Greg's Corner

Honey’s Hidden Cost: Deceiving Consumers

By Greg Collier

Honey, a widely used browser extension owned by PayPal, has recently found itself at the center of controversy, accused of deceptive practices that harm consumers and creators alike. While the extension is marketed as a money-saving tool that helps users find discounts and cashback opportunities, a recent investigation suggests its operations might not align with its promises.

A detailed exposé, posted on YouTube by creator MegaLag, has sparked widespread debate about Honey’s practices. The video accuses the extension of misrepresenting itself to consumers, undermining content creators, and engaging in questionable tactics to secure commissions on online sales. These revelations have left many questioning the ethics of the app and its impact on the broader ecosystem of online shopping and affiliate marketing.

Honey’s primary allure is its promise to help shoppers save money by automatically applying coupon codes at checkout. According to the company, it earns a commission from partner merchants when users make purchases, sharing part of that commission through cashback. On the surface, this seems like a win-win for consumers and retailers. However, the investigation claims otherwise, alleging that Honey fails to find the best deals and deliberately prioritizes codes from its own partners, even when better discounts are available elsewhere.

Perhaps even more troubling is Honey’s alleged treatment of influencers and creators. The investigation accuses the extension of overriding affiliate links embedded in creators’ content, replacing them with its own referral codes. This ensures Honey earns the commission and not the creators who actually recommended the products. This practice has reportedly led some creators to terminate their partnerships with Honey quietly, frustrated by the betrayal of trust.

The implications of these practices extend beyond creators. By replacing affiliate links, Honey effectively diverts revenue away from influencers who rely on those commissions to sustain their work. Creators who had previously promoted Honey now find themselves in an awkward position, as their endorsements inadvertently directed their audiences to an extension that undercut their own earning potential.

Additionally, businesses themselves may be feeling the sting. Honey is accused of applying unauthorized coupon codes, which can lead to financial losses for merchants and sometimes force them to raise prices to compensate. While the company asserts that it reduces cart abandonment and drives conversions, critics argue that its tactics ultimately harm both consumers and businesses, undermining trust in online shopping.

For consumers, the revelations serve as a reminder to approach seemingly ‘free’ tools with caution. While Honey positions itself as a consumer ally, the accusations suggest its true interests lie in maximizing its own profit—sometimes at the expense of those it claims to help. And for creators, the controversy underscores the importance of scrutinizing partnerships and advocating for fair treatment in the ever-evolving landscape of online monetization.

As the discussion around Honey’s practices continues to unfold, it raises broader concerns about the accountability of tech companies and the fine line between convenience and exploitation. Whether Honey will address these criticisms directly or make changes to its model remains to be seen, but the controversy serves as a stark reminder of the complexities lurking behind the tools we use every day.