Confessions of an Amazon Associate

Not long ago, TBM's "Kindle Chronicles" columnist Marion Maneker asked me in an e-mail exchange whether, if we covered a particular aspect of e-publishing in his column, it might look like The Big Money was in bed with Amazon (AMZN). I had to write back, only slightly joking, that as an Amazon Associate, we actually are in bed with Amazon.

How so? For the last several months, any time a book (or record, or movie available on DVD-but mostly it's books) has been mentioned on TBM, we've linked to a page on Amazon where readers can buy the item. If they do buy it, The Big Money gets a small percentage of the sale price.

Affiliate programs are nothing new; they were a big part of Amazon's growth in the late ‘90s, and Barnesandnoble.com has them as well. It's no secret that free Web sites like this one are constantly in search of non-advertising revenues, and this is (a very modest) one.

We are, of course, a business site, and Amazon is a company we cover regularly. Indeed, the associate program is itself in the news; as states like Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Hawaii pass laws taxing Internet retail sales, Amazon has taken the somewhat drastic move of cutting off its affiliates in those states.

The fact that Amazon is a source of revenue presents a potential conflict of interest for us. I hope that this disclosure to readers (we've long mentioned the relationship on our About Us page, but this is a little more prominent) serves as partial inoculation against any such conflicts. I think we have enough credibility with readers that no one would think that we'd approach Amazon journalistically any differently than any other company, but ultimately that is the readers' judgment, and we want that judgment to be as well-informed as possible.

There are times when the arrangement raises some editorial issues that simply don't come up in print or broadcast, notably: What if we're writing about a book to tell you how bad it is? Isn't it strange or contradictory to then be simultaneously, if mildly, trying to sell it to you? Well, yes-which is why, for example, we didn't initially link to Suze Orman's books in James Scurlock's pointed attack on her that we published in February.

But my boss Jacob Weisberg disagrees. He takes the view that everything should be linked to, as a service to readers and so as not to discriminate. I'm persuaded, because if you think about it, discriminating actually does involve a mixture of editorial judgment and commerce, whereas there is a mechanical purity to simply linking to everything. We're happy to follow that policy from now on. Your thoughts and comments on this subject are always welcome.