Duplicate content, website authority and affiliates
-
We've got a dilemma at the moment with the content we supply to an affiliate. We currently supply the affiliate with our product database which includes everything about a product including the price, title, description and images. The affiliate then lists the products on their website and provides a Commission Junction link back to our ecommerce store which tracks any purchases with the affiliate getting a commission based on any sales via a cookie.
This has been very successful for us in terms of sales but we've noticed a significant dip over the past year in ranking whilst the affiliate has achieved a peak...all eyes are pointing towards the Panda update.
Whenever I type one of our 'uniquely written' product descriptions into Google, the affiliate website appears higher than ours suggesting Google has ranked them the authority.
My question is, without writing unique content for the affiliate and changing the commission junction link. What would be the best option to be recognised as the authority of the content which we wrote in the first place? It always appears on our website first but Google seems to position the affiliate higher than us in the SERPS after a few weeks. The commission junction link is written like this:
-
It seems like maybe we're getting off topic. Why does the affiliate have to suffer in order for the merchant to succeed and vice versa? The real problem here seems to be that you are giving your affiliates the same content you use on your own site. Either make them write their own content or change what's on your site and feed them the old content. It is more work, but you could start slowly by writing fresh (exclusive) content on your site for the most important products. This would give you the ability to test it out unless there is some site-wide (e.g. Panda) issue going on .
As both an affiliate and a merchant, I've always found it best if each has their own content. For one thing, the affiliate site sits earlier in the funnel so it would make sense that they wouldn't be using the same message as the merchant sites product detail page, which is about as far into the funnel as you can get without being inside a shopping cart.
If you are unwilling to do this I think EGOL said it best:
"However, if your rankings are falling it could be competitors (and your good affiliates) are working harder than you."
If you really want to be seen as the authoritative version when there are multiple sites with the same content, the biggest factor in my experience is simply links. Domain authority plays a role too, but a couple of deep links into your product page will make all the difference. I presented about some ways to get links into product and category pages at SMX West, 2012 (link to presentation) and also wrote a blog post about it here on SEOMoz. Hopefully that will help you get started, but there's no easy, scaleable way to do this that isn't a little bit on the gray side. To do it "right" in Google's eyes just takes a lot of elbow grease.
One last thing. As an affilaite there is no way I would agree to putting a cross domain rel canonical or rel author tag on my site that points to the merchant's site. You would lose any affiliate worth their weight in salt that way.
To sum things up for Gavin, here are your two options as I see it, but they aren't mutually exclusive:
1. Rewrite your descriptions and either give the old descriptions to affiliates (e.g. have a database with two different descriptions for every product) or stop giving descriptions to affiliates and make them write their own.2. Build more external links into your product pages.
-
I wouldn't do that, because it might take traffic away from the affiliate, but the main site may not generate enough extra income to recover from the shortfall.
There is no point in ranking higher than the affiliate, if you destroy the affiliate's business, but do not recover it all yourself.
This is the age-old sales problem. Many companies, when they have a great salesman, who always exceeds his targets, change the quotas, to make it harder for the salesman to hit his number, so he works harder, the company makes more and he makes less. Eventually, the salesman will stop working so hard, and then look for another job.
Good salesmen and good affiliates are definitely not a dime-a-dozen. Look after them.
-
Whenever I type one of our 'uniquely written' product descriptions into Google, the affiliate website appears higher than ours suggesting Google has ranked them the authority.
You are lucky to have a powerful affiliate selling your merchandise instead of your competitor's merchandise.
I am an affiliate of a couple of programs and my site always ranks above the program site and this is good for me and good for them because I can defeat competitors that they can not.
There are a few issues to think about related to the duplicate content.....
-
The affiliate might rank above you for quotes from the descriptions, however how do they rank for important keywords that have high search volumes and conversion rates? I would guess that is where the money is being made. If you are above them there then not so many worries. But if they are outranking you there then they are an important rainmaker for your business.
-
This duplicate content could be causing Panda problems for your site, especially if many other affiliates are using it. Some of the sites publishing it are likely to be demoted in the google rankings. However, if your rankings are falling it could be competitors (and your good affiliates) are working harder than you. Consider how much you have invested in making good rankings... if not a lot then your affiliates are fighting that battle for you.
-
The affiliate programs that I sell for have enjoyed the sales that I have produced for over ten years. We have a great relationship and they are fairly confident that I am not going to leave them for a competitor program. They have the best product in the niche and they pay me well. I am one of many affiliates for their company who have been with them for a long time. So, their attitude is.... let the affiliates to the SEO and the PPC... that is what they are good at. We are good at making a great product and servicing customers... this is win-win.
They know something else that is very important. They know that they are THE BRAND and lots of the customers that I refer may make purchases in the future that no commissions are paid on. That is where they win big time.
So, keep your affiliates happy. Over the long term they will be responsible for a LOT of your best repeat customers (if you have a repeat type of business and treat the customer right).
Good affiliates are also really smart about SEO and converting customers. They might know more than you. So, if you ask them to do rel=canonical or some other trick that works to your advantage they might jump to another program or simply become retailers instead of affiliates. I have done that a couple of times.
-
-
You can do a rel=author from the affiliate site to the original content. This recent post has some information that can help: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/authorship-google-plus-link-building
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Supplier Videos & Duplicate Content
Hi, We have some supplier videos the product management want to include on these product pages. I am wondering how detrimental this is for SEO & the best way to approach this. Do we simply embed the supplier YouTube videos, or do we upload them to our YouTube - referencing the original content & then embed our YouTube videos? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Web accessibility - High Contrast web pages, duplicate content and SEO
Hi all, I'm working with a client who has various URL variations to display their content in High Contrast and Low Contrast. It feels like quite an old way of doing things. The URLs look like this: domain.com/bespoke-curtain-making/ - Default URL
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bee159
domain.com/bespoke-curtain-making/?style=hc - High Contrast page
domain.com/bespoke-curtain-making/?style=lc - Low Contrast page My questions are: Surely this content is duplicate content according to a search engine Should the different versions have a meta noindex directive in the header? Is there a better way of serving these pages? Thanks.0 -
Do search engine consider this duplicate or thin content?
I operate an eCommerce site selling various equipment. We get product descriptions and various info from the manufacturer's websites offered to the dealers. Part of that info is in the form of User Guides and Operational Manuals downloaded in pdf format written by the manufacturer, then uploaded to our site. Also we embed and link to videos that are hosted on the manufacturer's respective YouTube or Vimeo channels. This is useful content for our customers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MichaelFactor
My questions are: Does this type of content help our site by offering useful info, or does it hurt our SEO due to it being thin and or duplicate content? Or does the original content publishers get all the benefit? Is there any benefit to us publishing this stuff? What exactly is considered "thin content"?0 -
How to Set Up Canonical Tags to Eliminate Duplicate Content Error
Google Webmaster Tools under HTML improvements is showing duplicate meta descriptions for 2 similar pages. The 2 pages are for building address. The URL has several pages because there are multiple property listings for this building. The URLs in question are: www.metro-manhattan.com/601-west-26th-street-starrett-lehigh-building-contains-executive-office-space-manhattan/page/3 www.metro-manhattan.com/601-west-26th-street-starrett-lehigh-building-contains-executive-office-space-manhattan How do I correct this error using canonical tags? Do I enter the URL of the 1<sup>st</sup> page under “Canonical URL” under “Advanced” to show Google that these pages are one and the same? If so, do I enter the entire URL into this field (www.metro-manhattan.com /601-west-26th-street-starrett-lehigh-building-contains-executive-office-space-manhattan) or an abbreviated version (/601-west-26th-street-starrett-lehigh-building-contains-executive-office-space-manhattan)? Please see attached images. Thanks!! Alan rUspIzk 34aSQ7k
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Stolen website content
Hello, recently we had a lot of content written for our new website. Unfortunately me and my partner have went separate ways, and he has used all my unique content on his own website. All our product descriptions, about us etc, he simply changed the name of the company. He has agreed to take the content down, so that i can now put this content on our new website which is currently being designed. Will google see this as duplicate content as it has been on a website before? Even though the content has been removed from the original website. I was worried as the content is no longer "fresh" so to speak. Can any one help me with this,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexogilvie0 -
Duplicate content - canonical vs link to original and Flash duplication
Here's the situation for the website in question: The company produces printed publications which go online as a page turning Flash version, and as a separate HTML version. To complicate matters, some of the articles from the publications get added to a separate news section of the website. We want to promote the news section of the site over the publications section. If we were to forget the Flash version completely, would you: a) add a canonical in the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? b) add a link in the footer of the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? c) both of the above? d) something else? What if we add the Flash version into the mix? As Flash still isn't as crawlable as HTML should we noindex them? Is HTML content duplicated in Flash as big an issue as HTML to HTML duplication?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0 -
Should I robots block site directories with primarily duplicate content?
Our site, CareerBliss.com, primarily offers unique content in the form of company reviews and exclusive salary information. As a means of driving revenue, we also have a lot of job listings in ouir /jobs/ directory, as well as educational resources (/career-tools/education/) in our. The bulk of this information are feeds, which exist on other websites (duplicate). Does it make sense to go ahead and robots block these portions of our site? My thinking is in doing so, it will help reallocate our site authority helping the /salary/ and /company-reviews/ pages rank higher, and this is where most of the people are finding our site via search anyways. ie. http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/cisco-systems-jobs-812156/ http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/jobs-near-you/?l=irvine%2c+ca&landing=true http://www.careerbliss.com/career-tools/education/education-teaching-category-5/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CareerBliss0