Small publishers thrive as Google targets corporate content schemes
In my recent post about ‘black hat’ SEO, I mentioned that bloggers are better off taking the high road instead of resorting to dirty tricks. I briefly discussed how a number of leading publishers, including Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN were recently penalized by Google for site reputation abuse. While it’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of corporate greed, it also represents an inflection point that can tip the balance in favor of smaller publishers.
What is SEO and why does it matter?
When most of us search the web, we rely on search engines to act as our guides through the never-ending expanse of cyberspace. We tell them what we’re looking for, and they present us with a list of (hopefully) relevant results, with the ones at the top being the ones the search engine thinks will be the most useful to you. To create these rankings, the search engine has to analyze each potential result. SEO is all about helping search engines understand your content.
The light side of SEO focuses on the strategic use of keywords and links, both internal and external. However, there is a dark side that focuses on deception and dishonesty. These tactics may be tempting, you’re better off sticking to the lighter side. Sky-high visitor numbers won’t matter in the long run if the bulk of your audience feels like you’ve tricked them.
Google’s crackdown on reputation abuse
So why, exactly, did Forbes et al get in trouble? The issue is that they were using third-party vendors to generate passive income via affiliate marketing. For example, according to Mark Stenberg and Paul Hiebert of AdWeek, “while CNN Underscored recommends products under the CNN name, the operation is powered by the third-party company Forbes Marketplace. The two parties then split the resulting revenue.”??
领英推荐
Google takes a dim view of this approach to SEO, arguing that it leads to a bad search experience for users. This is because most readers won’t realize that they’re being served third-party content, which gives that material a deceptive patina of credibility even though its connection to the hosting site is often tenuous at best.?
Forbes is known for its coverage of the business world, yet thanks to these tactics, it came to dominate searches such as “best CBD gummies” and “how to get rid of roaches.’ When people search for these terms and see the Forbes name associated with the results, they’ll naturally assume that these recommendations are trustworthy. In reality, it’s a sham. These reviews aren’t actually the work of Forbes’ journalists–they’re the work of an outside team that just happens to have the Forbes name slapped on top (there’s a reason this approach is often labeled ‘parasite SEO’!)
After rolling out their new policy, the search rankings of many of the leading affiliate businesses took a dive. According to AdWeek, between September 12 and October 31, search visibility declined 43% at Forbes Advisor, 77% at WSJ Buy-Side, 63% at CNN Underscored, 72% at Fortune Recommends, and 97% at Time Stamped (though it’s worth noting that the change only affected the affiliate businesses rather than the main domains). AdWeek estimates the loss in visibility could cost these companies a total of $7.5 million.
This is part of a wider move by Google to spotlight genuinely useful content and deemphasize content that only focuses on search-engine optimization. In the words of Danny Sullivan, Google’s Search Liaison, “our goal is if you're doing good content, we [want] you to be successful.”
Of course, not everyone is a fan of Google’s new policy. Lars Lofgren notes that the use of third-party content is quite widespread as many companies prefer to outsource the work of content creation. He argues that Google’s approach is too broad and could end up affecting perfectly legitimate content.??