Linking Building don’t ever do this !
This to me is one of the worst things in the industry at the moment and I really hate it with a passion,.
note the “SEO link” a reference to David Naylor has been used to protect the client and industry it wasn’t SEO related !
A few weeks ago I got an email you know the normal link request one which had multi offers:
“At present we are looking after a lot of large websites and we feel that your site WWW.BRONCO.CO.UK would be a good place to advertise on, we can supply you an article with a Link to our client or just purchase a sidebar or a footer link or you could just add a snippet to this post :”
What was interesting wasn’t the fact that the company had taken time to visit the target site, they offered a snippet of text that could be added to a couple of my articles and they really fitted in well, the snippet read something like :
“Just added: I thought I would revisit this post after finding this SEO they seem to offer pretty much the same has Big Seo Corp.”
What surprised me was that the Link was for one of my clients, a client that I work solely with, a client that doesn’t buy links ever and they have no need to lol.. so I thought ok I will run with this, after a few emails backwards and forwards we agree a fee and they sent over a purchase order with a slight amendment :
“Actually, if it’s Ok with you can we use the same snippet and anchor text but we have run out of budget on the “david naylor” account can we just send the link to “Competitor of David Naylor” ..”
Then it became clear to me they are using my client as a shield just incase it goes south and I out them, so I responded with a No, it’s already gone live, that seemed to piss them enough to ask if they could call me. I said Yes gave them my really name and phone number, they never called or email back again .. I feel I have a couple of choices now
a) Do nothing and just walk away
b) I have a footprint now so collect links, contact the webmasters see if they pulled the same stunt then Out them… they are a large UK SEO outfit
c) Just send all emails to Googles spam teams
d) Do the same thing with their clients?
But this really pisses me off, It’s right up there with writing to a large companies HR department asking for a reference for their top inhouse SEO for a laugh
Dave Naylor
Lord Manley 1225 days ago
http://twitter.com?status=@LordManleySecretly I think that this is a really good ploy, but I will not admit this, oh no.
I am also going to write at least one request for a reference in 2010.
I have been in a really bad mood today, and you have made me chuckle. Cheers Dave.
rishil 1225 days ago
http://designer-watches.orgVery very Shady. Call them. Explain why.
Lord Manley 1225 days ago
http://twitter.com?status=@LordManleyShady but amusing.
Of course, I do not know who is doing this, if it was a small firm then I am amused, if it is BMM or GL then I guess it’s worth outing them?
Matt 1225 days ago
http://twitter.com/matt_daviesNeeds more commas.
Nichola Stott 1225 days ago
http://www.themediaflow.comIt’s kind of ballsy/creative/shady. Given they’re a big organisation then I’d love to see them called on it. Even if just to see what interesting points they may bring up in defense. Let’s hope it’s a bit more than blaming it on the intern.
Gareth 1225 days ago
http://www.seo-doctor.co.uk/It’s not that shady, infact I quite like it
Mike 1225 days ago
Yeah, that’s shady for sure. Makes you want to go find a few link farms and help them submit their snippet there too. But, you wouldn’t do that. You have too much integrity, right?
Lisa Myers 1225 days ago
http://www.vervesearch.comI don’t think it’s admirable at all, it’s not just shady, it’s just wrong, especially if it’s a large SEO outfit, they should know better. I say out the fuck#rs..
Jane Copland 1225 days ago
http://janecopland.co.uk/I’d say that it’s potentially a lot more dangerous than the risk of being outed for buying links. If you’re outed, you’re not only outed as buying, but for this added bit of trickery. Only search engines and total idiot white hats go mental about the fact that a site dares buy links. Many more people would turn their noses up at using other sites as a shield against idiots white hats and search reps.
I see why they decided on this little piece of creativity (and it’s undoubtedly worked on a fair number of people). However, if you’re going to get caught doing something (let’s say it’s under age drinking), you’re probably going to get into less trouble if you do it honestly (out of a beer bottle) than dishonestly (out of a water bottle).
I, of course, want to know who’s responsible, because I’m nosy like that.
Simon Barker 1225 days ago
http://www.zath.co.ukSounds rather dodgy to me – perhaps you should out them…at your next speaking gig?
Richy C. 1225 days ago
I don’t suppose you can share even the initials of the company involved? I’ve got a stinking suspicion I know who this could be and I wouldn’t be too surprised if they’ve sunk this low.
Richard 1225 days ago
I’m with Lisa – that’s not creative, it’s just wrong. And I’d like to bet their clients don’t know.
If they are a large UK outfit then they should know that they run the risk of being outed for pulling that sort of stunt and outed they should be.
Of course we all know they’ll just blame it on the intern as Nichola pointed out.
GerBot 1225 days ago
http://www.gerarddoyle.comThis is more than an SEO question, this is legal.
This is about protecting the value in a brand. Brands are built with effort, time and money. They are protected by law to stop this kind of thing happening
Ignoring the bait and switch practices the impact on the client brand would result in damages and probably fall under ‘passing off’.
I think you have a responsibility to the client to tell them so they can defend their brand and seek damages if they feel there has been any.
David C. 1225 days ago
http://www.dncom-marketing.comI think it is a bit shady, especially when you are risking the health of your client’s website and/or online brand. Perhaps I would do something along those lines for an internal project of mine that I do not mind risking, but never with a client’s website. BTW, why would someone send this kind of request to an established SEO such as David Naylor? It is almost as if you were asking for it
DaveN 1225 days ago
@david C it was not on davidnaylor.co.uk i have a few websites SEO is just a hobby
JK
Simon Turner 1225 days ago
http://simonjturner.co.ukI say out them, not only because it’s pretty dodgy but I want to know who it is! I’m sure they’re not the only ones at it though.
GerBot 1225 days ago
http://www.gerarddoyle.comHi had to read the explanation at the top of the post to David C.
n.b please excuse the html link just wanted to see what rishil did.
Lord Manley 1225 days ago
http://twitter.com?status=@LordManleyBut it didn’t work!
BIZUSAONLINE 1225 days ago
http://www.onsitelocal.comThe nerve of them, but very sly, be careful out there!
Sonny Truyen 1224 days ago
http://www.twitter.com/sonnytruyenThis strategy is on the upper end of the dodgey scale. Though I believe you should be dodgey and do whatever it takes, theres a line you shouldnt cross and these guys obviously jumped that line. Love them for their creativity though
A) No.
B) Hehe maybe over some beers at a pub
C) Definately No.
D) Yes, would be funny to see their responses
Lea 1224 days ago
As it was against a client you are currently representing, I think the most correct action is to forward the whole correspondence to the client’s legal team (you may have to explain how it will impact the client’s brand).
Amelia Vargo 1224 days ago
This is definitely the wrong way to go about link building! Great that you’ve exposed the ploy… My curiosity is awakened though, I want to know who it was!
Dane 1224 days ago
Absolutley out them! As someone who appoints agencies on good faith not to employ unthical approaches to offsite SEO, the more transparent an agency’s methods are the better. Having been on the recieving end of this type of ploy (albeit when migrating a disaply schedule from one media agency to another) I think it is about time some of these suppliers get what is coming to them. Name, shame and vow not to consider them again.
Perhaps that is a little harsh, it may of been a bullish account exec and not company policy, but agencies should maintain some level of QC in their link building activity!
gabs 1224 days ago
http://www.seohome.co.ukWas it from Tom W***** ?
If so yep had the same big uk seo company who using TLA like crazy too
Mikkel deMib Svendsen 1224 days ago
http://joblr.netI’m with GerBot – this is also a legal issue. Its brand abuse and I know most of my large brand clients would NOT like this – their lawyers, however, would love it (more work to them).
So, OUT THEM, Dave!
Bas van den Beld 1224 days ago
http://www.basvandenbeld.comI think Dave ‘exposing’ it like this will make them sh*t their pants enough already, but in general I would say ‘out them’, though knowing Dave he won’t do that. Sending it over to Google and send them a link to this post should be enough for now. If after that they repeat this however, its a whole different ball game…
Lord Manley 1224 days ago
http://twitter.com?status=@LordManley@Gabs, is that not a bit Petty?
Mikkel deMib Svendsen 1224 days ago
http://joblr.netBas, I just don’t see how Google can combat this method any better than any other paid links they try to identify (more or less succesfully) …
Tony Marais 1224 days ago
http://www.searchengineoptimisationworks.com.au/Take them to the cleaners! Anyway you can just don’t sink to their level.
This was a common tactic and also a spam tactic of my previous employer (whose name I will not mention).
Bust them wide open!
gabs 1224 days ago
http://www.seohome.co.uk@Lord Manley wasn’t meant to be petty I’ve just had a load of emails that read like the above.
Thought Tom was a common enough name.
Lord Manley 1224 days ago
http://twitter.com?status=@LordManley@gabs – Ah! not Tom W Petty then
gabs 1224 days ago
http://www.seohome.co.uk@Lord Manley grrrr I so missed that hehehehee..
GerBot 1224 days ago
http://www.gerarddoyle.comProbably Latitude
http://www.nma.co.uk/news/latitude-moves-out-of-administration-after-second-buyout/3008511.article
James 1224 days ago
WOW. I have not heard of this before, but it is certainly a creative tactic! Nice to be forewarned though in case it happens to anyone else, which I’m sure it will.
We are holding January Webinar for anyone looking for less shady tactics!
Phill Midwinter 1224 days ago
http://esseoo.comOff the top of my head – there are two other major SEO companies still pulling this in the UK.
Naming them is complicated though, and I can understand why David doesn’t do so.
Personally, I just hope they get caught out and lose enough cash to realise it’s a bad idea.
Maddie Weber 1224 days ago
http://www.kunocreative.com/blogI suppose it depends.
The brilliant thing about peer-to-peer networking these days is that everyone has a voice online. So in order to better educate your peers about a potentially harmful (and dodgy) company, it is your opportunity to let your communities know.
Then again, will letting everyone know serve any purpose, or will it just be gossip? Will saying something change anything, for you? for them? for anyone else?
These are all questions you have to ask every time you want to burn down a bridge as it were.
We’re all curious though, so if you are going to tell us, please do it here. lol. thanks!
Maddie
@maddieweber
Richard Gregory 1224 days ago
http://www.latitudegroup.comNot us GerBot;-)
Jen 1224 days ago
http://searchslingshot.comThe sad part is, tactics like this aren’t really that uncommon. There are still plenty of SEO’s and SEO companies which make their living exploiting people’s naivete and that kind of short sightedness deserves to get burned. Which is why I love it when they inadvertently cross someone who knows what they are doing.
Vic 1224 days ago
http://www.businessaccent.comThat really pisses any person. Why would they use your client just to get what they need. Yeah, better report them to Google.
Uttoran Sen 1223 days ago
http://technascent.comso your client was used as a shield, that way if something bad happened in case, it would happen to your client’s site… i guess seo stuff is just going badly out of hands lol, though not funny at all…
Mark 1223 days ago
http://www.buyfitnesstreadmills.comMakes sense, with Google saying they are taking action against sites that buy links…
a) you protect your client from webmasters reporting the request
b) you can get your competitor to suffer the penalty instead if enough requests are reported.
(This of course is all in theory because we don’t actually know how google handle these kinds of spam reports and link buying).
David Ross 1223 days ago
http://www.seoscotland.co.ukSo what did you do in the end?
RG 1223 days ago
http://www.hotelsoutlook.comI find it very funny – people are very creative
Nigelc 1222 days ago
Dave I think you have a duty as one of the leading experts in the industry to share your knowledge about who this is
Dixon Jones 1222 days ago
http://www.receptional.comI guess the issue (legally) is one of “passing off” – but it’s not altogether clear where in the law they have gone below the line, because they say they are acting as agents of your client… If your client has an affiliate program, that makes them an agent!
I think outing the practice has – in itself – been a revelation. Not sure if outing the company helps.
Bonnie Gibbons 1222 days ago
http://bonniegibbons.comCan we add a codicil: Don’t be so incoherent that your message gets tossed immediately, before we even have time to review it and discover your scam!
It took me a couple of readings of Dave’s post to even figure out what those emails were attempting to accomplish…
emiel 1222 days ago
could someone explain this and why it is wrong in very easy english? to be honest my brain is not convertingg what i just read.
NigelC 1220 days ago
The method of link building isn’t the issue here guys, actually the method of link building is a very good one and covers a lot of tick boxes for link building.
The issue is they way in which this agency approached bronco using one of Daves clients as the target link to open dialogue and then after agreeing everything changing the target site to a competitor of Daves client.
Daniel Cheeseman 1219 days ago
http://www.purplerain-it.co.ukDO NOT BUY LINKS! Gain links from natural sources, take your time and have patience and you will be rewarded..
John Scott Cothill 1219 days ago
10/10 for creativeness & being a bunch of shady gits!
Of course, the majority of people here would love to know who it is (me included), but I think if we were in the same shoes as David, it would make sense not to sucker punch them publicly. Forwarding all info to Google is a must though, obviously.
David, maybe we can play ‘Guess Who’? Go on, please do!
Scott Tehrani 1217 days ago
http://www.webmarketinggroup.co.ukD)
Cheeky but quite funny
George Manlangit 1217 days ago
http://georgemanlangit.comI would at least do [C].
I don’t know if it’s going to hurt them. But it’s worth a try.
Joe Connor 1217 days ago
http://blog.cantbarsed.comThanks for sharing that, it’s a very cunning approach.
I can’t see they’ve broken any laws and I don’t think we should be thinking about changing laws etc.
The best way to handle this is do exactly what Dave has done, share the knowledge as widely as possible then the scam doesn’t work – if enough of us play along until the last minute they’ll soon get fed up won’t they?
SEO Canada 1216 days ago
http://www.quenet.org/For some strange reason whenever I get an email in my inbox which is in regards to buying or selling links it seems to get forwarded to Matt Cutts…. there really must be a problem with my Thunderbird….
Rampage 1208 days ago
Well I bet you’ve never ranked for anything important if you aren’t involved in buying links. Its a simple fact that without buying anchor text targeted links you are not going to be able to compete – unless you have massive domain authority already.
Its funny reading all the “out him” comments – I’ve sold anchor texts links to at least one of the people saying it in this very thread. Any seo’s who are hipocritical enough to buy links on one hand, then report people when they do it also, should be ashamed.
This Week: What Have We Been Reading? | Matan Media 1189 days ago
[...] Of The Rest Linking Building Don’t Ever Do This – by Dave Naylor at davidnaylor.co.uk Google Docs Adds Files Storage, AKA GDrive – by [...]
Acervan 1157 days ago
http://www.macrepairsmanchester.co.uk/Naughty, but a little funny.
Acer 1148 days ago
http://www.macrepairsleeds.co.uk/funny stuff.
Anon 1102 days ago
Would you out someone after accepting a proposed payment? Which is dirtier? The ploy by them or the ploy by you? Surely sending Google the emails as written proof suggests that you sell links, even if you don’t, so I guess you wont. Albeit a good tactic Dave in thwarting a competitiors plans ~ we can’t always take the moral high ground as a complete white hat innocent follower of Google guidelines.
idietcola 1097 days ago
http://justlinkbuilding.com/mmm indeed shady – but essentially its the process of linkbuilding – it is indeed a little amateur but heck i wouldnt out them – i recall this some time ago from go compare…
http://yossarian.co.uk/seo/gocompare-link-spamming-again/28
which ended in them getting sandboxed – i think – asking for re-inclusion and getting it -they then hit back with the TV campaign with the singing…
either way – never reveal a client untill a deal is closed!
Christian 545 days ago
http://www.superior-is-digital.deI know this article is a bit old, still not much changed until today. But seriously guys, all this “tell google” shit wont do, google only cares if its really obvious and they need to do something… they are bad at what they do to protect the web !