Just caught this post on Performancing.com about credibility and affiliate links, via Scrivs.

And it got me thinking about credibility. And more specifically about what might really hinder credibility in the long term. And I came to the conclusion that if you follow much of the current slew of revenue-building advice dished out by pro blogging ‘how-to’ sites, your credibility could go down the pan much sooner than you think.

Popular thinking amongst ‘pro’ bloggers is to monetise your blog through pay-per-click advertising. And popular advice offered by ‘pro’ bloggers is to continually experiment with your ad placement to achieve maximum clickthrough, and maximum revenue.

In fact, the ideal scenario for many ‘pro’ bloggers is for each visitor to land on a page via a search engine, then almost immediately click away via an ad.

In. And out. In seconds. And all for about $0.17 or so.

That’s why most ad placement/colour/size advice almost always consists of ways to make those ads stand out on a blog so that readers can’t fail to see them – often before they’ve even seen the actual content. Plus, it’s happening more and more that you find a blog with Google Adsense, Chitika MiniMalls, BlogAds, Amazon links and god knows what else all competing with the content.

It’s getting almost to the point where the blog entry doesn’t matter anymore – all the writing really does is game the search engines into delivering traffic.

Where’s the credibility in attracting readers to your site with the sole intention of having them click away from that site via an ad as soon as possible? How can you build credibility by tricking people into clicking away? How did we reach a revenue model where the only way you’re going to make your money is by forcing people *away* from your site? And what’s the difference between that and a spam blog?

The funny thing is that lots of ‘pro’ blogging advice sites who offer this kind of advice are the kind of sites who are also inherently vocal against spam blogs. Hmmmm.

This model is working for some people in the short term right now. But what about 2 or 3 years in the future? Is intentionally driving people *away* from your site the kind of business model that will consistently hold up in the long term? I have no idea. But when the market starts to become saturated with blogs (which it will), and niche blogs have genuine competitors to deal with, the winners are going to be the ones who are in it for their readers, rather than for quick cash.

Once upon a time, blogging was about writing and communicating with people. Now it’s about making a quick $0.17 from the same people you once communicated to. And that’s where a lot of credibility falls flat on its face.

But is there a better model?

There is. It’s called a subscription model. And it involves readers paying to read your blog rather than you diluting your content with cheap advertising in the hope that people will click on it. In essence, you ‘lock’ your content, and make it available only to people who have paid a subscription. You don’t need advertisers, and you’re free to concentrate on producing the very best content (the kind of content that people visit your blog for in the first place), rather than wasting time deciding on the best place to put a flashing banner ad. Plus, readers don’t have to make that choice about whether to read more content (which you want them to do) or click away from the site via an ad (which, ideally, you don’t want them to do).

And most importantly, your credibility stays very firmly intact.

However, building a subscription model is notoriously difficult to do. And it takes a lot of hard work. So maybe that’s why most people are taking the lazy way out and plastering their blogs with ugly ads?

Just my $0.17 worth.