uk-netmarketing Archive (2011-2015)

Hi Paul

 

I agree with all you're saying, but was wondering what the group's thinking
is on this scenario.

 

What if Harry turns the blogger down, but the blogger still covers him. And
what if the blogger had successfully charged 99 people, but Harry is the
only one who doesn't pay? Or what if Harry's content is so compelling that
the blogger didn't even ask for cash, but still charged the other 99?

 

The UKNM consensus seems to be that Google will rumble the blogger in the
end.

 

Harry would then be "caught" along with the other 99, because Google has no
way of telling that he hasn't paid. But would he be penalised? 

 

I don't think he would, because there is such a great chance of a false
positive based on this 1 site. 

 

Now if Harry is covered on 50 such sites that Google suspects of charging,
that's a different kettle of fish. The likelihood is that he is paying for
coverage.

 

My belief is that there is no way that he will be penalised if he just pays
for coverage in 1 place, unless he's caught red handed.

 

Harry - if this blogger asks for payment by Google Checkout, you know what
to do ;-)

 

jd

 

 

 

John Duffy

Marketing Director

 

cid:3351500905_1077630

 

www.nemisys.uk.com

john at nemisys.uk.com

blog
<http://www.nemisys.uk.com/blogs/nemisys/Default.asp?authorID=3&utm_source=C
ompanyEmail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=signature&utm_content=jd&utm_campaign=
Gmail> 

linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnrduffy> 

slideshare <http://www.slideshare.net/johnrduffy/presentations> 

@johnrduffy <http://twitter.com/#!/johnrduffy> 

@nemisys <http://twitter.com/#!/nemisys> 

 

Support & switchboard: 0844 706 9665

Support email: support at nemisys.uk.com

Direct: +44 (0)118 9122226

Mobile: +44 (0)7887 731799

 

From: uk-netmarketing-bounces at mm.chinwag.com
[mailto:uk-netmarketing-bounces at mm.chinwag.com] On Behalf Of Paul Lock
Sent: 23 April 2013 10:05
To: 'uk-netmarketing'
Subject: Re: [uk-netmarketing] Is there a difference between paying for
links and paying for content?

 

Hi Harry,

 

One way of interpreting this is to compare it with what would happen
offline. If you were to ask a magazine to print a page of content, they'd
either see it as an excellent editorial contribution (which I'm sure it
would be J) and pass it to the editor to decide on publication, or as an
advertisement for which they'd charge. You've probably seen pages in
newspapers that look like editorial but are adverts - they'll have a heading
like 'advertisement' or 'advertorial'.

 

Your blogger is asking you to pay to publish an article with a link(s) - in
my book, that's an advertisement and it's semantics to say otherwise. If
Google could detect that you were advertising, it would probably want to
disregard the link because Google's view is that only Google should make
money from advertising on the internet, ho, ho.

 

I'm not an SEO guru but my guess is that your blogger is playing with fire
on two fronts. They're clever people at Google and their 'spam' detection is
getting better all the time so in all likelihood, he'll get caught out at
some stage and his Google visibility will plummet. And if his readers knew
that people paid to have their articles published, how would that change
their perception of his editorial integrity - can they trust what he
publishes as objective, impartial content? It's less than honest unless he
makes it clear that he's charged you for the space.

 

The ideal solution is to create content that's so good that bloggers and
webmasters would be prepared to pay you to publish it! That's the game now -
creativity, analysis, commentary, insight, education and entertainment - the
kind of thing that people will link to and share.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Paul 

Paul Lock

01453 873638

http://www.epicado.com <http://www.epicado.com/> 

small

 

Follow me on Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/paulepicado> 

Find us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/Epicado.web.marketing> 

Connect on Linked-in <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189653&trk> 

 

 

 

From: uk-netmarketing-bounces at mm.chinwag.com
[mailto:uk-netmarketing-bounces at mm.chinwag.com] On Behalf Of Harry J. Clark
Sent: 22 April 2013 18:10
To: uk-netmarketing (uk-netmarketing at mm.chinwag.com)
Subject: [uk-netmarketing] Is there a difference between paying for links
and paying for content?

 

Hi Guys,

 

I wanted to ask all you SEO guru's a quick question, which I'm pretty sure I
know the answer to, but I'm just looking for some clarity.

 

Is there a difference between paying for links and paying for content? A
blogger has been emailing me, asking for money to place my blog article.
Obviously I want links in the article to boost the rankings, but as everyone
knows paying for links means you are susceptible to a penalty from Google.

 

I informed the webmaster that Google penalise paid links, but he has told me
that I am not paying for links, I am paying for content which will not be
penalised. I also went on to ask him if he normally asks contributors for
money, to which he replied he never asks bloggers for money, but he will
charge companies or websites.

 

Is it true that there is adifference between paid links and paid content?
Also, is there anyone on here who has paid for links/content? If so, what
was the outcome on your websites performance?

 

Kind regards,

Harry 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.chinwag.com/cgi-bin/mailman/private/uk-netmarketing/attachments/20130427/2155698e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1564 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.chinwag.com/cgi-bin/mailman/private/uk-netmarketing/attachments/20130427/2155698e/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4373 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.chinwag.com/cgi-bin/mailman/private/uk-netmarketing/attachments/20130427/2155698e/attachment-0001.jpg>