The people vs. Google
The first (and likely the easiest) way to end this debate would be to simply Google "link buying," so I can give Google money by clicking on a sponsored link to a vendor whom if I work with will get me blacklisted from Google… seems odd, right?
Have you ever listened to those commercials in which people earn in a month what they used to earn in a year, all within the comfort of their own home simply by placing tiny classified ads? You inevitably think, "If it works, why isn't everyone doing that?"
Well, that's the first problem with links: they work. Sites have seen strong lifts for competitive words through the use of link development. Since we have proof, our general marketing principles kick in: If it works, then use it. Once link development started working, it became an art form. Since it was just as fast as it was effective, it became hard to stop.
Blame Google
It's always easiest to blame the big guy isn't it? There are many who believe that Google started the whole mess, and now it wants us to fix it. Many people built sites as best they could and supplemented SEO deficiencies with link development. Now Google says that you have to change your CMS, your URLs and your servers in order to maintain your early success. And don't think about switching from a .net to a .com because then you'll really get lost: Just ask Topix.
You can't build the Shaft of Indexes with one set of rules and then change it. This argument gets a little more "grassy knoll" if you believe that the policy change is in Google's financial interest. After all, if you can't get good organic rankings you can always buy more paid listings to make up for lost traffic.
It's not link buying; it's product placement
Allow me to play devil's advocate here. So what if I pay a blogging mom with a high-ranking site to review my detergent, and she says it's the best? It's not disingenuous -- it's called product placement!
Imagine if NBC told the producers of "Heroes" that if Claire used an iPod instead of a Zune the network would move the show to 2 a.m. Sunday? That sounds simplistic, but it is in many ways what Google is telling you: If you pay for a product endorsement you may be moved to page 5.
Soliciting links is product placement, and some networks (bloggers) have higher standards than others. What is the difference between me being paid to blog about loving Slash's new book and a celebrity shown reading it on a television show? Public relations and marketing agencies are in business to make sure that a favorable image is associated with their products.
If extended into traditional marketing, let's look at a few people that Google would say violates the policy…
- Paris Hilton gets paid to show up at specific parties and drink a specific type of drink.
- Rachel Ray probably doesn't eat at Dunkin Donuts.
- Tiger Woods doesn't live in the Buick Clubhouse. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure he has never driven one.
- Derek Jeter doesn't wear his cologne or drive an Edge.
- And despite having very low market share, no large companies use Powerbooks like the folks on "24," "CSI" and "Gossip Girl" -- okay, maybe "Gossip Girl."
- The contestants on "Survivor" could care less about the brand of toilet paper they compete for, but we get to see a nice 10-second freeze frame of Charmin.
The debate will continue, and the sad reality is that if Google presses the matter sites will have to fall inline based on their market share. Where does this leave you as a marketer?
If you're working with an agency or SEO consultant you need to pay more attention to their linking strategy to make sure it is on the up and up. You also need to educate the higher ups on the value of links so that they understand it better. Lastly, you may want to consider targeting specific "ego" words as part of your linking strategy. This can help you rank for words important to the CEO while focusing more of your time worrying about traffic.
Joshua Palau is group director for search engine marketing at Avenue A|Razorfish. Read full bio.