Author Rank - Using the brand as the author
-
Hi i'm building a new site and want to start building up author rank right from the start.
If you are building author rank for a brand, do you think its fine to use the brand as the actual author of the content, instead of a actual person?
Or using a stage name rather then a persons actual name, and have your writers write under that particular stage name?
Would love to hear peoples opinions.
Cheers,
Mark
-
I think that they could post article under your account/name... so when they leave.. it's yours... it is to build up your authorship, not theirs..
-
Thanks
From what i've read so far, if you do hire a writer/employee and have the articles posted under their name, but then they decide to leave the company, they take the author rank with them?
So how can brand, deal with this potential issue?
-
Why wouldn't you just implement rel=publisher? If it's a brand responsible for the content, my understanding is that that would be the appropriate thing to do.
-
If you are talking about creating authorship linking specifically (i.e. using rel=author markup) you can't do that using a brand, Mark. Google won't let you. Authorship can only be connected to a personal Google+ profile. Which makes sense when you think about it. A "brand" can't write an article. Only a person can.
Forget about trying to create a personal profile that is actually the brand name. Google is very specific that personal profiles must be real people, and quite regularly removes accounts that don't meet the criteria.
If you do want to connect your content to a brand, you'll need to use the rel=publisher markup instead, connected to a Google+ business page Unfortunately at this point that "publisher" connection doesn't yet lead to any kind of rich snippet advantage in the SERP (eg. an image next to the search result as in rel=author).
There is talk that Google will eventually start using a brand image or logo in SERPS associated with rel=publisher but it's anybody's guess exactly when, or if, this will actually occur.
As for creating a fake persona to represent all the contributors of content - since this is diametrically opposed to what rel=author is supposed to represent, I have to assume Google has (or will devise) methods for detecting that kind of manipulation and devaluing or penalising it.
The whole point of authorship is that is supposed to allow creation of a trust relationship with the writing of a particular person. If there's anything we've learned this year from all the algorithm updates, it's that trying to manipulate legitimate ranking/authority signals purely for marketing purposes is a fool's errand. You may get away with it for a while, but when it gets clobbered, all the effort you put into the manipulation will have been wasted. Or worse yet will get you penalised. Trying to represent the work of several writers under one "stage name" is just such a manipulation.
Best suggestion at this point? Use rel=publisher markup for "brand" content (like product descriptions etc) and connect individual authors' content (like how-to articles, blog posts etc) to each individual's personal G+ profile.
In other words - use the tool as it was intended, instead of trying to pervert it purely for marketing benefit.
Paul
-
Dear Mark,
The answer lies in your question and depends on your decision as whom you would like to promote or build reputation for. So, if you want to build the rank for your brand, you go ahead and do so and if you want to build the author rank for a person (he is your brand in this case), you go for it. Let us take a look at a scenario. Suppose, I own multiple brands, I would build author rank for my name so that I would be recognized as the one behind all these brands. I am the brand here. Coming to your case, if I were you, if this brand is going to be my biggest investment or a dream project, I would stick to building the author rank for my brand as going forward, I can leverage the brand name and use it to my advantage. Suppose, I am likely to come up with multiple web properties or brands in future, I would rather build the author rank for my name as I am the one standing behind all these brands or web properties and I want all the recognition and all my current and future brands can leverage my recognition.
Please note that the above opinion is personal.
Best,
Rafi
-
According to the https://plus.google.com/authorship page,
- Make sure that you have a profile photo with a recognisable headshot.
- Make sure that a byline containing your name appears on each page of your content (for example, "By Steven Levy").
- Make sure that your byline name matches the name on your Google+ profile.
- Verify that you have an email address (such as stevenlevy@wired.com) on the same domain as your content. (Don't have an email address on the same domain?
A brand is rarely an "author" - someone did the writing. Google wants that person tied to the work they created. Now, there may be ways "around" this but getting "around" stuff in SEO is why so many people scrambled so badly this year.
This page dissects it further: http://www.optimum7.com/internet-marketing/google-optimization/pros-and-cons-of-google-authorship-for-businesses.html
Most notably:
A company or brand’s Google+ page cannot be designated as the author of any web content. Therefore your company and brand name will not come up as the author in the web results.
**Warning:**If you’ve considered creating a company persona under the guise of a real person in order to have all authorship attributed to that particular Google+… Don’t do it! This really undermines AuthorRank and defeats the whole point of authorship. Google may also penalize you for trying to cheat their system… just as they’ve done for poor SEO practices through Google’s Panda-Penguin algorithm updates.
That's what I would follow. I would not suggest trying to game Authorship at all.
-
I guess this would depend on many instances. What are you selling? What is your site about? Which will benefit you more? If your selling a cd of yourself and your the author then I would say go with the author. If your selling a 1 of a kind brand that no one else in the world has, then go with the brand name.
Eventually you may want to just do both, but since your starting, it's not a bad idea to go with brand, because it will be those are considered the most natural backlinks to your site that isn't your url.
Have a great night.
MB
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
-
Are FAQ's Pages Still Useful?
I know there has been a lot of discussion lately about FAQs pages and I'm wondering when and if they are still warranted useful and what if they have positive or negative effects on page rankings. Regards, John Brown
Content Development | | JohnBrown75
Essay Writer0 -
Can Google+ help you to rank?
I'm thinking about uploading photos to my Google+ and then embedding them in my post. Will adding photo from Google+ help me rank better.
Content Development | | WilCross1 -
Using different sections from all over your site to compile a blog post, bad idea or ok to do?
I have a large site that sells various products, I have been on a kick creating new content relating to the many aspects of upkeep with these products after purchase, I wanted to create a blog post combining all the info for the group of products, but will be reusing some of the FAQs and even tips, since I'm more or less relocating the info. Since this blog post is using many different sources on our site, using a rel=canonical isn't possible. Is there anything I should watch out for, Will rewording / phrasing here and there be enough or should I steer clear of this as a whole?
Content Development | | Deacyde0 -
Is Opening a News Section a Good idea for Topical Authority and Freshness
Hi my website is less than 3m old and its niche is autism. I have identified around 300 profitable KWs (structured from T1 to T3) and over the next few months aim to create high quality pages for each while maintaining a page-tree structure. Currently I have already build around 50 of those pages. While I start off page SEO activities in parallel, I was thinking whether a news/daily digest section on my website will help me build additional value in terms of establishing niche authority and also scoring on the freshness factor. I have already set up google alerts on a variety of Autism related KWs and in process of outsourcing (to one qualified writer) at least two 500 word news articles from any interesting stories or ideas in google alerts. Questions: 1. Am I better off covering these ideas as News Articles or as just normal posts? Though neither of them will be KW targeted, they will be aimed to increase readership and authority. But capturing them as news would allow me to apply for Google News indexing as well. The question is important because based on that I will hire the writer. if Autism News is a better strategy, I will possibly pay a bit more to hire someone with experience in web journalism. 2. Overall, is this a good idea for brand building? Or should I start looking at more long-long KWs (<20 searches pm) and focus creating content for those? The problem is that with 300 KWs already identified > 40 searches pm), I am finding it hard to find KWs in loooong tail that covers a new aspect. For example: "Symptoms for Autism" and "What are the various symptoms of Autism". Now how do you create 2 different quality articles for that!
Content Development | | DealWithAutism0 -
Does using Articlebase articles on your site push your rank down?
Hello All, I launched a website (www.hrpayrollsystems.net) last year. I'm very new to the SEO world so I'm still seeing what works and what doesn't. We recently republished some articles from articlebase.com that I think may have hurt us in SEO. Does Google see our site as having duplicate content and then penalize us? Our top keyword isn't even ranking anymore when I put it in the sites that tell you where you show up. Help!
Content Development | | HRISGuy0 -
Http://www.social-bookmarking.net is it good platform to use
I am just looking at different ways to attract traffic and i would like to know if anyone uses http://www.social-bookmarking.net and if so do they feel it is good for gaining traffic. i have used it before but never gained anything from it so maybe i am using it wrong, would love to hear your thoughts on it
Content Development | | ClaireH-1848860 -
I deleted an EzineArticle to reuse somewhere more useful, but...
I deleted an EzineArticle to reuse somewhere more useful, but now I find it has been copied (and links to competitors added). Anyway, that's not really the main point. What I am wondering is, as they have been reproduced 2 or 3 times, are they any use to me at all, or would they just be seen as duplicate content. They were good articles too. Much too good for an article directory.....
Content Development | | Cornwall0 -
For a consumer facing blog, how often do you recommend updating content to develop good rankings? I understand that it's really dependent upon the niche/competition, but what are some best practices? Content is expensive. Thanks
For a consumer facing blog, how often do you recommend updating content to develop good rankings? I understand that it's really dependent upon the niche/competition, but what are some best practices? Content is expensive. Thanks
Content Development | | CSOD19990