MOZ Case Study: Paying For Guest Article Links

Link Building Article Openly Discusses Paying for Links

[martinibuster]

This article, Case Study: How Switching Tools Increased Email Reply Rates by 187% [moz.com] in 1 Month, reads like a NEWB confession of how they stumbled about learning the link building process. I was astounded at all the rookie mistakes they detailed, from the low conversion rates to the cheesy template they use. They even published the actual template they use.

But here's the part I found interesting.
The author of the article, a content marketing expert from Modernize.com, openly admits to paying for guest articles for the purpose of building links. In a list of event milestones, event number eight is this:

8. Paid: There's a fee for posting an article.

I am not one to "out" a company for engaging in practices that may violate Google's Guidelines. However, this is an article published by the company itself. My concerns are:

1. The company that wrote this case study is apparently so newb that they out practices that may violate FTC and Google Guidelines.
2. In my opinion I believe their link building practices may violate FTC guidelines if their "paid" articles are not labeled as advertising
3. In my opinion their link building advice may violate Google's guidelines
4. It's surprising that Moz allowed this to be published without any challenges or comment as to how the techniques may violate FTC Guidelines as well as Google's Guidelines.

[ergophobe]

I've not always followed this advice, but my grandmother always said "You can usually stay out of the slammer if you just learn to keep your mouth shut."

I learned a lot from those weekend visits with my gram at the penitentiary.

[martinibuster]

I am astonished that someone would be so frank and open about paying for guest posts. After all, that is the kind of thing that leads to a penalty right?

[engine]

I agree with ergophobe, it's rather odd because they could have just left that out.

[ergophobe]

I'm trying to remember specifics, but I've definitely heard advice that started with "You know what you should do?" and followed up with something that will get you sued, possibly landed in jail, and the person had no clue. I am not astonished at all that the author, who [prejudice alert] looks very young [/prejudice alert], would do this. Like you, I'm astonished that someone older and wiser who should have read this before publication didn't say "this is a bad idea."

Semi OT anecdote - for my second scholarly article, I chose a title that was mildly profane ("Belles merdes ou belles paroles") and an older scholar said "You know, the problem is that in either a chronological sort of your publications or an alphabetical sort, that is going to come to the top for the rest of your life. If it turns out that people are put off by that title, you'll never escape it and they'll probably never tell you for fear of seeming prudish. But if there's one old school prude on the hiring committee, do you want this to be the first thing they see? Wait until you're established and then use any title you want. But at your age, I'd advise against it."

The advice rankled, but I took it against my better judgement. But my best judgement was that a person who had observed academic politics and hiring for 30 years probably had better judgement than me.

[Andy Langton]

Also odd that there are specifically-identifiable third party sites and emails in those screenshots (although they seem to have rejected the "pitch" (perhaps wisely?).

[londrum]

I've paid money to an SEO company in the past and been horrified at what they did (i had to get them to undo it all), so I'm not surprised that people still think it's okay.
they seem to look for the short term gain, which is what link-building will do, so they can get some money off the customer and send them away happy, and then when it all goes pear-shaped six months down the line they can just say it's nothing to do with them.

[martinibuster]

Just want to clarify that this wasn't done by an SEO company. This is a case study by an in-house SEO detailing how they build links, including making payments, an activity that may violate FTC guidelines as well as Google's own guidelines about paying for links.

[ergophobe]

By the way martinibuster, I've been talking to a lot of people about rampant violations of FTC rules with regard to payment for content.

It has become really common to pay "digital influencers" to write about your stuff or post to their Instagram or YouTube accounts on your behalf. Almost every review you see in the travel industry and almost every article about a destination by a "digital nomad" is at least being comped and if they have any following at all, they are being paid. This is almost never disclosed.

So the FTC doesn't seem to worried about this. Have they taken any major actions since the acai berry diet thing?

Google, on the other hand... But Google can't do anything about Instagrammers.

[ergophobe]

Guidelines FAQ: [ftc.gov...]

Note, that guide says

The Guides are intended to give insight into what the FTC thinks about various marketing activities involving endorsements and how Section 5 might apply to those activities. The Guides themselves don’t have the force of law. However, practices inconsistent with the Guides may result in law enforcement actions for violations of the FTC Act. Although there are no fines for violations of the FTC Act, law enforcement actions can result in orders requiring the defendants in the case to give up money they received from their violations.

In December, the FTC issued a statement regarding native content advertising, which would apply most closely to this situation
[ftc.gov...]

In my observation, most native content is not disclosed as paid (if it were, Goodbye Buzzfeed).

[martinibuster]

There are a lot of young people who are responsible for this kind of spam. They have no memory of past Google actions and they clearly have no idea about the legalities involved with offering money for advertising. Memory is important.

I see this as partially a youth issue.
If you were in grade school when the Can-Spam Act was passed, how are you going to know what Unsolicited Email is and how scaling this up and blasting it out can hurt you and your company?

If todays marketers were still in college flipping burgers the last time Google penalized sites for doing spammy guest articles, how are they going to be aware that what they're doing may not work?

There's a lot of smiling young faces in shiny new content marketing positions, but as Brett Tabke said, to paraphrase, Content Marketing is just a link building scheme in disguise. So if you think that content marketing is just content marketing, consider yourself screwed.