The new controversy about sponsored posts

Google’s Matt Cutts and ReadWriteWeb’s Marshall Kirkpatrick, along with about a million professional bloggers around the intarwebs, are talking about a new whitepaper by Forrester Research in which they say companies should consider paying bloggers to write articles about them.

I personally use the nofollow property for nearly every external link on this site. What that means is that any links that have the rel=”nofollow” property attached to them will not gain any pagerank (PR) benefits from links on this site. Now, given this site was blocking all robots until recently, thats probably not a big deal. I have a very low pagerank. PR0 down from once having a PR6.

What is causing the controversy is that Forrester are advocating using paid blog posts as a way of gaining search rank and also building positive brand recognition. Not a new story, but one that Forrester want you to pay them $800 to learn… And the whitepaper is only 8 pages.

The problem is that this sort of attempt at gaming search is quite literally dishonest. In fact, Google will actively demote a sites PR level when (not if) they discover this happening.

My bottom-line recommendation is simple: paid posts should not pass PageRank. I’m not going to pay $750 to check whether the Forrester report mentions this important point. But I will mention something that the Forrester report probably missed, and I’ll do it for free. :) The Forrester report discusses a recent “sponsored conversation” from Kmart, but I doubt whether mentions that even in that small test, Google found multiple bloggers that violated our quality guidelines and we took corresponding action. Those blogs are not trusted in Google’s algorithms any more.

We do take the subject of paid posts seriously and take action on them. In fact, we recently finished going through hundreds of “empty review” reports — thank you for that feedback! That means that now is a great time to send us reports of link buyers or sellers that violate our guidelines. We use that information to improve our algorithms, but we also look through that feedback manually to find and follow leads.
^{Paid posts should not affect search engines - Matt Cutts}

Quite aside from the implications of your reputation in search results on Google (and Yahoo! for that matter) there are also the simple “good faith” implications as well.

Any blog post that is paid for by an organisation should be clearly marked as such. All links should use the nofollow property and it should be very obvious to people visiting your site who it is that sponsored the post. Here is a good example of a sponsored blog post.

I personally am never likely to use sponsored posts on any of my sites. Aside from the fact that currently none of my sites are in any specific niche, I believe that if a product is good enough to warrant a post of some kind, it should do so on its own merits. Not because someone paid to have those merits discussed.

I think Marshall at ReadWriteWeb put it best at the end of his post. In fact, I’ll give him the final word on the subject.

The examples at hand may not be like Juan Cole taking a break from blogging about Iraq to post about all the cool stuff he scored from Target, or what have you, but the whole idea still strikes us as dirty. Bloggers are replacing mainstream media and we believe that the community as a whole has the same kind of obligation to inform the public at large about those topics that we’re dedicated to covering. Objectivity may be something we’re transcending, but that doesn’t mean we have to swing so far the other direction that we become cheap tools of corporate interest.

We recognize that this is a complex situation unfolding in a changing media landscape, but we didn’t find Forrester’s reasoning compelling enough to change our minds.
^{Forrester is Wrong About Paying Bloggers - ReadWriteWeb}

Print article

This entry was posted by Steve on 4 March, 2009 at 5:30 am, and is filed under ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

Your heart is in the right place but your naivete has led you to drink the Google Kool-aid.

Before you take up arms on Google’s behalf in this ridiculous war on paid links, make sure you understand what is really at stake here.

People were buying and selling links before Google existed. Google has been trying for years to make its PageRank formula bring some value to Web search. So far the only way they have been able to do that is to execute Web Apartheid in their search results, where they divide Web sites into those sites that have PageRank and those sites that don’t.

Most documents in the Google index do not have sufficient PageRank to get out of what they call the Supplemental Results Index. Google stopped labeling the Supplemental Listings a couple of years ago in a deceptive maneuver to make people think the Supplemental Index no longer mattered.

In fact, Google continues to promote less relevant content above more relevant content in its search results simply because the more relevant content doesn’t accrue much PageRank.

And Google has failed to disclose to people that it prevents a lot of documents from accruing PageRank by preventing most links from passing value.

Nor does Google disclose that it will only symbolically punish large brand sites that continue to violate Google’s guidelines, whereas the average Web site will suffer a full penalty or banning for violating those guidelines.

Matt Cutts has a financial interest in seeing people comply with Google’s guidelines. He doesn’t disclose that when he offers his “friendly” advice to Webmasters.

Google has a financial interest in seeing people comply with its guidelines. They don’t disclose that.

No one died and made Google King of the Web. They violate their own guidelines every year.

It’s time for people to wake up and realize that Google doesn’t hold the moral high ground here. Google has behaved unethically and in an immoral way in conducting its war on paid links.

People have the right to buy and sell links without having to disclose the relationships to search engines. We are not obligated to tell the search engines where the paid links may be.

There are government bodies that are charged with managing truth-in-advertising, disclosure-of-endorsements, and similar matters. Google is not one of those bodies.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the United States Government announces on its Web sites that LINKS ARE NOT ENDORSEMENTS, Matt Cutts has on more than one occasion implied that the U.S. Government considers links to be endorsements — and that simply isn’t true.

Google says that links are endorsements but most Webmasters don’t agree with Google.

Google says that links are “votes” but Google won’t allow most links to pass their voting value — did you see where Matt disclosed that?

You really are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in this situation. Google is wrong to be telling people they must or should disclose paid links. No one forced Google to include links in its algorithm. That was Google’s choice to make.

Google is welcome to live with the consequences of its stupid decisions. We have other search engines to work with and hundreds of millions of people visit those search engines every month.
http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

Your heart is in the right place but your naivete has led you to drink the Google Kool-aid.

Before you take up arms on Google’s behalf in this ridiculous war on paid links, make sure you understand what is really at stake here.

People were buying and selling links before Google existed. Google has been trying for years to make its PageRank formula bring some value to Web search. So far the only way they have been able to do that is to execute Web Apartheid in their search results, where they divide Web sites into those sites that have PageRank and those sites that don’t.

Most documents in the Google index do not have sufficient PageRank to get out of what they call the Supplemental Results Index. Google stopped labeling the Supplemental Listings a couple of years ago in a deceptive maneuver to make people think the Supplemental Index no longer mattered.

In fact, Google continues to promote less relevant content above more relevant content in its search results simply because the more relevant content doesn’t accrue much PageRank.

And Google has failed to disclose to people that it prevents a lot of documents from accruing PageRank by preventing most links from passing value.

Nor does Google disclose that it will only symbolically punish large brand sites that continue to violate Google’s guidelines, whereas the average Web site will suffer a full penalty or banning for violating those guidelines.

Matt Cutts has a financial interest in seeing people comply with Google’s guidelines. He doesn’t disclose that when he offers his “friendly” advice to Webmasters.

Google has a financial interest in seeing people comply with its guidelines. They don’t disclose that.

No one died and made Google King of the Web. They violate their own guidelines every year.

It’s time for people to wake up and realize that Google doesn’t hold the moral high ground here. Google has behaved unethically and in an immoral way in conducting its war on paid links.

People have the right to buy and sell links without having to disclose the relationships to search engines. We are not obligated to tell the search engines where the paid links may be.

There are government bodies that are charged with managing truth-in-advertising, disclosure-of-endorsements, and similar matters. Google is not one of those bodies.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the United States Government announces on its Web sites that LINKS ARE NOT ENDORSEMENTS, Matt Cutts has on more than one occasion implied that the U.S. Government considers links to be endorsements — and that simply isn’t true.

Google says that links are endorsements but most Webmasters don’t agree with Google.

Google says that links are “votes” but Google won’t allow most links to pass their voting value — did you see where Matt disclosed that?

You really are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in this situation. Google is wrong to be telling people they must or should disclose paid links. No one forced Google to include links in its algorithm. That was Google’s choice to make.

Google is welcome to live with the consequences of its stupid decisions. We have other search engines to work with and hundreds of millions of people visit those search engines every month.
http://stevesramblings.com/ Steve

Actually, my opinion is the complete opposite. No law requires that Google includes a page or site in its search results. That they have a requirement that you disclose whether there is a vested interest in the content of a page is not so burdensome. We expect the same of anyone offering financial advice.

Matt Cutts has a financial interest in seeing people comply with Google’s guidelines. He doesn’t disclose that when he offers his “friendly” advice to Webmasters.

Google has a financial interest in seeing people comply with its guidelines. They don’t disclose that.

No one died and made Google King of the Web. They violate their own guidelines every year.

Why would Google need to disclose that information? Its implied. Matt Cutts is very well known as a Google employee. Google has a financial interest in EVERYTHING that happens on any of THEIR PROPERTIES.

Google make the rules on their own site. You don’t have to follow their rules if you do not want to. Unless you want your site to be indexed and have any kind of rank on their site.

You think I’m only seeing the tip of the iceberg? Hell, I was actively using SEO and SEM techiniques between 2001-2004 to rank several of my own sites. I know the arguments of both perspectives.

Thing is, when I see an article in the paper thats been paid for by a company, I want to know that its been paid for. Its the same on the web. When I read an article, I want to know if its been paid for.

If an article is sponsored, then who says the content is more valid than an article written without payment of any kind? I would trust a review of a product more if its not been paid for. If someone pays for a review, I’m less likely to trust that review, therefore that review is less relevant. And if that sponsored review does not disclose that it is paid for, then I consider that extremely dishonest.

Look at the general fuss that was created when Belkin was caught out buying unattributed reviews on Amazon.

People in general consider it dishonest and a breach of trust.

Where does this fit in with Google? Well, simply put, its their search engine so they get to define the rules of their search engine. If you don’t like it, then don’t optimize to rank there at all.

You sound like someone thats pissed off. You come across as if you have as much of an agenda as Google does, but in the opposite direction.

You are welcome to live with the consequences of your decisions. Stupid or otherwise. You’re right. There are LOTS of other search engines.

As for not forcing Google to include links in their algorithm. Who is the one being precious? I want organic search results that are the sum of a reputation value based on links from sites that are genuine links, based on personal opinion. I do not want sponsored or paid for links, or links from people or organisations with a vested interest, having influence over those reputations.

In otherwords, I want organic results that are not artificially manipulated by deliberate attempts to gain rank or reputation.

Google happens to have the same intent from what I can tell.

One thing you might like to know of, often when the comment is larger than the blog post itself, its generally better to write the comment on your own site and send a trackback.
http://stevesramblings.com/ Steve

Actually, my opinion is the complete opposite. No law requires that Google includes a page or site in its search results. That they have a requirement that you disclose whether there is a vested interest in the content of a page is not so burdensome. We expect the same of anyone offering financial advice.

Matt Cutts has a financial interest in seeing people comply with Google’s guidelines. He doesn’t disclose that when he offers his “friendly” advice to Webmasters.

Google has a financial interest in seeing people comply with its guidelines. They don’t disclose that.

No one died and made Google King of the Web. They violate their own guidelines every year.

Why would Google need to disclose that information? Its implied. Matt Cutts is very well known as a Google employee. Google has a financial interest in EVERYTHING that happens on any of THEIR PROPERTIES.

Google make the rules on their own site. You don’t have to follow their rules if you do not want to. Unless you want your site to be indexed and have any kind of rank on their site.

You think I’m only seeing the tip of the iceberg? Hell, I was actively using SEO and SEM techiniques between 2001-2004 to rank several of my own sites. I know the arguments of both perspectives.

Thing is, when I see an article in the paper thats been paid for by a company, I want to know that its been paid for. Its the same on the web. When I read an article, I want to know if its been paid for.

If an article is sponsored, then who says the content is more valid than an article written without payment of any kind? I would trust a review of a product more if its not been paid for. If someone pays for a review, I’m less likely to trust that review, therefore that review is less relevant. And if that sponsored review does not disclose that it is paid for, then I consider that extremely dishonest.

Look at the general fuss that was created when Belkin was caught out buying unattributed reviews on Amazon.

People in general consider it dishonest and a breach of trust.

Where does this fit in with Google? Well, simply put, its their search engine so they get to define the rules of their search engine. If you don’t like it, then don’t optimize to rank there at all.

You sound like someone thats pissed off. You come across as if you have as much of an agenda as Google does, but in the opposite direction.

You are welcome to live with the consequences of your decisions. Stupid or otherwise. You’re right. There are LOTS of other search engines.

As for not forcing Google to include links in their algorithm. Who is the one being precious? I want organic search results that are the sum of a reputation value based on links from sites that are genuine links, based on personal opinion. I do not want sponsored or paid for links, or links from people or organisations with a vested interest, having influence over those reputations.

In otherwords, I want organic results that are not artificially manipulated by deliberate attempts to gain rank or reputation.

Google happens to have the same intent from what I can tell.

One thing you might like to know of, often when the comment is larger than the blog post itself, its generally better to write the comment on your own site and send a trackback.
http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

I’ve been active in search engine optimization since 1998, and promoting my own Web sites since 1996.

You’re still not getting the big picture here. Google is bullying people into manning its defenses and at the same time trying to change accepted Web practices for its own financial benefit.

THAT is what Google needs to disclose — that they are not acting in anyone’s interest other than their own.

Matt’s rhetoric is couched in “it improves the quality of our search results” and “it hurts the quality of our search results”.

Well, the quality of their search results is actually HURT by their dedication to PageRank. The Math Union published a study last year showing that citation-based systems like PageRank don’t improve quality.

You’re not getting “organic” search results from Google any more. That hasn’t happened for years.

You’re getting highly filtered search results from them, and the filtering is based partly on which links Google allows to pass value (most links don’t pass value) and partly on their Universal Search injection.

Google will artificially penalize your site for falling into an algorithmic filter (you don’t have to do anything wrong — you just “fit the profile” in their algorithm). That penalty could last for years, even if you change your site and ask for reinclusion.

But if BMW hides text or links on its site, Google will at most penalize it for a month and then restore the site to their place in the search results regardless of whether BMW changes anything (this is a well-documented example of Google’s uneven application of its standards).

Don’t even hope you’re seeing the best, most relevant results in Google’s search results. Their algorithm suppresses the most relevant content in favor of link-rich sites that may only be publishing stub pages awaiting user-generated content.

There is a lot going on with Google that you clearly are unaware of — and that is why you, I, and every other Webmaster need to demand full disclosure from Google.

BTW — it’s perfectly acceptable to post long comments on blogs. But if you think I’m wordy here you obviously haven’t read what I write on the blogs I do manage. :)
http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

I’ve been active in search engine optimization since 1998, and promoting my own Web sites since 1996.

You’re still not getting the big picture here. Google is bullying people into manning its defenses and at the same time trying to change accepted Web practices for its own financial benefit.

THAT is what Google needs to disclose — that they are not acting in anyone’s interest other than their own.

Matt’s rhetoric is couched in “it improves the quality of our search results” and “it hurts the quality of our search results”.

Well, the quality of their search results is actually HURT by their dedication to PageRank. The Math Union published a study last year showing that citation-based systems like PageRank don’t improve quality.

You’re not getting “organic” search results from Google any more. That hasn’t happened for years.

You’re getting highly filtered search results from them, and the filtering is based partly on which links Google allows to pass value (most links don’t pass value) and partly on their Universal Search injection.

Google will artificially penalize your site for falling into an algorithmic filter (you don’t have to do anything wrong — you just “fit the profile” in their algorithm). That penalty could last for years, even if you change your site and ask for reinclusion.

But if BMW hides text or links on its site, Google will at most penalize it for a month and then restore the site to their place in the search results regardless of whether BMW changes anything (this is a well-documented example of Google’s uneven application of its standards).

Don’t even hope you’re seeing the best, most relevant results in Google’s search results. Their algorithm suppresses the most relevant content in favor of link-rich sites that may only be publishing stub pages awaiting user-generated content.

There is a lot going on with Google that you clearly are unaware of — and that is why you, I, and every other Webmaster need to demand full disclosure from Google.

BTW — it’s perfectly acceptable to post long comments on blogs. But if you think I’m wordy here you obviously haven’t read what I write on the blogs I do manage. :)
http://stevesramblings.com/ Steve

I’ve been active in search engine optimization since 1998, and promoting my own Web sites since 1996.

Google wasn’t founded till 1998 and Yahoo! was still manually validating results until 2000 at which point a trial program with Google came out of trial and became their default search platform until 2002 or so when Yahoo! acquired Inktomi and started really trying to build their own search platform.

My point being, I started my first website in 1998 but don’t claim to have started actively trying SEO and SEM until much later. Those terms didn’t even exist then.

You’re still not getting the big picture here. Google is bullying people into manning its defenses and at the same time trying to change accepted Web practices for its own financial benefit.

THAT is what Google needs to disclose — that they are not acting in anyone’s interest other than their own.

They are a publicly traded company. Their first priority is ALWAYS to their shareholders. It doesn’t matter which company it is, thats always the case. Its called Fiduciary responsibility.

That alone means that of course any action they are going to take is always going to be for their own

Matt’s rhetoric is couched in “it improves the quality of our search results” and “it hurts the quality of our search results”.

Well, the quality of their search results is actually HURT by their dedication to PageRank. The Math Union published a study last year showing that citation-based systems like PageRank don’t improve quality.

You’re not getting “organic” search results from Google any more. That hasn’t happened for years.

If Google’s results are so poor, why are Google in the position they are in? Why is it that in parts of Europe, Google has more than 90% market share? Why is it they have a global market share of around 65% to 70% and growing, while Microsoft and Yahoo!, the two closest competitors, are both in a downward spiral. Could it be that the people that use Google Search consider its results to be better and more relevant than the competition?

No… Can’t be that way if your argument were true.

Google will artificially penalize your site for falling into an algorithmic filter (you don’t have to do anything wrong — you just “fit the profile” in their algorithm). That penalty could last for years, even if you change your site and ask for reinclusion.

But if BMW hides text or links on its site, Google will at most penalize it for a month and then restore the site to their place in the search results regardless of whether BMW changes anything (this is a well-documented example of Google’s uneven application of its standards).

Eric Schmidt said in his “the internet is a cesspool” speech that brand has always needed a higher representation in search results. When I search on information about new cars, I’d like to see the various manufacturers own sites first.

If I search on Ford, then top of the results should be Ford themselves, followed by their subsidiary companies and then general results.

BMW may have been a bad player, but they are a huge organisation with a massive global brand. You can’t legitimately penalise them and still have truly useful or relevant results. That’s just being silly.

There is a lot going on with Google that you clearly are unaware of — and that is why you, I, and every other Webmaster need to demand full disclosure from Google.

Why should we have full disclosure? If you don’t like their results or the way they do business, then don’t use their services.

Right now, you’re complaining that Google doesn’t play the way you want them to on their own site. You’re complaining that the results don’t work the way you want them to in an algorithm that they researched, built and continue to adjust to provide the results THEY want in the way THEY want on THEIR site.

The simple answer is that if you don’t like it, too bad. Either you come up with a better search engine that provides better results and thus is able to take market share away from Google. However, not even Microsoft or Yahoo! have been able to do this yet.

Google has the market share it has because the majority of people believe that the results Google Search provides are more relevant to the queries they search on than any other search provider’s results.

If you don’t like it, stop relying on Google for your income. It really is that simple.
http://stevesramblings.com/ Steve

I’ve been active in search engine optimization since 1998, and promoting my own Web sites since 1996.

Google wasn’t founded till 1998 and Yahoo! was still manually validating results until 2000 at which point a trial program with Google came out of trial and became their default search platform until 2002 or so when Yahoo! acquired Inktomi and started really trying to build their own search platform.

My point being, I started my first website in 1998 but don’t claim to have started actively trying SEO and SEM until much later. Those terms didn’t even exist then.

You’re still not getting the big picture here. Google is bullying people into manning its defenses and at the same time trying to change accepted Web practices for its own financial benefit.

THAT is what Google needs to disclose — that they are not acting in anyone’s interest other than their own.

They are a publicly traded company. Their first priority is ALWAYS to their shareholders. It doesn’t matter which company it is, thats always the case. Its called Fiduciary responsibility.

That alone means that of course any action they are going to take is always going to be for their own

Matt’s rhetoric is couched in “it improves the quality of our search results” and “it hurts the quality of our search results”.

Well, the quality of their search results is actually HURT by their dedication to PageRank. The Math Union published a study last year showing that citation-based systems like PageRank don’t improve quality.

You’re not getting “organic” search results from Google any more. That hasn’t happened for years.

If Google’s results are so poor, why are Google in the position they are in? Why is it that in parts of Europe, Google has more than 90% market share? Why is it they have a global market share of around 65% to 70% and growing, while Microsoft and Yahoo!, the two closest competitors, are both in a downward spiral. Could it be that the people that use Google Search consider its results to be better and more relevant than the competition?

No… Can’t be that way if your argument were true.

Google will artificially penalize your site for falling into an algorithmic filter (you don’t have to do anything wrong — you just “fit the profile” in their algorithm). That penalty could last for years, even if you change your site and ask for reinclusion.

But if BMW hides text or links on its site, Google will at most penalize it for a month and then restore the site to their place in the search results regardless of whether BMW changes anything (this is a well-documented example of Google’s uneven application of its standards).

Eric Schmidt said in his “the internet is a cesspool” speech that brand has always needed a higher representation in search results. When I search on information about new cars, I’d like to see the various manufacturers own sites first.

If I search on Ford, then top of the results should be Ford themselves, followed by their subsidiary companies and then general results.

BMW may have been a bad player, but they are a huge organisation with a massive global brand. You can’t legitimately penalise them and still have truly useful or relevant results. That’s just being silly.

There is a lot going on with Google that you clearly are unaware of — and that is why you, I, and every other Webmaster need to demand full disclosure from Google.

Why should we have full disclosure? If you don’t like their results or the way they do business, then don’t use their services.

Right now, you’re complaining that Google doesn’t play the way you want them to on their own site. You’re complaining that the results don’t work the way you want them to in an algorithm that they researched, built and continue to adjust to provide the results THEY want in the way THEY want on THEIR site.

The simple answer is that if you don’t like it, too bad. Either you come up with a better search engine that provides better results and thus is able to take market share away from Google. However, not even Microsoft or Yahoo! have been able to do this yet.

Google has the market share it has because the majority of people believe that the results Google Search provides are more relevant to the queries they search on than any other search provider’s results.

If you don’t like it, stop relying on Google for your income. It really is that simple.
http://warpigspen.com/ War_Pig

Eric Schmidt said in his “the internet is a cesspool” speech that brand has always needed a higher representation in search results. When I search on information about new cars, I’d like to see the various manufacturers own sites first.

If I search on Ford, then top of the results should be Ford themselves, followed by their subsidiary companies and then general results.

Agreed. It is all too often when you run a Google search in the hopes of finding a manufactures/main providers website only to be bombarded with results for resellers.

But as has been mentioned, it is Google’s company, it is their website and we need to play by their rules. Just because they have the market share, and are often the first point of reference for searching it does by no means give the user the right to demand full disclosure; Especially for a free product.
http://warpigspen.com War_Pig

Eric Schmidt said in his “the internet is a cesspool” speech that brand has always needed a higher representation in search results. When I search on information about new cars, I’d like to see the various manufacturers own sites first.

If I search on Ford, then top of the results should be Ford themselves, followed by their subsidiary companies and then general results.

Agreed. It is all too often when you run a Google search in the hopes of finding a manufactures/main providers website only to be bombarded with results for resellers.

But as has been mentioned, it is Google’s company, it is their website and we need to play by their rules. Just because they have the market share, and are often the first point of reference for searching it does by no means give the user the right to demand full disclosure; Especially for a free product.

The new controversy about sponsored posts

Archives

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

The new controversy about sponsored posts

Archives

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

User Login