Līve Ambitions

I believe companies like PayPerPost and Text-Link-Ads are killing the SEO industry.  Why do I think this?  Because they openly advertise their services to the world. 

Google has always been opposed to paid links.  But now, with these paid linking services out in the mainstream, it would only be natural for search engines to react with stricter guidelines on passing link juice.

I’m sure these companies could care less about what they are doing to the SEO industry.  Why would they?  They’re making money by exploiting the system.

SEO is still important and effective, but companies like PayPerPost and Text-Link-Ads only add fuel to the fire.  Can you imagine what would happen if one day Google decided to remove backlinks as an algorithmic criteria for ranking websites?  It would pretty much kill the SEO industry as we know it, and all the link building that has been done in the past would be worthless.  Yes, there other factors of SEO besides link building, but it’s undeniable that link building is the biggest service market in SEO.

One should keep in mind that Google can easily cut off the link juice from any website or blog.  This means that you’re taking a greater risk when you buy links from a ”known” link seller.  PayPerPost and Text-Link-Ads exposes these “known” link sellers.

From what I can see, Google has penalized Text-Link-Ads.  When you run a search for “text link ads,” they are no where to be found.  But why isn’t PayPerPost.com penalized yet?  Their business model is based on the same concept as Text-Link-Ads.  I guess PayPerPost has a bigger problem to worry about.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has made it mandatory for bloggers to disclose when they are getting paid for posts.  This means that everyone will know exactly who is selling blog posts.  Those who do not disclose payment information risk getting fined by the FTC.

This is a follow-up to my previous post regarding the FTC’s intention to fine bloggers who do not disclose payment information for product or service endorsements.  According to information from Mashable, the FTC may fine bloggers up to $11,000 for not disclosing information about getting paid for product or service endorsements.  It seems like a hefty fine, and I think it will be enough reason for people to start disclosing how they are compensated by sponsors or advertisers.

Most of us are all for protecting the public interest.  But, shouldn’t there be certain boundaries that should not be crossed?  It seems that the FTC is giving too much weight to blogs.  Blogs are opinions.  Blogs are about perspectives.  Not every blog is considered ”authority” or a reliable source, and I think most readers have the sense to know that.  When you start policing what and how people talk about things, then you’re infringing on peoples’ right to freedom of speech.  Let the readers determine how much credence should be given to blogs and the content within.

If you want to endorse or review a product based on your personal experience, then you should have a right to without having to disclose whether or not you’re benefiting from it.  It is none of anyone’s business.  If a visitor reads your review, and decides to buy based on your suggestion, then it’s their prerogative.  It’s not practical to baby-sit every buyer or shopper out there.  It is ultimately the shopper’s responsibility to do their homework or research before spending money on anything.

What do you think?

Have you heard of this?  The FTC plans to monitor blogs for false claims and a lack of disclosure for compensation.

As you know, there are tons of blog owners out there that recommend products or services in return for some sort of compensation, whether it be cash or free products.  I would be curious to know how the FTC intends on tackling this massive challenge.  Also, I’m a little split on this subject because on one side, you have the issue of freedom of speech and on the other side, you have the issue of protecting the consumer.

I’m all for protecting the consumer, but where do you draw the line?  At some point, the consumer needs to take responsibility for their own actions.  If you get ripped off, it’s partially your fault for not doing sufficient research.  I know fake reviews on the web are easy to fabricate, however, you shouldn’t buy something solely based on a single review you read on the internet.  There will always be people who stretch the truth and even lie to make money.

I personally do not find anything wrong with promoting a product or service you believe in.  And, hey, if you can get compensated for something you would’ve written about anyways, why not?  It’s a win-win situation.  Now, the FTC wants you to disclose when you’re getting compensated for a review or recommendation.

I’m assuming the FTC is not so much concerned about monitoring personal blogs, but more interested in detecting flogs (fake blogs) or marketers that practice fakevertising (fake advertising).  An example of a flog would be a fake news site set up on an “official news” sounding domain to promote certain products or services.  An example of fakevertising would be using the name of a famous celebrity to promote a product.  I’m sure you’ve seen those fake ads featuring Oprah Winfrey or Dr. Phil.

Jay Weintraub offers an interesting look at flogs.  These unscrupulous marketers aren’t simply exercising their freedom of speech, they are taking it one step further.  They are blatantly misleading and lying to the public by using fake celebrity endorsements.