Subtle line of asking links for money/service/benefits

[fablau]

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.

[fablau]

Thanks Rand! That tells it all

[randfish]

Yeah - you've got it.

[fablau]

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.

[randfish]

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).

[fablau]

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.

[randfish]

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.

[fablau]

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"?

[HiveDigitalInc]

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.

[fablau]

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"....

[HiveDigitalInc]

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