Most active commenters
  • steve-benjamins(5)
  • blackqueeriroh(3)

←back to thread

I tried every top email marketing tool

(www.sitebuilderreport.com)
244 points steve-benjamins | 16 comments | 15 Nov 24 13:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.813s | source | bottom
Show context
mtlynch ◴[16 Nov 24 18:26 UTC] No.42158079[source]▶
I appreciate that the author disclosed it, but the reason they went to all this effort is likely that they expect to make money as an affiliate for the platforms that they recommended.

Affiliate-driven reviews introduce a major bias into the author's opinion, as they have incentive to speak more positively about platforms that are likely to pay the most.

And email marketing platforms pay a lot in affiliate fees. Just scanning some of the recommendations, if someone signs up for MailerLite through this reviewer's link, they'll pay the reviewer 30% of that subscriber's fees forever.[0] I wouldn't be surprised if the reviewer's top pick is coincidentally the platform with the highest-paying affiliate program.

The thing that really woke me up to affiliate-influenced reviews was the 2017 article, "The War To Sell You A Mattress Is An Internet Nightmare."[1] The reporter figured out that top YouTube mattress reviewers just gave positive reviews to whichever company paid the most in affiliate fees, and when one company lowered their fees, the reviewers retroactively downranked them for contrived reasons.

[0] https://www.mailerlite.com/affiliate

[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-blogg...

replies(6): >>42158118 #>>42160954 #>>42161747 #>>42162122 #>>42163135 #>>42164095 #
pembrook ◴[17 Nov 24 05:08 UTC] No.42162122[source]▶
I see these same affiliate listicles every time I try to find software for any use case these days. Basically every Saas category has now turned into a giant affiliate marketing cesspool. Doesn't matter if it's GPT-written blogspam on Google search or highly produced "creator" content on Youtube...it's all the same motivation behind the content: buy via my link.

As much as people hated the display advertising common on the old internet, I'd actually argue this is far worse.

Instead of clear delineation between what's an ad and what's content, combining the two together just creates even more sinister incentives. Even the most good-hearted, honest and trustworthy "creators" can't escape those incentives over time. I've seen so many of my favorite creators head down that path I just expect it at this point.

Even the formerly trustworthy Wirecutter has lost its reliability post-NYT acquisition, clearly favoring products that offer affiliate payouts.

replies(1): >>42163408 #
1. steve-benjamins ◴[17 Nov 24 11:00 UTC] No.42163408[source]▶
Instead of criticizing my article, you’re criticizing me.

Does the content of my article seem dishonest?

I agree affiliate content should be read skeptically but you also have to be realistic: why would anyone go to all this work if not for some financial incentive?

replies(4): >>42163568 #>>42163570 #>>42163703 #>>42163776 #
2. plufz ◴[17 Nov 24 11:35 UTC] No.42163568[source]▶
He does not critize you. He criticizes making reviews financed by affiliate links.
replies(1): >>42164252 #
3. wwweston ◴[17 Nov 24 11:35 UTC] No.42163570[source]▶
Their comment seems much more directed at the incentives and outcomes of affiliate/content marketing than it does at you personally, so it’s weird to pretend it’s a personal attack.

Especially when you underscore the incentive issues with your closing question: if the only reason you can imagine going to the effort of a substantial review is financial incentive, that in itself is a pretty good criticism.

replies(2): >>42164313 #>>42170203 #
4. pembrook ◴[17 Nov 24 11:57 UTC] No.42163703[source]▶
I wasn’t criticizing you specifically, but yes, your article does seem dishonest.

Your evaluation criteria was downright silly (1), you didn’t actually try most of these tools, and your “top pick” has the highest affiliate payout (and longest affiliate window) on the list.

In fact, I have no idea how this article hasn’t been flagged since low quality affiliate listicles generally don’t make the front page here.

(1) Strict pricing models and not supporting web fonts like Inter are features, not bugs. Cheap platforms have crap quality shared IPs and 70%+ of inboxes (including most Gmail/outlook clients) don’t support web fonts at all. You’re designing something nobody will see correctly: https://www.caniemail.com/features/css-at-font-face/

replies(1): >>42164300 #
5. resource_waste ◴[17 Nov 24 12:14 UTC] No.42163776[source]▶
>why would anyone go to all this work if not for some financial incentive?

People die for altruistic causes. I don't think its unheard of for people to run websites for fun or fame.

replies(2): >>42164279 #>>42170218 #
6. steve-benjamins ◴[17 Nov 24 14:10 UTC] No.42164252[source]▶
I made a review with affiliate links.
replies(1): >>42170206 #
7. steve-benjamins ◴[17 Nov 24 14:15 UTC] No.42164279[source]▶
You’re suggesting a realistic outcome is people running software review sites for fun or fame?
replies(1): >>42165647 #
8. steve-benjamins ◴[17 Nov 24 14:19 UTC] No.42164300[source]▶
This is an article outlining my subjective experience. My criteria is not silly — it’s based off of my experience with Mailchimp.

I don’t want an email marking tool that:

• Charged overage fees • Uses dark patterns to charge me more

replies(1): >>42167518 #
9. steve-benjamins ◴[17 Nov 24 14:21 UTC] No.42164313[source]▶
He’s not criticizing me he’s criticizing my incentives. Sure. You’re being pedantic, but sure.

I’m suggesting a more productive argument would criticize the substance of my article — not my incentives.

replies(2): >>42164634 #>>42164662 #
10. djbusby ◴[17 Nov 24 15:23 UTC] No.42164634{3}[source]▶
Its not even you being criticized - it's the general blog spam listacle.

Now, I'm gonna criticize you for a) not understanding the point up thread and b) taking the general comment too personally.

11. sokka_h2otribe ◴[17 Nov 24 15:28 UTC] No.42164662{3}[source]▶
There are two people.

One is a good person. One is a bad person.

BOTH people are distorted by the wrong incentives.

It is NOT a question of being pedantic. They're literally not criticizing you when they criticize your incentives. I think this critique is from a board with relatively high percentage of systems-type thinkers.

12. rammer ◴[17 Nov 24 17:57 UTC] No.42165647{3}[source]▶
We're saying that after every single recommendation you should make it bloody clear that you are profiting from this and how much? So people can make the independent decision about whether your 'reasearxh' is to be trusted or thrown in the garbage like it is.

We recommend software products too but don't hide behind euphemisms and hide our commissions.

13. conductr ◴[17 Nov 24 21:34 UTC] No.42167518{3}[source]▶
Yet you felt the need to come post it to HN to give it a boost. It’s not like you wrote it in good faith and it organically found its way here. This is pure and simple the exact kind of content that drips of bias and deserves all the skepticism it’s receiving here in the comments.
14. blackqueeriroh ◴[18 Nov 24 06:21 UTC] No.42170203[source]▶
Most people don’t make reviews for a living because they can’t afford to do so.
15. blackqueeriroh ◴[18 Nov 24 06:22 UTC] No.42170206{3}[source]▶
Can you not separate what you do from who you are? Are you defined as a person who makes reviews with affiliate links?
16. blackqueeriroh ◴[18 Nov 24 06:24 UTC] No.42170218[source]▶
This is silly. Do you have a job where you make a paycheck? Would you spend the same amount of time doing what you do at your job for the company that employs you if they didn’t pay you?

If not, then you also would not put in a bunch of work on anything simply for fun or fame