In the world of e-commerce, there is a fundamental conflict of interest: you want to spend less, but the comparison site makes more money if you spend more (or buy from specific stores). We explain why serving the retailer is a betrayal of the user.
The Fundamental Misalignment
Every comparison site faces a choice:
Option A: Serve the User
Show the absolute lowest price, even if it earns you nothing.
Option B: Serve Yourself
Show prices that earn you the highest commission, even if
they're not the cheapest.
Most sites choose Option B. Not because they're evil, but because Option A doesn't pay the bills.
This creates a conflict of interest that undermines the entire purpose of price comparison.
Who Is the Real Customer?
When you use a "free" comparison site, ask yourself: who is paying for this service?
You're not. Retailers are.
Retailers pay through advertising, affiliate commissions, and "partnership fees." You don't pay anything.
So who is the comparison site actually serving? The people who pay them (retailers) or the people who use them (you)?
The answer is obvious: they serve the retailers.
How the Conflict Plays Out
Here's what happens in practice:
Scenario: Two Retailers Sell the Same Product
- Retailer A: $99 (pays 2% commission = $1.98)
- Retailer B: $119 (pays 8% commission = $9.52)
If the site serves you: They show Retailer A first. You save $20.
If the site serves itself: They show Retailer B first. You overpay by $20, but the site earns $7.54 more.
Which do you think happens more often?
The site earns nearly 5x more by showing you the expensive option. That's a massive financial incentive to betray your trust.
The Subtle Manipulation
Most sites don't outright hide the cheaper option. That would be too obvious.
Instead, they use subtle tricks:
- Ranking: Expensive options appear first, cheap ones are buried
- Visual emphasis: High-commission retailers get bigger images, "Featured" badges, or highlighted boxes
- Default sorting: Results default to "Recommended" not "Lowest Price"
- Filtering: Cheap retailers are excluded by default filters
The cheaper option is technically available. But you'd have to actively seek it out, and most users don't.
The "Recommended" Scam
Pay attention to how results are sorted.
Most comparison sites default to "Recommended" or "Best Match."
What does "recommended" mean? It sounds like the site is using expertise to guide you to the best option.
In reality, it usually means "highest commission."
If you manually change the sorting to "Lowest Price," you'll often find much cheaper options that weren't "recommended."
The Trust Betrayal
Here's why this is so insidious:
You visit a comparison site specifically to find the lowest price. You trust them to help you save money.
But they're secretly optimizing for their own revenue, not your savings.
That's a betrayal of trust.
It's like going to a financial advisor and finding out they recommend investments based on their commission, not your best interests.
It's legal. But it's wrong.
Real-World Impact
This isn't theoretical. Real users are losing real money.
Let's say you buy 30 products per year using comparison sites.
If the site steers you toward a retailer paying 8% commission instead of the cheapest option, you might overpay by an average of $15 per purchase.
That's $450 per year.
The comparison site earns an extra $100-150 in commission. You lose $450.
Who benefits from this relationship?
Why Don't Regulators Stop This?
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires disclosure of affiliate relationships.
Sites comply by adding disclaimers like:
"We may earn a commission when you click links on our site."
Technically, that's disclosure. But it doesn't explain:
- HOW commissions affect ranking
- WHICH retailers pay commissions
- HOW MUCH they're earning per click
- WHETHER cheaper non-affiliate options exist
Most users see the disclaimer and assume it doesn't matter. They trust that results are still ranked by price.
They're wrong.
The Fiduciary Duty Argument
Financial advisors have a "fiduciary duty" to act in their clients' best interests.
Should comparison sites have the same duty?
If you trust a site to help you save money, shouldn't they be legally required to show you the cheapest option first?
Right now, they're not. And that needs to change.
The Alternative Model
It doesn't have to be this way.
A comparison site could align its incentives with yours:
- Always show the cheapest price first, regardless of commission
- Clearly label which retailers pay commission
- Let users filter out affiliate retailers if they want
- Charge users a subscription fee instead of relying on affiliate revenue
This would require sacrificing short-term revenue for long-term trust. Most companies won't make that trade.
But some will.
Find the Best Deal with a Tool That Works for You
FindPrices helps you compare prices fairly. The lowest price always appears first, regardless of who pays us. No conflicts. No betrayals.
Compare Pricing Now - It's FreeThe Bottom Line
Most comparison sites operate under a fundamental conflict of interest.
You want the lowest price. They want the highest commission.
When those goals conflict, they choose commission. And you lose.
Use tools that prioritize your interests, not theirs.