Originally Posted by
sbm12
How hard is it to dismiss the idea that links shared by Boarding Area have any sense of additional value/import because of the BA affiliation? It is an ad sales network, not an editorial board. Forbes does the same crap. Find voices you actually trust, not marketing groups.
In print you see a byline. You have no idea if that person is a FTE or freelancer shilling. Arguably there is some editorial control but in the case of the websites that is exercised by the individual title, just like with a magazine or newspaper. Do you dismiss the reporting in Wired because you don't like/trust Vogue? Both are under a common administrative umbrella but really operate as separate entities.
Do you legit believe that there are BA-affiliated blogs that have CC links but are not disclosing such? Point to one. I'd love to see it. The affiliate programs are ridiculously strict about such. No one making bank selling CCs is going to risk that at this point, especially with how hard getting links is and especially how hard it is to get back in once booted.
I believe this statement misses a lot of reality, unless the expertise is simply posting all the time, regardless of relevance. And the BA crew who do so are hardly alone. I also don't quite get the "Randy/BA" inclusion there rather than naming a few blogs that are actually good at it and make real money from it. Certainly there are others unaffiliated that are as good if not better, assuming you're measuring by revenue.
I think there's plenty of crap being published all over the place. But the obsession with the idea that Boarding Area is anything more than an ad network is just bizarre to me. Especially since this isn't new news. Y'all have known for years this is the case but insist on claiming otherwise. I just don't get it.
First of all, I have repeatedly pointed to specific examples of BA blogs that have improper disclosures of affiliate links. I have cited specific examples and how they violate the relevant FTC guidance. You have disagreed. The fact that there is a disclosure buried on a website doesn't mean it's good enough. The fact that there is little risk of the current administration going after Joe Knownothings blog post that hides that his advice is not objective or disinterested doesn't make it right.
Two Examples of BA blogs failing to be sufficiently straightforward.
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/28206911-post261.html
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/external-miles-points-resources/1483373-one-mile-time-omaat-discussions-merged-210.html
Second, I've never seen BA admit it is an "ad network." But regardless, it is a non sequitur that just because you are "only" a platform or an ad network means you cannot set terms and conditions for participation. You and other defenders use this as some sort of talisman when there is no logical reason why an "ad network" cannot have quality and other standards for its members. The reason BA doesn't have standards isn't because it's an "ad network", it's because BA has decided it doesn't want to have standards, and prizes quantity over quality. This is a valid criticism -- and remains so since you and others refuse to acknowledge that the lack of quality control is a deliberate choice.
As for how I read news, actually yes, if one conde nast publication does a story citing another one, that relationship would be referenced in the story, and I would think of it differently than a story from an independent source. And most bylines actually *do* indicate the affiliation of the writer or allow a reader a way of figuring it out. See, e.g.,
http://ethics.npr.org/g-transparency/guidance-for-bylines-on-npr-org/
Given how much mutual gratification many BA blogs give each other, blowing smoke up each other, I think the nature of their relationship and how they mutually benefit from each other's profits are important.
What I find most outrageous, perhaps, is your indignation about calls for transparency. It's hypocritical to purport to advocate for consumers, and transparency in travel company practices, and rant like this against calls for transparency by a company like BA that makes money off of peddling products.
To the suggestion that BA can't be an expert in credit card marketing practices because it doesn't have any direct links itself, that also is illogical. You can be an expert about things you dont do directly. Are you actally going to say Randy doesnt know alot about how credit card and affiliate marketing works? That doesnt pass the sniff test.
The idea that there should be standards that bloggers follow isn't as outlandish as you suggest. The idea that Boarding Area could and should impose such standards on members of its "ad network", which it recruits and encourages to flood the internet with garbage, is not refuted by anything you say. One good set of proposed standards is here: https://mor10.com/code-of-ethics-for-bloggers-social-media-and-content-creators/
As to the "but there's other garbage out there too" argument, "don't pick on BA", for better or worse, BA has developed as a behemoth in the "travel" blog world, and is the largest business in the space. Market leaders should be held responsible for the highest ethical and quality standards.