Online platforms often use monetized rankings: product positions reflect both predicted consumer value and commission revenue. Monetization can steer costly search toward high-commission offers, motivating two policies: neutrality that removes commission from the ranking criterion, and transparency that discloses the ranking's monetization. These policies may substitute if transparency suffices to let consumers discount steering, but complement if improved recommendations under neutrality remains misread with uncorrected beliefs. The determinant is therefore the gap between actual and perceived monetization. Using Expedia data, we estimate an equilibrium model of consumer search and hotel price competition that separately identifies the two. Consumers substantially underestimate monetization. Transparency corrects reliance on the monetized ranking but attractive options remains costly to discover, reducing consumer welfare. Neutrality instead facilitates search but uncorrected beliefs imply excessive skepticism, limiting the welfare gain. The policies are therefore complements. Together they align what recommendations deliver with what consumers believe and raise on-platform bookings by 26% even after hotel repricing. The same mechanism also reverses the platform's revenue comparison: neutrality earns less commission with uncorrected beliefs but more under transparency.