Why We Disclose Affiliate Relationships (And Why It Matters to You)

The Direct Answer First

This site is an independent resource about Lion's Den / Sales University, a sales training community run by Jordan Rassas. When you join through links on this site, we earn an affiliate commission. That commission is paid by Whop (the platform that hosts the community) at no extra cost to you — you pay the same £50/month regardless of whether you join through our link or directly.

Our affiliate tag is embedded in the links we use: ?a=digitalartlab in the Whop URL. This is the standard mechanism through which Whop tracks affiliate referrals.

We are telling you this because it is legally required in the UK and US, and because we think you should know it when deciding how much weight to give our content. Both reasons matter.

Why the Legal Requirement Exists

In the UK, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 prohibits misleading commercial practices. A promotional communication that is not identified as such when it has a commercial purpose is a misleading omission. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) both have guidance on affiliate marketing disclosure, which consistently requires that affiliate relationships are disclosed clearly before the reader engages with commercial content.

In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires that endorsements disclose material connections — including financial relationships — that might affect how the reader weighs the recommendation. "Material" means anything that would influence a reasonable reader's assessment of the content.

An affiliate commission is a material connection. We are financially incentivised to recommend the product. That incentive needs to be disclosed.

What the Affiliate Relationship Does and Does Not Mean

What it means: We earn a commission if you join. This creates an incentive to recommend joining. We acknowledge that incentive directly.

What it does not mean: We fabricate positive content to earn commission. We inflate ratings. We invent testimonials. We suppress negative information. We have editorial standards that prohibit all of these practices. Those standards are not just aspirational — they are embedded in how this site is built. We do not publish claims we cannot verify. Jordan Rassas's self-reported performance figures are attributed to him as his claims, not presented as verified facts. Community features are described based on publicly available information, not invented. Where information is unavailable or unverified, we say so.

The commercial interest is real. The editorial independence is also real. Both can be true simultaneously if the editorial standards are genuinely applied. The test is whether the content would change if we stopped earning commission. We believe it would not change materially, because the content is grounded in verifiable information rather than persuasion.

How We Handle Negative Information

Affiliate review sites that only publish positive information about the product they recommend are, functionally, advertisements. That is not what this site attempts to be.

We include limitations, caveats, and fair comparisons with alternatives. We note where claims are unverified. We do not publish testimonials we cannot attribute to real, identifiable sources. Where the community's deliverables are difficult to verify from outside — the job board activity, the engagement quality of live sessions, the specific placement outcomes — we say that they require verification by current members, rather than asserting they are excellent.

We also publish content that is useful to readers who ultimately do not join — the sales glossary, the call review checklist, the compliance guide — because useful content that does not have a direct conversion function is the best signal that the site serves readers rather than purely serving the commission objective.

What to Do With This Information

When you read a review on this site, apply the following mental adjustments:

• ◆We have an incentive to make the community sound good. Weight our positive claims accordingly, and seek out organic member reviews on Reddit and Twitter/X as independent verification.
• ◆We do not have an incentive to make the community sound bad. Our negative observations are therefore, if anything, more reliable signals than our positive ones.
• ◆We cannot access the full community experience from the outside. Claims about the quality of live sessions, the activity of the job board, or the responsiveness of the founder in practice can only be verified by joining, ideally on a monthly plan with no long-term commitment.

A £50/month entry point on a monthly contract is a relatively low-risk evaluation. You can join, test the community against your specific needs for 30 days, and cancel if it does not deliver. We recommend that evaluation process over taking our word for it — or anyone else's word.

A Note on the Broader Affiliate Landscape

Affiliate review sites exist across every product category. The quality ranges from genuinely independent to essentially undisclosed advertising. Common signals of low-quality affiliate content: no disclosure (or a buried disclosure that a reasonable reader would miss), exclusively positive content with no limitations or caveats, invented testimonials and statistics, and pricing/feature descriptions that are clearly copied from the sales page without independent verification.

We have attempted to build the opposite: clear disclosure, editorial independence from the commercial interest, refusal to publish unverified claims, and content that serves readers who do not convert as much as those who do. Whether we succeed is something you can evaluate by reading the content and comparing it to what you find from independent sources. We welcome that comparison.