I think you'd find it a lot easier to get people that are making $1500/month+ to allow you to interview them if the interviewees knew they'd be getting a great deal of benefit out of the interview. I made a largish post here on DP about 6 months ago (it's in my sig), about my earnings in a bid to help others, like they helped me back when I was starting out, and whilst I didn't write the post expecting anything in return, the post got a lot of attention. Now a lot of that was good attention - some of it wasn't so good attention, and I think that in a situation like interviewing higher earners there is always going to be a mix of good and bad attention. I think it would be nieve of the interviewee to think otherwise. So for me it would always come down to the issue of do I think the attention earned will be more positive than negative. Disclosure can be one of the biggest reasons why a webmaster celebrity goes viral, like Shoemoney and ProBlogger when they announced their respective earnings they became household names (at least for webmasters), but both of those people have since moved into somewhat of a webmaster services sort of industry. Darren Launched B5media and Shoemoney has launched AuctionAds, so their fame amongst webmasters was leveraged, but it was partially at the sacrifice of their previous industries (ie Shoemoney tells everyone he is making 6 figures a month in the ringtones niche - 12 months later the industry is saturated). So the way I look at it is this - If moving into the webmaster service related industry (ie blogging about a niche within being a webmaster) then by all means disclose income and take interviews and try to go viral like these other guys, but if on the other hand you plan to keep on doing what you are doing then in a strategic business sense, disclosure is just going to increase attention and competition in your industry.