coachm - 12:56 pm on Oct 5, 2013 (gmt 0)
So... how are companies supposed to provide compelling, best in the field content and articles, with the company taking credit and being the 'face'?
I'm obviously biased here, and I DO see your point, but WHY should a company gain via the authorship tag, when they have the publisher tag. Two different things, both practically and conceptually.
It's a smart distinction made by Google, provided they don't screw it up.
The company didn't write the articles that the employee wrote, so they can't claim they wrote the articles, even if they paid for them, or own them.
Authorship is, as google has said, about linking thing written by an author so google knows that something on blog a, on blog b, on a website, on amazon are all by the same person. PERSON.
For large "publishers" they already have a huge advantage in the SERPS, eg. if you look for various business terms, almost all the results will be for Forbes, Businessweek etc.
Or .edu sites.
The actual writers of the content currently get nothing from being published on those sites (in the SERPS).
I can see you you might not want to use the tags if you are a smaller business, but you probably wouldn't gain if you did anyway. The chances of your having content written by someone who, by virtue of being a real world expert, with connections to many other real world expert articles is slim.
What percentage of writers/authors/content creators will actually benefit from google seeing all their work as related? Not many, I'd guess. Less than one percent, probably. Unlikely you'd be able to tap into that group anyway.
In short, the authorship tag isn't for "you", as a company. Nor should it be.