Link Payola in the A-List Blog World
Posted on September 15th, 2008by Michael Gray in Grayhat SEO
Added: The following comment is from Guy Kawasaki about this incident, I moved them to the top since it is relevant to the issue - mg
I was given the camera because I am doing a big favor for a photo conference. Arguably, the camera cost me $15,000. I didn’t have to review it. - Guy Kawasaki
I like Guy Kawasaki, I really do, I don’t always agree with him, but I do think he’s a smart man, and a thought leader in the space. That said I do think it pretty unfair that the A-List bloggers in the space get “free gifts” in exchange for blogging about them and Google’s Black Angel of Paid Linking Death never pays them a visit. So sit back and watch as I present my evidence and make my case in Nikon D90 link payola incident.
On September 7th Guy posted an unboxing post about the new Nikon D90 Camera. In his post he mentions in a subtle way that the camera was given to him by Ritz Camera and the 6sight Future of Imaging conference.
Nikon just released the D90. This is the first digital SLR that can shoot movies (as far as I know, anyway)–now you don’t have to carry a digital SLR and a video camera. How cool is that?! My buddies at Ritz Camera and the 6sight Future of Imaging conference made this possible. Click here to buy one from Ritz Camera. Incidentally, I’ll be the first to admit that these aren’t the greatest shots–I had no idea product shots are so much harder than people shots.
For those of you wondering the camera has a retail of $1299 from Ritz Camera.
Think this a fluke, and a one off occurrence, let me go all Columbo on you, and point you in the direction of an amazon kindle post, video and this post on Honda Fit. If you might have been sleeping in math class in high school, when there are three or more data points that line up, that’s what we call a trend.
So Google Engineers, if Guy kawasaki is accepting $1300 cameras in exchange for posts, can we expect you to nuke his PR and rankings the same way you did to pay per post. Is his linking scheme, any less illicit? (That’s google’s definition not mine).
Sure I can hear some of you saying, Gray what’s up with you, you’ve been around the block long enough to know that’s how Public Relations people work, they give celebrities (real life celebrities or fake web celebrities) free gifts in exchange for the wearing, using, mentioning, or writing about their product in a newspaper articles, magazines, or blog posts.
Of course I know that’s how it’s been done in the past, and how it will continue to get done in the future. What needs to happen is Google needs come up with a fair and equally applied policy and stick to it, because the two tiered caste system we have now isn’t working … unless you’re on the “let them eat cake” side of the argument … and we all know how that turned out …
For anyone interested here’s a detailed explanation on how to report paid links if you want to clue Google into this violation of their guidelines …
PS: Don’t be one of those kooky nit pickers who says the pay per post people were getting cash, not merchandise, and it’s not technically the same. I believe in following the rules in the spirit with which they where created, and not getting by on a technicality (which is one of the reasons I dislike lawyers so much). However if Google is going to say that it’s perfectly ok to do it in exchange for products, I’ll be off to start a products for posts service this afternoon …
Popularity: 12% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
.gif)
September 15th, 2008 at 5:15 am
I’ll shamefully admit to not knowing who Guy Kawasaki was a week ago…
Nice Related Post right under this post where you are attempting to railroad Guy.
Link Payola and free stuff for reviews will continue. This post reminds me of someone who rats someone else out to get a lesser prison sentence.
Rather doucheish.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:21 am
I think that you are taking this one far too far.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:36 am
@Mike Dammann: why? no one felt calling out and penalizing pay per post was “too far”.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Seeing how I mostly do real estate marketing online…I would like to announce that I will be now accepting timeshares, beach front condos, and investment properties in exchange for post/links! (of course this is just a joke!…deep down I am chicken shit)
September 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I agree; don’t see this as being “too far.” Either it’s a rule or it isn’t a rule. But then again, “payola” rules on radio don’t stop the advertising-industrial complex that’s decimated commercial radio as a valid art form, though hopefully the pluralism of blogging keeps the same thing from happening here.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Yeah, if only I’d been A-list instead of Z-list when Google slammed my main site in the summer. Wonder if It’ll ever get back to its PR8…oh well…
September 15th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I was watching a news clip from a major US news program on YouTube this morning and was pretty surprised to see the anchorman make casual references to NetFlix and Tivo during an interview. You’re either a reputable source of news or you’re a PR agency owned by a corporation. A shill is a shill is a shill.
Does Kawasaki have any insightful news about the robust and invigorating taste of Camel cigarettes? And if so, does he have any thoughtful anecdotes about where I might go to buy them?
September 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I wonder if Guy would comment here and respond to these haneous allegations.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Maybe Matt’s too busy posting about his favorite yogurt to worry about Guy posting about his camera.
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/best-yogurt-in-silicon-valley/
September 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Hello Michael,
I think personally that we could have talked about Mr X in this case as opposed to upsetting a few people here, as I think it’s a little trivial to picking him up on such things.
People blog for a whole host of reasons, and many of which are for financial gain (either directly or indirectly). By building a respected reputation online, that in itself is a cause for reward and being given trivial gifts and having it highlighted in such a public manner might have upset some people. It may seem to some as a little childish…
You’re one of the guys that I follow quite a lot and wouldn’t be surprised by the financial gains accrued through your own writing, so directly or indirectly we’ve all got an agenda when putting a blog post out there.
It was made obvious enough in Guy’s blog that he was given it for free so that should be the end of it as far as I’m concerned…
Still, I thank you again for your blog and words of wisdom!
Thanks,
Ben
September 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
@Ben McKay: the fact that he is an a-lister makes all the difference. When I accept $$$ for a sponsored post I disclose it in pretty clear language.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Michael:
Not sure how to respond. Is your point…
I’m unethical?
I’m not getting penalized for paid links?
You’re jealous?
Every link in the world is paid. Only the currency is different: sometimes it’s money, sometimes it’s favors; sometimes it’s friendships, sometimes it’s backscratching, and many times it’s simply that someone made something very good via a lot of hard work.
By the way, I have a new book coming out in two weeks called Reality Check. Would you buy a copy and review it? Here’s the link to buy it:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591842239/guykawasakico-20
Thanks!
Guy
September 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Four weeks ago, Guy Kawasaki kicked off the launch of Adjix (http://adjix.com) for us at no cost, no favors, etc. He tweeted Adjix to his (then) 18,000 followers and our traffic was off to the races. He just thought our company was an interesting cross between TinyURL and Google’s AdSense & AdWords.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I get what you’re saying, and I’m glad Guy is cool with the conversation you’ve started. The whole Google Paid Links thing is impossible to enforce.
And before I hijack your comments section, I will adjourn to write a response piece. This comment was about to be entirely too long.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Guy, I think Michael’s point is directed at Google’s policy on paid links not being enforceable in any coherent way. As you said, every link is paid for in some way. In your example, a product is closer on the spectrum of payment to cash, which is perhaps why Mike felt it appropriate to bring up.
@Mike Gray - In fairness to readers, you might want to disclose in posts like this that you buy/sell links. I know it and still appreciate the point you make, but others might find it less problematic if this were out in the open when the topic comes up on your blog. Just my 2 cents.
Cheers
Gab
September 15th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Ohhhh and the guy even gets in a plug for his new book.
A PR machine he is!
September 15th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
@Gab Goldenberg: fair point
September 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Ken Savage,
I am a scorpion:
http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
Guy
September 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
@Guy Kawasaki: heh
September 15th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Its unfortunate that Michael chose a specific blogger as his example, but - really - would his post have had the oomp if he had generalised? No, pointing to a specific example makes the case clear and draws interest.
The point of the story isn’t “Guy blogs for stuff”, the point is “Google only ‘penalises’ for cash payments not for in kind payments - here’s an example”
Can we drop the discussion of whether Guy is right or wrong to accept freebies, and the discussion on whether Michael should have named Guy and discuss the point: whether Google should differentiate between cash and payola?
September 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
[...] Is Guy Kawasaki Guilty of Link Payola, Michael Gray [...]
September 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
[...] Is Guy Kawasaki Guilty of Link Payola, Michael Gray [...]
September 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
It’s nog Mike’s fault - he’s just pointing out the obvious and those who logically think can only agree with his post.
Google - have balls don’t act like a sleazy lawyer yet another time — tell us exactly what constitutes paid links or not? Is product review with links in exchange for product or something else than money acceptable in your terms or not???
September 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I agree with the other posters who suggested that this article would have been better had you immediately pointed out that the article is not about GK, but why Google treats his “paid” reviews differently than paid links.
While, I actually support your thesis about paid links, I don’t think that this is a good example. GK is promoting a product, probably pretty clear from the context and who GK is that he is an affiliate or cutting a cut, but his link doesn’t have to pass page rank for it to be effective.
A product review need not pass page rank, in general, which is probably why Google doesn’t care about it.
But, it is important to try to nail down Google exactly what is wrong with paid links passing page rank - Matt Cutts is notoriously weak on explaining Google’s reasons.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
As long as Google’s algorithms do not make Guys link reference to something inflate the actual value, I have no problem with him cashing in on his celebrity.
…the best links in Google are not bought, sold or traded.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I have to say I literally laughed out loud when I read guy’s post. He not only asked for an interview, but offered an affiliate link to buy the book. You go Guy!
September 15th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Bartered links are definitely a “Gray” area - he he. But honestly, this does raise an interesting question.
On the one hand, I agree with Guy in the sense that most links are paid-for (I’ll go with “most” links and not “every” link), in one form of currency or another. On the other hand, there certainly needs to be a threshold at which links cease to count when they are purely for the financial gain of the one doing the linking, and not of “nutritional” value.
Where that threshold is can be debated ad nauseam, since everybody will have a different opinion or perception. However, the interesting question here is… No matter where one may set a threshold, how would they ever expect to enforce it with any degree of accuracy.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:42 am
[...] similar dual-tier system appears in to be in operation [...]
September 16th, 2008 at 3:01 am
You mean like Matt Cutts selling yogurt and Pirate day links? Don’t tell him I said that.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Fact of the matter is that Michael is saying there should be a level playing field for all - no matter the status or compensation for a review or a link. Everyone should be treated fairly no matter the status of a individual or company.
@Gab Goldenberg: Point on, but not everyone needs to disclose how they market a website, gain traffic or increase a ranking. If it is because of linking, that is between the buyer and the seller. We are all guilty of a crime in the eyes of others at times. What is good for one may not be good for another - to each, their own.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:26 am
“However if Google is going to say that it’s perfectly ok to do it in exchange for products, I’ll be off to start a products for posts service this afternoon …”
Do it. Just put nofollow tags. If you look at Guy Kawasaki’s product links, they appear to be affiliate links or links with weak anchor text like “here.” He didn’t put nofollow tags, but I have to wonder if these PR people who sent him the gifts even know what nofollow tags are. So he probably could have gotten away with putting nofollow tags on the links w/out anyone in the ad department flinching.
That’s the irony. But I don’t know what the card that accompanied these gifts said. Maybe it said, “Be sure to put links to these products on your site so that your readers can FOLLOW them (Hint, Hint) to our site.” But it’s obvious that the gifts sent to Guy didn’t come with special instructions about what targeted anchor text to use.
By the way Michael, I don’t know if you caught our SEO Squares comic, but one of the ideas was to have you in a square doing something weird like playing with a wolf. Unfortunately, we didn’t have enough squares to put all our ideas into motion, but so many people have told us that we didn’t include all the people we should have that I’d like to do an SEO Squares II. I think there could def. be a parody with you and Kawasaki..
September 17th, 2008 at 12:39 am
I hate to admit this, but I don’t know what a “nofollow tag” is, why it’s better or worse, etc. I write my blog for the convenience of readers. I think it’s more intuitive to click on “here” than on proper nouns. That’s why I do it.
Guy
September 17th, 2008 at 7:19 am
[...] at the end of the day it’s my choice to decide whether or not I blog about them, now recently Graywolf raised the subject about Guy been Guilty of Link Payola, but wait a minute am I [...]
September 17th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Wow! He doesn’t know what a nofollow tag is?! Up until this point I could completely agree with Michael on this, but now I feel like this is like faulting a 3yr old for making a mess of a big bowl of spaghetti! I mean how can we expect this guy to understand how links influence searc engines if he doesn’t understand the basics of the link them self?
September 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am
This is, of course, the other fatal flaw in Google’s directive to publisher’s to provide a machine readable flag when a link is paid for.
Jo(e) Public has no idea of what a nofollow tag is, nor how to implement one.
(The first fatal flaw being asking us to do their work for them)
September 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am
@Joe Hall: & @Lea de Groot
Most people have a “let google figure it out” opinion. The more they understand about how these things work and how ridiculous google guidelines are the better. Thats why these things need to be dragged into the mainstream, or at least the blogging mainstream world.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am
[...] start things off by pointing out a post at Michael Gray’s blog where he talks about Guy Kawasaki writing reviews for products that he has been given. This [...]
September 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“I hate to admit this, but I don’t know what a “nofollow tag” is, why it’s better or worse, etc.”
It just prevents the links from passing link juice. If you had added them, Michael wouldn’t have been able to write this blog post.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Just to drop in a point or two more, this is not about Guy, this is about Google. If Guy’s links are bought, sold, traded or done to inflate a product, service of individual for $ they are “paid links”. It looks like Google gives Guy a pass though because he is showing up on page #3 of Google for “Nikon D90″ here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Nikon+D90&start=20&sa=N
Matt Cutts from Google often does posts with full intent to educate those who think to much about showing up in search. Check it out:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/furminator-cat-brush/
See how it ranks well in search?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=furminator+cat+brush&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
Did anyone pay Matt to post that? Did he link out to an affiliate? Nope, no money was passed therefore it doesn’t violate Google’s current guidelines.
Read “Link Schemes”:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66356
You guys should pay more attention to Matt.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
@Aaron I think what Michael’s point is that when an “A-Lister” writes a post about a product that he has been given, compliments of a company or PR firm, they should disclose that in the post.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Yes indeed, that also… and that pretty much covers it eh Joe?
September 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
@Aaron Pratt: and that google needs to dispense “punsihment” and “justice” equally and not make an example of something just because an SEO is involved.
Google’s justice should be blind
September 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Michael,
Could that be why you only have PR3? Because of payola? I mean, im sure if I had the massive amount of links pointing my site as you do, i would have more than a PR3.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Just fyi, I didn’t have to write that post about the Nikon. It was a favor that I did for Nikon and Ritz Camera. But why let the truth get in the way of a good headline, right?
Guy
September 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Companies send people like Guy gifts in hopes that they will give them positive press and link to their domains. The links influence search results, this should also violate Google’s future (but currently unwritten) guidelines. What Guy did is surely not ethical but you can see how these evangelists are easily fooled. Scoble is another one who has been manipulated with free stuff also.
“please don’t send me free stuff”
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/please-dont-send-me-free-stuff/
September 17th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
@tzd: if you think toolbar page isn’t an illusion they you need to take off your rose colored glasses
September 17th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Google seems entirely irrelevant. And “here” isn’t exactly optimized anchor text, anyway.
I fail to see any significance except people want Guy to write about them by sending him free things.
And to that I must say, more power to you!
~A
September 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
@Guy Kawasaki: part of the problem is “google rules” dont match real world rules. Google rules say it should be coded a certain way (ie using nofollow). Now if a tech savvy guy like you isn’t aware of the rules or how to use them then google has problem.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
@Adam Lefever: even a “here” link counts, and with some title tweaking we could get some “parasitic SEO” action going on as well. Again not saying any of that was part of the plan but it’s how the game gets played.
mg
September 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Michael,
Still the premise of this article is wrong: I wasn’t paid or given the Nikon in order to review it. Do you care about the truth or just traffic?
Guy
September 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
@Guy Kawasaki: were you given the camera with the expectation of a review even though it was never required or even directly asked for?
kinda like travel links here?
http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3628275
if you want to add your version drop it here or send me an email mgray [at] atlasws [dot] com and I will put it at the top of the post
September 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I was given the camera because I am doing a big favor for a photo conference. Arguably, the camera cost me $15,000. I didn’t have to review it. I have extra digital SLRs if your PR isn’t high enough to convince Nikon or Canon to give you one.
You could have asked me what the deal before you associated my name with payola, but that would have implied journalistic integrity.
I can offer you a copy of my new book, Reality Check, if you, quid pro quo, will give it a good review.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591842239/guykawasakico-20
Guy
September 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
@Guy Kawasaki: not trying to be jerk but you sidestepped the question. The answer “I didn’t have to review it.” doesnt answer the question of did they give it to you with the expectation of a review. To save us the trouble coming back with an answer like “i had no idea what their expectation was” is another side step. You’ve been in the business a while and know how the game is played. PR people or high profile companies give people things all the time and while they may not ask for an article a review, there’s a wink wink nudge nudge and everybody knows if they dont …
If I wasn’t interested in journalistic integrity I would have made the title a statement and not a question
September 17th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Wow, some interesting comments here.
What I find funny is Guy stuffing affiliate links in your comments section. Twice.
Back to the debate.
It’s not all about Guy. It’s more about Google. If it’s not okay in Googles rule book for someone to accept payment in exchange for links, then it shouldn’t be okay for people to accept expensive gifts for links.
Back to Guy. To quote you:
Just fyi, I didn’t have to write that post about the Nikon. It was a favor that I did for Nikon and Ritz Camera. But why let the truth get in the way of a good headline, right?
When you say it was a favor you did for Nikon/Ritz, that’s not entirely true. That favor was in exchange for a high value gift. If you had not received the camera, you wouldn’t have made that post and linked out so freely.
And you keep talking about ‘truth or traffic’. The truth is, from anyone else’s point of view, it would seem that the only reason you linked to the Ritz website is because you were sent a camera. Speaking of traffic - you’re doing a pretty good job of trying to monetize the extra traffic to this blog, aren’t you?
I also agree with comments Dave Naylor made earlier today - where do you draw the line? If I have dinner at a friends house, should I not blog about it and link to my friends site in fear of Google penalizing me? That’s crazy.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have sites like this: http://tinyurl.com/6kbafj offering to blog about companies that send in free products. Is this not the same as buying/selling links? Should this site be penalized?
Where should Google draw the line. And shouldn’t the line be the same for everyone, including A list bloggers.
Meh.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
nofollow is too simplistic now. It should be rel=”was given camera as a favor but arguably it ended up costing me $15,000 anyway so nofollow-ish I guess?”
September 17th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Guy inserting the link to his book shows his great sense of humor, he surely doesn’t need Google, hoorah?
BUT for the rest of us weenies (who are high on pagerank crack) it is life or death for our small online businesses. If I do not show up for my keyword(s) in Google I lose 80% of my traffic, that hurts!
Two
different
worlds.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
@Aaron Pratt - i hear that man. The company I own has a few ecommerce sites and we can tell if we move around the serps in amount of sales. Luckily ecommerce is just one small thing we do, but for people that that is their bread and butter- such a bummer. //g