Subtle line of asking links for money/service/benefits
-
Hello here,
I am putting down a link building strategy according to the latest "good practices" and Google recommendations, but I find myself often confused.
For example, I'd like to implement the technique suggested by Rand on his article below:
https://moz.com/blog/headsmacking-tip-1-link-requests-in-order-confirmation-emails
But if you look at the comments, a user suggests to "ask for links in exchange of discounts", and everyone there applaud him for the idea (Rand included). But, wait a second... am I the only one realizing that now days Google discourage to ask for links for "money, services, or any other kind of 'offered' benefit"?
So.. where to draw the line here?
Here are other examples that I am not sure are "safe" in link building:
1. Ask for links in exchange of a free Membership on a site (where usually a Membership is sold for a price)
2. Ask for links in exchange of exposure (isn't this a sort of "link exchange"?)
3. Ask for link in exchange of "anything else you can think of", even if necessarily doesn't involve money (i.e. for a "certified site badge", for a free e-book, or anything else)
I'd really like to know your thoughts on this very sensitive issue.
Thank you in advance to anyone for helping me to understand.
-
Thanks Rand! That tells it all
-
Yeah - you've got it.
-
Yes, I see now what you mean... unfrotunately the correct perspective wasn't clear at first, at least to me.
Mostly, the first tip confused me:
1. Ask bloggers for reviews - Contact any relevant blogs in your niche and ask for a review. Send them the product and ask for a link in return.
That can be confusing... "send them the product and ask for a link in return".... the "in return" wording made me misunderstood the tip. That really looks like "asking links for something in return".
All other tips actually look like you are describing, and look ok. In any case, that's why I posted this thread with the title "Subtle line of asking links for money/service/benefits", that subtle line can be easily crossed if we don't see all these tips in the right perspective.
So, in summary, maybe we should shift the concept from:
"Link to me and I'll give you something in return"
to:
"I give you something awesome to you and, hopefully, you'll link back to me"
Is that the correct mindset in link building nowadays?
Thanks again.
-
That one looks OK, actually, because it appears the author isn't suggesting that any of those things be done in a direct exchange for links. Rather, he's saying that you can do these things and they will often lead to links (which is fine).
-
Thanks Rand for taking care of that, I am sure it'll avoid a lot of confusion.
There is another great article that could sort the same kind of concerns:
https://moz.com/blog/99-ways-to-build-links-by-giving-stuff-away-and-improve-your-brand-too-14029
The article's title itself, I guess, doesn't work that well anymore, isn't it?
Thank you again.
-
Hi Fabrizo - as Jake noted, this can cause penalties and problems nowadays, so I'd recommend against a direct offer of discounts or remuneration in exchange for links. I went ahead and updated my reply to that 8-year-old blog post, too.
-
Yes, exactly what I thought : Create excellent content hoping for natural links back, without any "additional/artificial benefit" given to the linker such as money, exchanges, services, etc.
Do you think that by just removing the concept of "additional benefit" would make link building safe? Or simply: We should shift the concept of "additional benefit" to the "actual benefit" a link can give to site owners (a really awesome resource to show to their won users, a tool, etc.)
I am just thinking aloud here, but I think that at the end the modern/safe link building boils down to simply "remind" and "introduce" users, site owners, bloggers, etc. to your so-hard-built content hoping for a link back. The more "reminders" you send out, the more chances for links back you get. Isn't that just like "advertising"? Has "link building" become like "advertising"?
-
Links still appear to carry significant weight in the search results, and as such link building is not dead. The challenge is how your organization can effectively build link using legitimate methods that will not place you on Google's radar for violating their guidelines.
To date, it seems the most effective way to do this is through content and brand building efforts, with links being the positive by-product of generating effective/useful content and relationships.
Essentially... white hat link building is the byproduct of good content building.
-
Thank you Jake for your reply and for confirming my doubts! I thought exactly what you wrote... but.... I mean, does that mean that "link building" is dead? I see we are just talking about "content building" here, and nothing about "link building"....
-
Hi Fabrizo,
Unfortunately, the lines can be easily blurred when taking the definitions of "link scheme" at face value, which implies any link that is obtained for the sake of manipulating search results could be considered part of a link scheme. It is important to note that this "rule" has evolved significantly over time, and the article you are referencing is over 9 years old... Things have changed.
To answer your specific concern.. yes.. offering discounts in exchange for a link could easily be weighted heavily as "paying" for the link... in much the same way as offering products for reviews, profile upgrades, and other incentivized link development are considered today to be outside of the guidelines.
Google's goal is to encourage you to create value with your content, products, and business relationships in a way that will earn links without the discussion having to be around getting the links themselves. For example, you discount your products in general, offering them at a lower cost than competitors, and deal sites and similar want to link to you as the best place to obtain them.
I know the ambiguity in the guidelines can create some confusion, and I hope that I was able to help clear it up a little.
Thanks,
Jake
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
-
Too many dofollow links = penalty?
Hi. I currently have 150 backlinks, 90% of them are dofollow, while only 10% are nofollow. I recently hit position #10 for my main keyword, but now it is dropped to #16 and a lot of related keywords are gone. So I have a few questions: 1. Was my website penalized for having an unnatural backlink profile (too many dofollow links), or maybe this drop in positions is just a temporary, natural thing? 2. Isn’t it too late for making the backlink profile look more natural by building more nofollow backlinks and making it 50%/50%? Thank you!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | NathalieBr0 -
Internal Links to Ecommerce Category Pages
Hello, I read a while back, and I can't find it now, that you want to add internal links to your main category pages. Does that still apply? If so, for a small site (100 products) what is recommended? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
Why should I reach out to webmasters before disavowing links?
Almost all the blogs, and Google themselves, tell us to reach out to webmasters and request the offending links be removed before using Google's Disavow tool. None of the blogs, nor Google, suggest why you "must" do this, it's time consuming and many webmasters don't care and don't act. Why is this a "required" thing to do?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RealSelf0 -
Should I disavow this Link?
I am trying to clean up my link profile to get rid of a partial penalty and am not sure to do with one of the links to my site http://www.seoco.co.uk The link is 100% organic and has come from a foreign language site that published an infographic that I did: http://www.clasesdeperiodismo.com/2012/12/23/la-evolucion-de-las-redes-sociales-este-ano-en-una-infografia/ The thing is that in the link to my homepage they have used the anchor text SEO as opposed to my company name. I have already sent them an email and asked them to change the anchor text but they haven't responded so I am guessing they probably wouldn't respond to a removal request either. Should I disavow it?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Eavesy0 -
How to gain links to this site
Hello, How would you suggest I gain backlinks for bobweikel.com in light of all present and future Google updates? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
Why does Google recommend schema for local business/ organizations?
Why does Google recommend schema for local business/ organizations? The reason I ask is I was in Structed Data Testing Tool, and I was running some businesses and organizations through it. Yet every time, it says this "information will not appear as a rich snippet in search results, because it seems to describe an organization. Google does not currently display organization information in rich snippets". Additionally, many of times when you do search the restaurant or a related query it will still show telephone number and reviews and location. Would it be better to list it as a place, since I want to have its reviews and location show up thanks? I would be interested to hear what everyone else opinions are on this thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PeterRota0 -
Should I 301 Redirect a Site with an 'Unnatural Link' Warning?
Hey Fellow Mozzers, I have recently been approached by a new client that has been issued with an 'Unnatural Link' warning and lost almost all of their rankings. Open Site Explorer shows a ton of spammy links all using main keyword anchor text and there are way too many of them to even consider manually getting them removed. There are two glimmers of hope for the client; The first is that the spammy links are dropping off at a rate of about 25 per week; The second is that they own both the .com and the .co.uk domain for their business. I would really appreciate some advice on the best way to handle this, should I :- Wait it out for some of the spammy links to drop off whilst at the same time pushing social media and build some good clean links using the URL and brand as anchor text? Then submit a recosideration request? Switch the website over from the .com domain to the .co.uk domain and carry out a 301 redirect? Switch the website over from the .com to the .co.uk without doing a redirect and start again for the client with a clean slate? I would still register an address change via Webmaster Tools. Add a duplicate site on the .co.uk domain. Leave the .com site in place but rel="canonical" the entire domain over to the .co.uk Any advice would be very much apprecited. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AdeLewis
Ade.0 -
EXPERT CHALLENGE: What link building strategies do YOU think will work after the latest 3/29/2012 Google algorithm change?
FOR ALL SEO THOUGHT LEADERS...What link building strategies do YOU think will work after the latest 3/29/2012 Google algorithm change? NOTE: My hope is that the responses left on this thread will ultimately benefit all members of the community and give recognition to the true thought leaders within the SEO space. That being said, my challenge is a 2 part question: With the 80/20 rule in mind, and in light of recent algorithm changes, what would YOU focus most of your SEO budget on if you had to choose? Let's assume you're in a competitive market (ie #1-5 on page 1 has competitors with 20,000+ backlinks - all ranging from AC Rank 7 to 1). How would you split your total monthly SEO budget as a general rule? Ex) 60% link building / 10% onsite SEO / 10% Social Media / 20% content creation? I realize there are many "it depends" factors but please humor us anyways. Link building appears to have become harder and harder as google releases more and more algorithm changes. For link building, the only true white hat way of proactively generating links (that I know of) is creating high quality content that adds value to customers (ie infographics, videos, etc.), guest blogging, and Press Releases. The con to these tactics is that you are waiting for others to find and pick up your content which can take a VERY long time, so ROI is difficult to measure and justify to clients or C-level management. That being said, how are YOU allocating your link building budget? Are all of these proactive link building tactics a waste of time now? I've heard it couldn't hurt to still do some of these, but what are your thoughts and what is / isn't working for you? Here they are: A. Using spun articles edited by US based writers for guest blog content B. 301 Redirects C. Social bookmarking D. Signature links from Blog commenting E. Directory submissions F. Video Submissions G. Article Directory submissions H. Press release directory submissions I. Forum Profile Submissions J. Forum signature links K. RSS Feed submissions L. Link wheels M. Building links (using scrapebox, senukex, etc.) to pages linked to your money site N. Links from privately owned networks (I spoke to an SEO company that claims to have over 4000 unique domains which he uses to boost rankings for his clients) O. Buying Contextual Text Links All Expert opinions are welcomed and appreciated 🙂
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | seoeric2