creators affiliates that also promoted honey, and also did it even when they didn't find any codes. And did this at checkout.

[aimazon]

How could they have been any clearer? Just because some creators didn’t realise they were being paid by Honey to cannibalise their own affiliate commissions does not mean Honey hid it. A number of creators have said this realisation about Honey has prompted them to take a closer look at how the companies they advertise work: that’s an admission of doing zero diligence when choosing to work with an advertiser.

The entire point of Honey is that it is activated at checkout: how else could it work?

Also ask yourself about the merchants involved: did NordVPN know about the relationship between Honey and affiliate commissions? Of course, they were paying Honey too. And yet NordVPN chose to use last-click attribution for deals with influencers.

[pests]

> The entire point of Honey is that it is activated at checkout: how else could it work?

There is a (imo bad faith) argument that Honey directs you to a cheaper vendor (How? When? I’ve never seen it) thus saving the consumer money. I have never seen anyone use Honey this way and I’m not even sure what user behavior / UI they have built up around this flow but I feel it’s just to cover their ass.