Excuse me Google, did you just advertise its OK to pay a Blogger
Chrome, earlier this year already found its self in hot water regarding its naughty blogging activities. Anyway, this has all since been forgotten about by most people. However on Sunday evening, whilst sipping my cup of tea at home I nearly spat it back out in disbelief when this Advert for Google Chrome came on TV:
I’m pretty sure, they’ve just told everyone sat watching NCIS on Sunday evening that its OK to send your Products to Bloggers, plus millions more people since, so they can link to you and write about your product. However there have been numerous instances in the past of people getting penalised for doing just that. From memory a bean bag company got a kickin for doing just that, a couple years ago.
So maybe the Cambridge Satchell company, who now we’re blogging about too 
should get a visit from the Google Police. Or perhaps, the Chrome Marketers need another slap on the wrist. Either way, I’d love to hear Matt Cutt’s opinion on this.
John Doyle 253 days ago
http://www.johnedwarddoyle.co.ukSurely there is a difference between paying a blogger, and sending them samples to blog about? If they didn’t like the product, it would have a negative effect so hardly the same as paying the blogger.
James Taylor 253 days ago
Can you give us some examples of the “numerous instances” you mention, other than a half remembered anecdote about a bean bag company from 2 years ago?
Anthony Shapley 253 days ago
http://www.anthonyshapley.co.ukHi John,
Don’t get me wrong, I think its a great way to get buzz around a product or organisation. However the fact remains that Google have penalised people for doing the same thing in the past. Then on the same note, they are now Advertising that its an innovative way to build a brand.
I think if you give someone a product, you are essentially paying them, just not with money. We have done reviews before on physical products, and then later had to return them.
Ant
John Doyle 253 days ago
http://www.johnedwarddoyle.co.ukI suppose it depends on the product. If it’s a Lamborghini you’d obviously have to give that back (or I’m in the wrong business) but something cheap is probably more cost effective to fire x amount out to varies bloggers/reviewers etc and hope they like it.
Anthony Shapley 253 days ago
http://www.anthonyshapley.co.ukI think we’d all like to review a Lambo.
Anthony Shapley 253 days ago
http://www.anthonyshapley.co.ukHi James,
I was avoiding mentioning it:
http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/giant-sumo-bean-bag-chair/
http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/beanbag-or-bean-bag.html
Ant
Kent 229 days ago
http://humanwebsite.com.myHi James, thanks for the links.
Tom 253 days ago
Its all irrelevant anyway… SEO is basically dead and now Google shopping is paid for wait for an update to absolutely nail long tail SEO for product retail forcing everyone hit to pay…. Again.
Emily Leary 253 days ago
http://www.thinkingcomms.co.ukHmm, I don’t think I agree with your assessment here. I think the advert is more about the creative tools Google provides, PR and generating word of mouth than it is about SEO. In any case, Google doesn’t say you can’t link to a company you’re working with, it says if you’ve been paid to post a piece of content, you should make any links rel=nofollow.
Chris 252 days ago
http://www.chrissoo.co.uk/Have to agree with Emily here. At no point did the ad link sending out free products to generating links/increase search rankings. It was more around the buzz around blogs and other Google products like YouTube.
David Ingram 253 days ago
http://www.bringdigital.co.ukHmmmm, there is a bit of a gap in logic here.
Google has no guidelines against financial or material incentivising between Webmasters. They are very clear about what the issue is: making payment (in whatever form) for links that pass PageRank. There is no suggestion of this whatsoever in the video, I’m not sure why that assumption has been made?
You seem to be suggesting that the satchel was sent to the blogger with the intention of benefiting SEO (presumably through a link), however there is no mention of this. In fact, the ad shows the blogger doing a video review of the product, which would offer no direct SEO benefit.
I’m not sure if this has been written as link-bait, but it seems like you’ve tried to force an agenda without substance.
Google f*cks up a lot, but this isn’t one of those times. Posts like this can undermine legitimate claims of foul practice and hypocrisy against Google.
As mentioned above, if you have any examples of Google punishing companies for simply sending out products (without any mention of do-follow links) I will stand corrected.
David
Craig 253 days ago
http://www.fusionunlimited.co.ukit’s fine to pay bloggers and it’s fine to offer products to bloggers.
the issues arise if you get clean links as a result, or if you disguise an ad as editorial. but otherwise it’s fine.
David Whitehouse 252 days ago
http://www.davidwhitehouse.co.uk/Ok so let’s imagine the situation.
I send my “Whitehouse onesy” to numerous mummy bloggers for free – I don’t pay them a dime. Then some of them blog about them, but because most blogging platforms default to default (in fact all I think?) in the body of the post, and the fact that some of the mummy bloggers don’t realise about “nofollows” means that the company gets a clean link.
But that’s not fine? or is it fine?
Personally I think that should be fine, there is no control over whether you get a followed or nofollowed link.
Emily Leary 252 days ago
Emily,
You’re missing the point. Bloggers are NOT SEO’s and have no clue how to nofollow anything. Google is not trying to educate them at all either and frankly it would be a waste of time. I can see the blatant hypocrisy. The thing is, it is a good way to promote a website, brand or product. Link exchanges and mentions were happening years before Google even existed.
Google’s point is that if they discover you had an SEO motive, or think you had an SEO motive, or need to make a point because some reporter at the NY Times embarrassed them publicly, then they will.
Emily 105 days ago
http://www.thinkingcomms.co.ukWhy have you commented on your own blog, replying to me AS me? Correct it please.
Craig 252 days ago
http://www.fusionunlimited.co.uk“there is no control over whether you get a followed or nofollowed link”
there is if you disclose upfront and request it.
personally i wouldn’t bother i agree i think that’s fine, if you send someone a product i think it’s an editorial decision wther it gets reviewed or not. but if you want to play to the letter of the law of webmaster guidelines then that is straight forward to do.
can i have one of your onesy’s btw?
David Whitehouse 251 days ago
http://www.davidwhitehouse.co.uk/Hi Craig,
I’m afraid I’ve run out due to popular demand…
Andrea moro 230 days ago
http://www.andreamoro.co.ukThere is a very tiny difference between getting a forced Seo link and not… And as it has been already pointed out not all the users or Blogger are seo savvy hence they cannot really get on the nofollow blame.
Having said this, as the new frontier where we should move forward I’d imagine that – although the video was meant to teach nothing – getting people involved to generate brand awareness is perfectly allowed.