Blogging For Serps, Good, bad or ugly? Options

[Deverill]

Hi gang,
I have just changed departments in the company where I work and so now am in the Internet department. Our company sells tickets to tours and museum type things. I have just been informed that we are paying a bunch of money (seems astronomical to me!) to a company that recommends "SEO" things like no variables in URLs and is trying to make us HTML-only, which from what I read is not necessary... if done properly. They even talk about anchor pages which from the brief conversation I had today is really just doorway pages. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blackhat.gif)

My big question is that one of the things they are doing is paying bloggers to post thinly veiled advertisements into "sponsored blogs" which is a new concept to me. The way I understand it is there are bloggers who sell space on their blogs and our "SEO" people are paying folks to post our ads into those purchased blog entries. The first one I saw was a lady doing a wedding blog and suddenly there's an entry about how awesome the tour was in San Francisco with links to our newsletter, etc. As I said - thinly veiled - it was obvious it was an advert.

Is this good practice, bad or just plain ugly? As a disinterested third party reader I would think they are shifty to advertise this way so on the performance basis I'd think we could do better with other rank-boosting methods that don't chase off our customers. Am I being silly and it's rank-at-any-cost or are there some repercussions of this down the road that I've not even thought of? What say ye all?

[torka]

It's called "pay for post" and it's been going on for awhile. We've discussed it once or twice here previously.

Personally, I don't care for it. As you say, the ads are very thinly veiled (I'd say the veil is so thin it's anorexic in some cases), so I'm not sure what good its supposed to do other than to try to build link popularity. In none of the instances I've seen did the blogger "nofollow" the links or send them through a jump script or any of the stuff Google recommends for paid links. And since Google doesn't like the idea of paid links being counted as "votes" its probably on pretty shaky ground. Especially since Google is now penalizing some sites that sell links. I may be paranoid, but it doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to see them potentially also penalizing sites that purchase links.

I also have some issues with the so-called "disclosures" some of these blogs sport. They don't actually disclose on the post itself that it's paid for -- it's just on a single separate page that usually says, basically, some of the posts on this blog are paid for, but I'm not going to tell you which ones. Of course, the bloggers always claim these posts still express their honest opinions, but since the ones I've seen read like a company press release, I'm not buyin' it. Call me cynical. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink1.gif)

As it happens, one of our competitors has been purchasing a few blog posts lately. Dunno if it's actually them, or an overzealous SEO firm or PR/ad agency, but I've run across several posts in personal blogs, touting their product suite lately. Given the nature of their products, and the nature (and potential readership) of these blogs, there is no reason on earth for them to be mentioning this company at all unless they were paid to do so. And since all the posts link to the identical interior page of the company's site, using the identical link anchor text, it's kinda like what you might call a smoking gun.

The really dumb thing is, they're one of the industry leaders. They really don't need to engage in that kind of crap. Bless their hearts.

--Torka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mf_prop.gif)

[Jill]

This makes me really sad.

Soon all blog posts won't be trusted because a bunch of dumbasses can't get REAL testimonials. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/girl_cray2.gif)

Moving this to our social media marketing forum...

[nethy]

I think this is unsoppable part of the fragmentation of media. There is nothing unusual, rare or terribly immoral about an hidden advert or advertorial that is not disclosed. Its done all the time, in all media but the micro-media is especially prone.

The mechanisms keeping it in check in mass media have always been fear of being found out and not wanting to compromise quality of content. New York Times will not want to be caught out doing this. They also probably don't want articles to be dictated by advertisers' needs. It all works by itself (without Googlebot threatening to break all your links and screw your css files if you don't nofollow).

Blogs, small sites are often not-really-for-profit. Their reputation is not really a high value commodity, and neither is their quality. So they sell it cheap. If they have readership, PageRank, likelihood to be picked up by another media ....... they can sell that, and they will.

Anyway, if I were a blogger I might prefer to slighly advertise someone in my own words, and of my choice then sell eyesore adspace that is not under my control (especially adsense). This has a more controlable effect on my blog. What do I care about the resulting mess this makesfor SE's?

Media watch (abc.net.au/mediawatch), are an Aussie program that expose (among other things) hidden adverts. Recently they exposed a 'Journalistic show' that decided to do a segment on 'Undewear Expectaions' of the public and had an 'expert' from a leading brand come and give 'advice'. {Watch it if you want. its funny}.

The point is:
1)This is a reputable news show on a main channel.
2)The 'watchdog' attacked, vicously. (the watchdog show I would guess has a different viewership then the news show).
3)TV is subject to liscensing and stuff so its eaier to regulate

Still stations will chance it because the adverse effects weighed upwith potential gains are about par. Take out 1,2 & 3 and you have no hope.

This post has been edited by nethy: Oct 10 2007, 08:56 PM

[Halfdeck]

Of course, the bloggers always claim these posts still express their honest opinions, but since the ones I've seen read like a company press release, I'm not buyin' it. Call me cynical.

I don't have a problem with bloggers accepting money to write "veiled press releases" with links that flow juice. If that's how you want to make money, who am I to stop you. But I do have an issue with these bloggers insisting that their posts are purely editorial. Without naming names, here's what I found in one paid review post:

- The blogger linked only to his "customer", no one else.
- The blogger linked six times to the same website, using laser-targeted anchor text.
- The blogger linked six times to a crappy website I wouldn't link to even after I had six shots of vodka.

If he wasn't paid, I doubt he would ever have linked to this site, nevermind link to it six times. And yet confronted with all this, he still insists the review is editorial. That's disappointing, especially because I like the stuff he writes when people aren't putting words and links in his mouth. Its a little bit like Larry Craig insisting he wasn't "cruising" while all the evidence out there says otherwise.

[Deverill]

Thanks for the great insight, as always, and the links. I did look but guess I wasn't putting the right search phrases... anyway, I'm off to read those threads but wanted to say thanks for your help! It confirmed what I thought and gave more info I didn't know at the same time. That's why I only come here for SEO advice - Jill and crew makes sure it's solid.

[Jill]

Agreed, Halfdeck. It would be much better if the blogger would just come clean!

[house-of-cool]

I don't know Jill - I can't help feeling depressed.

For an information based site, the search engines will value them over time, but for a new commercial site such as mine (even a super one!) without visibility you get no business.

So what can you honestly do? I don't much like the idea of bloggers selling their souls to advertise products that mean zip to them, but the options are seriously limited. In my case, I'd like to think that I have a site that people could genuinely enthuse over (maybe I delude myself) since it's a fun shopping site with loads of innovative products. I could be trying to sell ball bearings. (No offence anyone.)

So here I am, single parent, no income, having invested all I can afford (and probably more) into my business. Great. Site looks good. Admin and warehouse performing well. Now we just need some customers... ... ... ...

(still waiting)

So... we try Google Adwords and spend a heap more money. You figure that by clearly stating what you offer, and the price, the people won't be clicking on it unless they're already interested buyers - but no, the funds are quickly exhausted. So we try Yahoo Pay-per-Click. Same story.

We spend nights submitting manually to search engines and we buy some software that will do hundreds of automated ones. We pay additional companies to do more submitting. Still nothing.

Patience, yes, I know. But you can't be patient if you have a mortgage to pay, and the potential of a Christmas season to generate some income.

If you folks know of any better way to find genuine write-ups - or indeed any better ways of anything, please let me know!

Thanks for providing a great forum,

[nethy]

I hear you, and I hear the others.

There is a valid business reason for the bloggers to do this, the webmasters to buy em', & the search engines to try and block this from happening. You could say that all is as it should be.

Lets be honest, spam (defined broadly), isn't pretty but its everywhere.

Defined very broadly, you could spam is attempting to push marketing messages (in the form of a television ad, a website in the search results, an email in your inbox.......) which users don't want and didn't initiate. The legal or 'business ethics' definition of spam is completely arbitrary. Many specific actions that are legal could be more 'spammy' then specific actions which are ilegal.

If you promise a white paper in exchange for accepting a newsletter (i've heard this called bacon) its still spam, because its pushing your newsletter on people who want a white paper not a newsletter. If you put advertising in a newspaper or newsletter which is not why people are reading it, thats spam. When you have to wait through commercials to see the last 30 seconds of Lost thats spam. SOme spam is real bad (Viagra emails) some is not so bad (directory submission services advertised in a newsletter).

Anyway, the SEs also have legit reasons to try and stop you from influencing their SERPs.


As far as buying links or posts or anything else, I think its low down on the spammy scale.

[torka]

House-of-cool, I hear ya, too. But one thing I'm fond of saying around these parts is this: "There's fast. There's cheap. There's good. You get to choose any two."

It's a hard realization to make, but it's the way things usually work.

The faster you want to get going, the more of a budget you need to have for advertising/publicity/PR/promotions/marketing. If you have a small (or nonexistent) budget, you need to allot more time. (I'm assuming the choice of "good" is a given. Most people don't set out saying they want crappy results. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

It may theoretically be possible to start cranking out a fortune in short order even starting from ground zero with no experience, no budget, no mailing list, a brand new website, etc. But it isn't very likely. There may even be people out there who claim they did it, and maybe one or two of them actually did. But "being lucky" isn't a strategy. I mean, people win the lottery from time to time, too, but "finding a winning lottery ticket" isn't a business plan.

If you haven't already read them, Andrew Goodman and Perry Marshall have each written books to help newcomers get going with AdWords. They have both been recommended to me, and they both appear to have valuable guidance. Either of them may be able to help you get some better traction with PPC advertising.

When it comes to paying for posts in blogs, I just don't see it as bringing long term value. If you can't afford PPC, you won't be able to afford posts from the top quality bloggers, either. And from what I've seen of the posts in the "budget blogger" categories, I just can't imagine their posts get much readership, or that they carry much weight with the search engines -- particularly once the post scrolls off their home page and gets buried in the archives. Frankly, the posts I've seen are worthless crap. Given the generally low quality of those blogs, I'd have to think it would take a whole ton of them before the links from them started making much difference. And if the blog gets snared by Google as being one that sells links, their posts won't bring you any benefit at all, not even when they are on the home page.

I dunno, maybe the technique works gangbusters. Personally, I just don't see it being a good long term proposition.

If you're contemplating spending money buying blog posts, I'd suggest you allocate those funds instead toward books or training to help you beef up your PPC skills (or toward contracting a PPC manager) and/or toward legitimate advertising on sites that are likely to be visited by the kind of people you want to attract to your site.

My (IMG:style_emoticons/default/penny.gif)

--Torka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mf_prop.gif)

[Conspicuous]

We spend nights submitting manually to search engines and we buy some software that will do hundreds of automated ones. We pay additional companies to do more submitting. Still nothing.

Save your money and your time, because this isn't going to help you. Better use that time link building with some relevant sites that can send you quality traffic.

If it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight, yeah... maybe pay per post is something to try. I would caution you to implement it cautiously and in a manner that you can measure your ROI.

Good luck.

[nethy]

When it comes to paying for posts in blogs, I just don't see it as bringing long term value. If you can't afford PPC, you won't be able to afford posts from the top quality bloggers, either.

That is an interesting point Torka. I run into it a bit (here in the forum as well) that people give a desperate cry that they cannot afford ppc so they need organic rankings. Its understandable if they once had organic traffic and now they don't for some reason. But in most cases, I'd say if you can't afford ppc your in trouble. You should be able to. If you cannot then, your value per customer is problamatically low, your conversion rate is too low, or your ppc skills are too low. Those are equally problematic when using SEO (bar the last one).

But, on the flip side, Often you find (when things are going well) particularly in smaller markets that advertisers are getting all they can from ppc. Sometimes click-costs are so well worth it that ROI is not a number you even look at. It seems that often the really high value 'conversions' (I'm talking things like 'bankrupcy management', or 'road tunnel contactors') click costs are real low anyway. They just want more volume and are 'forced' into SEO. It is after all, where the bulk of the traffic is. PPP/PPL makes sense in these cases. You can debate the ethics of this or the long term effectiveness of this, but in some cases it'll be a fit.

[Deverill]

Anyway, the SEs also have legit reasons to try and stop you from influencing their SERPs.

But where is the line between trying to influencing their SERPs and legitimate advertising? Granted, pay-per-post is SERP directed, but isn't there a danger of me going out and doing something innovative and effective to advertise my company and the SEs decide arbitrarily to nuke me because they don't like it that I shot to the top? Yes, it's their SE and they can do what they want, but how long before someone wins a lawsuit using a technique they can convince a jury is just common sense and their sales went to pot because Google devalued them? Interesting time we live in, eh?

I run into it a bit (here in the forum as well) that people give a desperate cry that they cannot afford ppc so they need organic rankings... But in most cases, I'd say if you can't afford ppc your in trouble.

But here's another side to that coin. We spent a couple hundred of thousands on PPC at my company before I came here. They came to the conclusion that since they only ended up with about $1k in sales it wasn't paying off. (We sell tickets for touristy things btw.) With such a low conversion it doesn't make sense to continue it. Now it is possible the company we used doesn't know what they are doing (I'll post separately about that) but the pay-per-post has gotten us from oblivion to page 2 on some really competitive key phrases so for us it just makes sense.

I do try to tell my decision making bosses to not rely on it because we could spend all this money and next month be back to page 300 but they figure it's worth the risk to get on page 2 today. Maybe they are right for their circumstance, goals, level of risk they are comfortable with, etc.

[nethy]

But here's another side to that coin. We spent a couple hundred of thousands on PPC at my company before I came here. They came to the conclusion that since they only ended up with about $1k in sales it wasn't paying off. (We sell tickets for touristy things btw.) With such a low conversion it doesn't make sense to continue it. Now it is possible the company we used doesn't know what they are doing (I'll post separately about that) but the pay-per-post has gotten us from oblivion to page 2 on some really competitive key phrases so for us it just makes sense.

I do try to tell my decision making bosses to not rely on it because we could spend all this money and next month be back to page 300 but they figure it's worth the risk to get on page 2 today. Maybe they are right for their circumstance, goals, level of risk they are comfortable with, etc.

Great example, that is exactly the type of thing I was talking about. To be honest, I am surprised that PPP is working so well for. Are you sure that this is the reason? IF it is, you are probably correct, you have a temporary fix, not a long term strategy. If the company is a micro biz, ready to flee for the hills the minute the wave crashes, great. Make a buck and get out when the party's over. I work with companies that are generally offline businesses with online aspects. They can't do this.

Anyway, in this case, If there are loans & employees & rent to pay in ones years time and in two years time, whether or not Mat Cutts has caught on to you and the PPP juice has dried up, you'll need to get some 'legit' links and, IMO more importantly, to get to the point where you can afford PPC.

"I can't afford PPC" is not an excuse (IMG:style_emoticons/default/Whip.gif) Be able to afford it.

If you are competing for rankings with similar businesses. (IE other players are also selling tickets just like you) then how come they outbid you and cut a profit? In some cases, the game is sold. Everyone is playing at a loss to push out the competition or you are selling something of much lower value with the same keyword. But these cases are rare.

Online ticketing is, as far as I know, a lucrative market. You'll be competing with professional sites with high conversion rates. To beat them you need to be better- sell more units per 1000 UVs or sell more $$ pwer sale or a combination.

If you cannot beat your competition on this front, the business could go out from under your feet tomorrow. I don't understand how any company that relies on online activities can let this situation persist.

Any traffic generation 'trick' (like under the counter SEO) has two main problems:
- It probably won't work forever
&
- it is easily copied

What is to stop your competition (who have a higher value per visitor) from buying blogs posts themselves? They can pay more then you here too.

[Deverill]

Nearly daily I do remind them that the PPP is a house built on sand and the bottom dropping is a WHEN and not an IF.

You mention that inability to afford PPC is not an excuse. We sell, among other things, some hotel stay packages. How in the world could we ever outbid Orbitz, Expedia, Travelocity, etc? We have about 1000 products in all and are still considered a startup running in the red as a department of a corporation that decides our budget. Should we just throw in the towel and spend all our budget on a few adwords (that I never consciously see anyway) or keep paying salaries and find new avenues? I'm not at all happy with the PPP - it's a blackhat trick that will get squished shortly and I know that in my bones. I don't get to decide though.

I fully agree that it is as much HOW you run a PPC campaign as HOW MUCH you spend on it. But on the other hand I don't think it reasonable to say that PPC must be done and you must win at the game... not every company has the resources to do that. Ours was not run well, I'm afraid. We spent $3.66 on one term and got 2 conversions for $28 tickets each so it's a good thing, but that's an anomaly. There are others, that are the majority, that we spent $100 on and got one zoo ticket out of it. The guys that don't understand a lot about webs don't want to hear that the one we spent $1500 on in one month only had 8 conversions out of 50,333 impressions and 1231 clicks - which tells me it may be something on that page running them off - they only want to count beans and say it's out of balance.

I'm not sure how it would fly if one of you fine folks managed our PPC campaign, and I wish I could make that happen, but with these results we can't go on with it and as long as our marketing 'spurts are doing that and our current money folks are doing that I don't see much of a chance to find out. Afterall, who buys PPC for "Washington DC Tours" without being willing to pour the tons of cash into it to be #1?

I just feel that although PPP is not our answer, perhaps PPC is not a good choice either. But you folks tell me - my feelings have no experience to compare to yours. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

(Funny, I think I both disagreed AND agreed with you on this, nethy. lol)