New Paid Links Service Sparks More Debate
Chris Crum | Staff Writer
And the Gloves Come Off...
Quite a storm of debate has erupted over a new service called
InLinks - essentially a paid text link service that allegedly
makes it hard for Google (and other search engines) to detect them.
And mouths of Internet marketers begin to salivate.
The debate has basically turned into Matt Cutts vs. the "Yeah,
let's stick it to Google" crowd. .As far as I can tell, this
started with TechCrunch reporting on InLinks, which prompted Matt
Cutts to send them an email from which the following is a sample:
Google has been very clear that selling such links that pass
PageRank is a violation of our quality guidelines. Other search
engines have said similar things. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) has also given unambiguous guidance on this subject in the
recent PDF at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/03/P064101tech.pdf where
they said "Consumers who endorse and recommend products on their
blogs or other sites for consideration should do so within the
boundaries set forth in the FTC Guides Concerning Use of
Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising and the FTC's
guidance on word of mouth marketing," as well as "To date, in
response to this concern, the FTC has advised that search engines
need to disclose clearly and conspicuously if the ranking or other
presentation of search results is a function of paid placement,
and, similarly, that consumers who are paid to engage in word-of-
mouth marketing must disclose that fact to recipients of their
messages."
====================================================================
Improve ROI with Guru's Guide to Email Marketing Success from Lyris
Download the free Guru's Guide to Email Marketing Success now
http://aj.600z.com/aj/65884/0/cc\?z=1&b=65658&c=65873
====================================================================
After getting into some region-specific issues, he wraps up with
"The reality is that accepting money to link to/promote/market
for a product without disclosing that fact is a very high-risk
behavior, in my opinion."
I don't think anybody is surprised to see Cutts trying to defuse
the situation before everybody gets too excited, but of course a
topic like this isn't going to be left at that. Debate is sparking
up around a variety of popular search blogs. You know Michael Gray
for one is going to get involved in a discussion about this, but
he made an interesting choice in how he decided to handle it:
IMHO the key to buying links is using them over the short term
6-9 months, to jump start your rankings while you swing your PR
machine into full gear, shaking hands and kissing babies. Google
has a top down preference for brands and the more you work normal
PR and advertising tactics to reach that goal the better you are.
Use viral marketing and linkbait to start securing links over
time. As you start to acquire natural links, revisit your links
buys and slowly start phasing them out (ultra competitive and non
mainstream topics have different rules).
My position on paid link advertisingwell known and at this point
I don't have anythingto add that hasn't already been said . The
most important thing I learned from Pubcon this year was stop
wasting time on drama, so comments on this post will be closed.
====================================================================
Smart IT for Tough Times: The Planet gives you the power!
Click Here to See Current Specials from The Planet
http://aj.600z.com/aj/65884/0/cc\?z=1&b=65240&c=65875
====================================================================
Where the debate really takes a turn on Google though, is when
Jeremy Schoemaker points the camera back on the company's own
practices. He writes:
Every time paid links is brought up Matt Cutts brings up the FTC's
"suggestions" on bloggers disclosing things they have been
compensated for. In no where in these "suggestions" does it talk
about paid links. But even if it did they are just suggestions.
They are not law and if Google was following the FTC's suggestions
I doubt Google Adsense/adlinks would be engaging in some of the
most deceptive advertising methods I have ever seen on the
internet.
He also mentions Google's paying of $66 million to the allegedly
non-profit Mozilla to be the default search engine for Firefox.
From there a slew of comments went pouring in on Schoemaker's
post, bashing Google's practices, calling the company names like
"evil" and "hypocrite." Mentions are made of Google's own
sponsored results being made less disclaimer-like by the
lightening of the hue surrounding them. Eventually, Cutts weighs
in here too amidst a sea of criticism.
====================================================================
Changes at Google with Matt Cutts - Watch the Live Video Now!
http://aj.600z.com/aj/65884/0/cc\?z=1&b=65882&c=65881
====================================================================
I'm not going to take the Michael Gray approach and stay out of
the "drama". I'm leaving comments on, and I want to see what
everybody thinks. Flamebait you say? Come on, you know you love
to talk about this stuff. Ok....go!
UPDATE: I contacted Schoemaker and asked him to talk a little
bit more about Google not being able to track the paid links
with InLinks. He responded with:
The key word I used was if done properly it would be impossible
to detect. Lets look at the current TLA and how easy it is to
detect yet Google still can't get a grasp on it.
Detecting the old text link ads was stupidly easy.
For instance - weblogtoolscollection.com pr6 been selling TLA
text links for a long time. Never dinged in google
And the Gloves Come Off...
Quite a storm of debate has erupted over a new service called
InLinks - essentially a paid text link service that allegedly
makes it hard for Google (and other search engines) to detect them.
And mouths of Internet marketers begin to salivate.
The debate has basically turned into Matt Cutts vs. the "Yeah,
let's stick it to Google" crowd. .As far as I can tell, this
started with TechCrunch reporting on InLinks, which prompted Matt
Cutts to send them an email from which the following is a sample:
Google has been very clear that selling such links that pass
PageRank is a violation of our quality guidelines. Other search
engines have said similar things. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) has also given unambiguous guidance on this subject in the
recent PDF at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/03/P064101tech.pdf where
they said "Consumers who endorse and recommend products on their
blogs or other sites for consideration should do so within the
boundaries set forth in the FTC Guides Concerning Use of
Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising and the FTC's
guidance on word of mouth marketing," as well as "To date, in
response to this concern, the FTC has advised that search engines
need to disclose clearly and conspicuously if the ranking or other
presentation of search results is a function of paid placement,
and, similarly, that consumers who are paid to engage in word-of-
mouth marketing must disclose that fact to recipients of their
messages."
====================================================================
Improve ROI with Guru's Guide to Email Marketing Success from Lyris
Download the free Guru's Guide to Email Marketing Success now
http://aj.600z.com/aj/65884/0/cc\?z=1&b=65658&c=65873
====================================================================
After getting into some region-specific issues, he wraps up with
"The reality is that accepting money to link to/promote/market
for a product without disclosing that fact is a very high-risk
behavior, in my opinion."
I don't think anybody is surprised to see Cutts trying to defuse
the situation before everybody gets too excited, but of course a
topic like this isn't going to be left at that. Debate is sparking
up around a variety of popular search blogs. You know Michael Gray
for one is going to get involved in a discussion about this, but
he made an interesting choice in how he decided to handle it:
IMHO the key to buying links is using them over the short term
6-9 months, to jump start your rankings while you swing your PR
machine into full gear, shaking hands and kissing babies. Google
has a top down preference for brands and the more you work normal
PR and advertising tactics to reach that goal the better you are.
Use viral marketing and linkbait to start securing links over
time. As you start to acquire natural links, revisit your links
buys and slowly start phasing them out (ultra competitive and non
mainstream topics have different rules).
My position on paid link advertisingwell known and at this point
I don't have anythingto add that hasn't already been said . The
most important thing I learned from Pubcon this year was stop
wasting time on drama, so comments on this post will be closed.
====================================================================
Smart IT for Tough Times: The Planet gives you the power!
Click Here to See Current Specials from The Planet
http://aj.600z.com/aj/65884/0/cc\?z=1&b=65240&c=65875
====================================================================
Where the debate really takes a turn on Google though, is when
Jeremy Schoemaker points the camera back on the company's own
practices. He writes:
Every time paid links is brought up Matt Cutts brings up the FTC's
"suggestions" on bloggers disclosing things they have been
compensated for. In no where in these "suggestions" does it talk
about paid links. But even if it did they are just suggestions.
They are not law and if Google was following the FTC's suggestions
I doubt Google Adsense/adlinks would be engaging in some of the
most deceptive advertising methods I have ever seen on the
internet.
He also mentions Google's paying of $66 million to the allegedly
non-profit Mozilla to be the default search engine for Firefox.
From there a slew of comments went pouring in on Schoemaker's
post, bashing Google's practices, calling the company names like
"evil" and "hypocrite." Mentions are made of Google's own
sponsored results being made less disclaimer-like by the
lightening of the hue surrounding them. Eventually, Cutts weighs
in here too amidst a sea of criticism.
====================================================================
Changes at Google with Matt Cutts - Watch the Live Video Now!
http://aj.600z.com/aj/65884/0/cc\?z=1&b=65882&c=65881
====================================================================
I'm not going to take the Michael Gray approach and stay out of
the "drama". I'm leaving comments on, and I want to see what
everybody thinks. Flamebait you say? Come on, you know you love
to talk about this stuff. Ok....go!
UPDATE: I contacted Schoemaker and asked him to talk a little
bit more about Google not being able to track the paid links
with InLinks. He responded with:
The key word I used was if done properly it would be impossible
to detect. Lets look at the current TLA and how easy it is to
detect yet Google still can't get a grasp on it.
Detecting the old text link ads was stupidly easy.
For instance - weblogtoolscollection.com pr6 been selling TLA
text links for a long time. Never dinged in google
<< Home Internet Marketing Strategy