Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from

Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

How 16 Companies Dominate Google Search Results

6:08 am on Jul 25, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 3, 2006
votes: 4

Very interesting post... I wanted to share with WW community:

So Why Am I Surprised?
Tons of authoritative sites linking to you is obviously great for SEO.
But as anyone who has been involved in search engine optimisation for a period of time might wonder, surely getting so many sitewide links in a short timeframe should raise a bit of a red flag?
Even if the links in question are from some of the biggest media brands in the world.

I checked BestProducts.com (and other sites mentioned in the article) on SEMRush and was appalled!
8:35 am on Dec 3, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 16, 2009
votes: 80

A fascinating read, thanks
11:03 am on Dec 3, 2016 (gmt 0)

Moderator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator robert_charlton is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 11, 2000
votes: 400

dailypress, thanks for that article. I've seen somewhat similar "incestuous" linking in niches where the parent company owned four or five or six key sites... but they never focused links on partner sites to such a degree. The general pattern was an exchange of footer links... which I should say was done essentialy with Google's blessing, as Matt C had said several times it's a natural thing to do. The sites seemed to link to each other with company name anchor text, avoiding keywords, and that was about it.

In one instance, a client was a Fortune 500 company which owned a great many subsidiaries, and my tendency was to pull back and not overdo the obvious nepotism, at least among sites the were essentially the same except for the slogans on the bottles. That said, I tried to push them into developing a number of interest-based consumer sites, to serve identifiable groups of consumers who used their products differently... but I could never get the parent companies to move on it. The clients felt that there was no point to it... that the market was essentially pre-divided, and the web wasn't going to get many people to switch their brand of, say, soap. In retrospect, I think these were companies and agencies who didn't want to work very hard.

Where I had clients with partner sites that were too similar... shared common hosting and backlink sources... I called them "sister" sites. Those were often close enough in terms of inbound link sources and hosting that Google only wanted to rank one of the sisters at a time. The site rankings were like a see-saw for a while... when one went up the other went down.

All of which to say that my reservations about making the alliances too obvious are the same as yours, and it could be that the problems might be in separating the brands.

It could also be that if you're high enough up there, you couldn't do too much wrong if you didn't t get too spammy. You needed to avoid interlinking with keyword links. I truly don't think its corporate favoritism on Google's part. I think it's more that these subsidiaries have large followings in themselves, so they're not depending on interlinking for basic level ranking or link juice, though it undoubtedly helps.

This is not too different from how brick and mortar companies are organized. It initially came as a surprise to me, when I did TV commercials, that several clothing chains, targeting different demographics, were all operating out of the same advertising office. In retrospect, it made a lot of sense.

I like the introduction to the article, which ties what's on supermarket shelves to just 16 dominant companies. The capitalization of these companies, though, is large enough that it's really hard to push them out of the way by trying to bring in a new independent competitor. True in brick-and-mortarville, and true on the web.
12:24 pm on Dec 3, 2016 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 12, 2014
votes: 68

From this it looks like content is the red headed step child and links are king.