Several comments have recently been generated in regards to our members posting embedded referral links. This has created considerable skepticism. How it works: basically, the member will post a link to a product, and embed a personal code in that link that gives them a potential for a reward through the vendor for referring a customer to the product.
BLF members have been accused of engaging in the act of "shilling" for not mentioning that clicking their links might benefit them without your knowledge. Some feel very strongly that this activity degrades the image of BLF while others do not.
It is important to note that the vendors advertise and encourage their customers to utilize their referral programs because it can potentially bring more business through additional sales to them. The issue of concern for many members is that the referral links posted on BLF are done so without disclosure, that the embedded codes are hidden in the link to benefit that individual.
A shill, plant or stooge is a person who helps a person or organization without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with that person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) that he or she is secretly working for. The person or group that hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by confidence artists. Plant and stooge more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he or she is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).
Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions[1] because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging character of the shill's actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.
"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity. The origin of the term shill is uncertain; it may be an abbreviation of shillaber. The word originally denoted a carnival worker who pretended to be a member of the audience in an attempt to elicit interest in an attraction. Some sources trace the usage only back to 1914.
I would opine that the referral process is not the problem. I would actually encourage those interested to put their referral code or codes in their sig line, and give the purchaser the option of including it as a 'thanks' for the info.
I would gladly give all of my referral points to those who contribute to the knowledge base.
To acquire points in the current manner reeks of, for lack of a better word, sneaky.
If these 'referrals' aren't being done at the expense of other members I can't see a real problem. If you have a moral objection...don't click on those links (Works for me).
I dont care either way, but lets keep our perspective factual. The resellers create the referral programs. They want their customers to use their referral programs to propagate additional sales. Although an incentive, the potential rewards to the "shiller" are absolutely inconsequential in comparison to the profits generated through potential additional sales to the reseller. In simple terms, the shiller is doing them a huge favor of providing advertising for nearly free.
The animosities that have been generated are related to the many that were not made aware that referral links had been embedded within seemingly "regular" links. Its an issue of disclosure and morality, not an issue as to weather or not referrals ultimately cost the consumer a higher amount to purchase an item. In reality, if supply and demand soar, the cost to the consumer will be less... as has been evidenced by nearly all the most popular lights discussed on this forum.
I’m only going to buy my DX stuff from Frans links from now on. Saves me the time searching DX. just more fake Internet etiquette to me. I might also start posting in all CAPS to see if I can make anyone cry.
I don't find it to be such a bad thing, If I can get it for the same price, Why would I punish someone who could make a very little proffit from doing it?
The only thing I would like is, when someone uses referrals, to do it being honest about the products, not trying to promote them over other products on other sites.
So, my vote goes for option two, which is not quite what is my opinion but it is the closest one.
I think the point to remember is that the members here have just posted referral links with comments like “new lights at DX”. Never things like “this light is super mega awesome and you are all complete smegheads if you don’t buy it too”. The difference is there is no intention to deceive our membership. Just posting links to give our membership a heads up? No problem with me, I like looking at new lights.
Absolutely no issues to me if anyone use a referral link. Anyone doing so must still follow the usual BLF practics being nice and objective and not simply spamming such links.
Personally, I'm all about content. If someone posts a helpful tip or a review or even a quick reminder, I'm more than happy to use their reflink to buy stuff. If I see value in their contribution and I can help them out, then by all means, post your link and I'll use it.
At the same time, I hate spam. And I mean hate. In a previous life, I used to be responsible for running a semi-large network and the amount of work and lost productivity that went into fighting spam and keeping things running, before spam filtering was completely outsourced, was ridiculous. So, when referral systems more or less openly encourage active spamming (or any activity really, that crosses over into spam territory), I get cranky.
So what I do is this: if there's content I value and the poster uses a reflink, I use it. If I like the post and there's no reflink, I go to my bookmarks and use the reflink of someone who has positively contributed to the forum in the past. That way, the ref points (or whatever) aren't "lost".
If I come across a "shill" post that contains little or no content aside from a reflink and plug designed to get me to buy stuff, I remove the reflink, go out of my way to remove any cookies and LSOs I might have from that site and simply use somebody else's reflink.