The Risk and Reward of Buying Links: A Case Study
April 15th, 2008 by MarkIn spite of all the controversy and backlash we’ve seen in the last few months stemming from the purchase and sale of links that pass pagerank, there is still a healthy and thriving market them.
My younger brother runs an ecommerce site for the sporting goods store where he’s a ski technician, and he made an interesting discovery while he was researching his competition the other day.
He saw that one of his competitors for a certain kind of baseball bat had an authority listing for the keyword, which raised a red flag for him, because the keyword was relatively obscure and not that competitive. He did a little digging and what did he find? This:
That was quite a few links for his ecommerce competition to have to their site, so he took a look at where they were getting them, and he found sports-central.org. Now why would these guys be giving away a site-wide to another ecommerce site with the anchor text of their choosing? Here’s why:
And there it is - a quick glimpse into the still thriving market for links that pass Google juice.
This is an interesting case study. Here you have cheapbats.com, who is fighting the seo battle as an ecommerce site, which I can tell you isn’t always so easy. They need links, because for ecommerce sites Google traffic is pretty much our lifeblood. On the other side of the table you have sports-central.org, who has nearly 16,000 pages in Google’s index and homepage PR of 5. It has all the pieces of a beautiful link-buying marriage.
So what’s my point? My point is that even though we’ll never buy or sell links on Court’s Internet Marketing School, that doesn’t mean it won’t work. Aaron has posted plenty of times about how buying links is going to be part of many sites’ SEO strategy for years to come, and how they’re not likely to be penalized for it.
The other day Vic took time to mock Shoemoney for whining about the hypocrisy of some big SEO names when it comes to buying and selling links, and of course it was well-deserved and hilarious (thanks Vic). I did think Shoemoney made one valid point though. The likelihood that Google will penalize you for buying/selling links is directly tied to whether you’re publicly making a fool of their precious algorithm. That’s why Court and so many others were penalized a few months ago.
I’m not going to tell you you should buy links, and I’m not going to tell you you shouldn’t buy links. I’ve been very tempted the last few days by this sports-central.org deal - an extra 16,000 links to my ecommerce site could push me to number one for a lot more of my keywords.
Is it worth it? I’m not sure yet. But it’s up to each one of us as business owners to evaluate the risk and reward of buying links in a search world that Google owns.
Save to del.icio.us
Digg This!
Post to Facebook
StumbleItRelated Posts:
Whiners Stay Broke - Paid Links Continued
In his last post (The Risk and Reward of Buying Links: A Case Study), Mark talked about paid links -...
Saturday Case Study - HowToMobile.com (Week 5)
Today is HowToMobile.com's one month anniversary (I actually wrote this on the 6th)! The site was st...
Saturday Case Study - HowToMobile.com Case Study (Week 4)
The Saturday theme here at CourtneyTuttle.com is a ‘make money online’ case study of a HowToMobi...
Saturday Case Study - HowToMobile.com (Week 6)
I can't believe that HowToMobile.com has already been up for over five weeks. It doesn't seem that l...
Building Authority With Blogroll/Sitewide Link Exchange
Warning: This lesson is going to expose the brutally honest side of Court. :)
When I wrote my la...
Keyword Sniping Case Study Update
Ok guys I have an update on they keyword sniping case study I have been working on. Back in December...
April 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Nice piece… my stance is pretty much the same as yours. I wont tell anyone to buy links but that definitely doesn’t mean that it wont work.
People who buy links need to monitor them carefully. You may see Yahoo Site Explorer showing all those links for sports-central.org but that does not 100% mean Google are recognising them and allowing full link juice to pass through. Who knows, they maybe right now.. but next week they may crack down on them.
Buying links definitely works… you just need to keep track of which sites are actually providing a true benefit to you.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
It’s true - you have to keep track of your links. There are programs like lavalinx to track them, or if you have access to a programming nerd (like I do with my brother, you can have him write a php script that keeps track of them).
Thanks for the insight!
April 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Hi Mark, thanks for responding. Just to make it clear, when I say keep track of your links I specifically mean ‘keep track of your paid links’. This is not always easy..
Lets imagine you buy and are paying for 10 links on monthly fees and these links are mixed in with the natural links that your site has been obtaining. After a while it gets difficult to see which of your paid links are truly providing value for money. Which ones do you drop and which ones do you keep? Buying links is a tricky game if you dont have a very big budget. Once you start paying for a link on a recurring fee it is quite hard to stop! So be careful if you pay for links, and constantly check to see if they are providing you with a ROI.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Thanks for the clarification - you’re right, tracking the ROI on paid links could be tricky, but is essential.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
It is funny in some niches you have to buy tons of links just to compete. I checked the back links of the number 1 web site for the term I am targeting and 70% of links were bought. Either through review me, blogsvertise, direct links selling, hosted marketing, etc. I estimated how much it would cost to compete with the amount of links he acquired and figured it to about 2,000 in one time link buys and 1,000 monthly recurring.
Problem is you cant even report the guys since most links are hard to prove are bought. Cest La Vie
April 15th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
That is not true if you report them for bought links they will do a visual then load it up again the db and let the bot spider backward as soon as it finds a trend of links compared to other sites they are gone.
If I am working a niche that I will make sweet money and during my analysis I find paid links I report them and get them to lose the rank again this is not a maybe I have done this over one hundred times and maybe 10 times I was not able to get a site to lose the authority. Noobs are the easiest cuz all buy the links from the same companies
April 15th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
How do you tell that your competitor has paid links?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
i think it is irrelevant if you buy links or not , it is so much quicker to buy links but not everybody has the money to do this
April 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
My first thought as I read this was - Ouch! This is going to hurt cheapbats.com. It will be interesting to see if this has any effect on their ranking for a particular keyword phrase…
April 15th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I had the same thought as I posted it, but I guess that’s one of the things you have to factor into your decision about whether to buy links.
You’re always going to be wondering if your competition is made up of guys like me who will post about you, or guys like Vic who really know their stuff and will get your authority yanked. It’s all part of the game.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I’ve got to be honest, this looks like a thinly veiled hit job on cheapbats. You obviously are trying to help the site your brother runs (as evidenced by the keyword anchor text to his site and the nofollow to the other) and have chosen to do so by publicly outing the site that appears to have purchased links.
You and Vic, and anyone else that does this type of thing, are simply pawns in Google’s game of fear and intimidation. I guess you don’t mind Google telling you how to run your website and dictating how you can and can’t make money from it, but I for one do. Just remember you bent over for Google on this issue when they decide to change the rules and go after a site you own.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Oh, Ben. Welcome back.
Actually there wouldn’t be much reason to thinly veil anything. If I wanted to run a hit on cheapbats I’d take five minutes and follow Court’s instructions on reporting paid links below. Then I could fulfill my diabolical plan to boost my brother’s boss’s store (a guy that could care less about web sales by the way) and make my brother look good at a job he’ll be leaving soon. Darn you for seeing right through all that.
I think I made it pretty clear that I’m back and forth on whether to buy the same site-wide for my own ecommerce site.
Calm down Ben.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Mark, I certainly wouldn’t suggest buying the same site-wide now. You’ve just demolished any potential value it had with this post. See that’s the problem I have with people outing paid link buyers and sellers. Not only are you devaluing a product that someone purchased, you’re also devaluing a fellow webmaster’s site.
Selling links is not immoral or wrong in any way, Google has simply decided that they don’t want webmasters to make money that way. As I said, I’d rather not be told how to run my websites. I guess not everyone shares that feeling.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
so how do you report the paid links?
I remember reading about this about a year ago, but it wasn’t relevant then so I didn’t pay much attention.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
All you have to do is sign into your Google Webmaster Tools account and there will be a link that says, “Report Paid Links”. Google will then give you a form where you can report the site that is selling and the site that is buying.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Hey Google, congrats, it looks like you’ve won over a few more rat finks!
April 15th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Man Ben it’s always nice to have you around. Sorry to hear that you ran out of money and had to sell your blog for a bag of rice.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
LMAO. Nice dig.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
From Court that is!
April 16th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Court, I understand you’re not a fan of mine because I pointed out a mistake in one of your posts about SEO. But really, what does the fact that I sold one of my blogs have to do with the fact that this post turned your blog (and from the comments, some of your readers) into Google’s stool pigeon?
April 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Ben Google hasn’t turned me into anything. I do what it takes to have success, period. If you could calm your ego enough to make the best out of the tools available, you might be able to get more traffic from Google.
If you’re that proud of the sale of your blog, why not publish the price? Now you’re going to come back and say that the buyer won’t let you. Haha that’s convenient..
Look man I get it, you don’t want to look stupid. You also want to go around acting like you know everything about SEO. If you were ‘all that’ when it comes to SEO you would have been able to do a lot more with that site of yours.
The fact is Ben, you found a method for getting traffic that works - it’s called trolling. You go to sites and cause a big ruckus and some people believe your bull. Nice work - you should publish an e-book about it.
I’m not a fan of yours because I see you do this garbage all over the place - not because of a criticism here. You are a troll Ben. If you’re ok with that, keep doing it.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Court,
Please re-read my comment. I didn’t say Google turned you or your blog into anything. I said that this post has turned your blog into Google’s stool pigeon.
As you mentioned, I am not allowed to publish the price. Of course you know that because I stated as much on the blog when I said it had been sold. I signed a confidentiality agreement with the new owner (at their request) but if you get him to wave that, I’ll certainly tell people how much it sold for. I’m not trying to brag and you’re the one that brought the sale into this.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think I “know everything about SEO”. I absolutely do not. I pointed out an error on one of your posts about SEO and somehow I’m a know it all? Are you seriously so insecure that you can’t stand someone disagreeing with you? I will say that I do know a fair amount about SEO and getting sites to rank well, but I’m certainly not the best out there. Rather than being “all that” I prefer to think that I’m constantly learning.
I’ll tell you what, you can remove the URL that my name is linked to if you honestly think I’m doing this to drive traffic. Hell I haven’t published a post on the site my name links to in quite some time. I don’t care about driving traffic by commenting here, I simply want to point out the effect that a post like this has.
Google is trying to force it’s “standards” down webmasters’ throats thereby dictating what we can and cannot do with our own sites. By publicly outing sites that buy and sell links you’re simply propagating their FUD campaign and handing them more and more power over webmasters, including yourself. You might not disagree with any of Google’s policies now, but those policies are subject to change and once you’ve given Google all the tools to dictate your actions, it will be too late to do anything about it.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Ben I’m sorry LOL man but you are way too funny. I can handle when people point out a real mistake - you made an uneducated guess.
In the end, it came down to credibility which for some reason you think you have.
It’s a little hypocritical to say we shouldn’t write this post because of the effect isn’t it? Last time I checked you were the one preaching that no one should be ‘dictating what we can and cannot do with our own sites’.
You know what Ben, I’ll make you a deal. Go prove that you know the first thing about SEO and then we’ll have this discussion. Until then, why should anyone listen to your SEO bull?
April 15th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Google really frowns on link buying huh? It is like you say “you’re publicly making a fool of their precious algorithm.” LOL
April 16th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Hahahaha…don’t make public fools of Google and their algorithm…that comment really got me roaring with laughter.
Link buying is cool, as long as you do it discreetly. Don’t buy links from the snake oil vendors that make extravagant claims.
We did and experiment with this, on one of our fool-around sites, and went from PR4 to PR2…will never recommend this approach to clients.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:37 am
There has to be a difference between buying links for links sake, and buying links for promotions sake.
It makes good business sense to buy links to your site, advertise on other sites, the more links you get the more traffic you get, and more buzz you build for your site and brand.
The whole follow/no follow tag is a game I don’t want to play, to me it just points out the fact that you are trying to hoard your own link pop. Spread the love I say.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:48 am
[…] has become a hot topic but today Courtneytuttle took it to another level. He got so bitter he actually posted a site that sells links. It reminded me of a kid who has been […]
April 16th, 2008 at 11:05 am
In all this, where does something old fashioned called ethics come in?
April 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am
In my opinion, if your ethics are Google’s guidelines, then buying and selling links would be unethical. Otherwise, it’s no more or less ethical than purchasing an advertisement.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Ben, The problem is buying or selling links that pass PAGE RANK. Buying or selling links to
*Increase targeted traffic
*Direct traffic to a funnel or sales page
*Increase brand recognition
Are all cool with Google. It’s followed links that, essentially, buy SERP ranking that Google doesn’t like, and understandably so.
They put a great deal of effort and money into providing listings that are on the front page due to relevance, authority, and quality links. Buying page rank (Followed links) is gaming the system.
It’s NOT the same as advertising. It’s perfectly legitimate for a political candidate to buy advertising, and do campaigning to raise name recognition, and awareness on policy stances. It’s NOT okay for them to buy votes.
But who is the FEC to tell people how to run their election?
What if it was Digg. Is it Okay to buy votes on Digg, or does that violate their TOS? What if I bought my way to the front page of Digg and you knew about it? Would you be a “rat fink” as you put it?
Wouldn’t I sound silly complaining about “who are they to tell me how I run my website” if they were to blacklist me for gaming THEIR site.
Wouldn’t Digg consider that sort of behavior to be spam? Hmm. I wonder if Google has a term for people that game their results. It probably wouldn’t have anything to do with a salty canned meat product though.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to rank in Google, or sell rank in Google, but you don’t want them to have a problem with YOU gaming the results on THEIR site.
You want to live without Google, by all means go ahead. That includes being indexed by them, and that’s where your hypocritical position exposes you. You want it both ways.
Run your website however you want, but Google is THEIR site. THEY get to dictate how you get to use it.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Dang that was a good comment Fiar - one of the best we’ve ever had here.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Fiar, PageRank is Google’s creation and something they attached to links. Links existed before Google did and the fact that Google needs people to put nofollow tags on links that are purchased is ridiculous. It’s their problem, they created it, they should fix it.
Buying a link isn’t necessarily trying to game Google. As you mentioned there are several legitimate reasons to buy or sell links. What Google has a problem with is the fact that it can’t tell the difference without people telling them using the nofollow tag. Their algo is based on links but there’s no way to detect the intent of a link and that’s where their weakness comes in.
And I haven’t even touched on the incredible conflict of interest that is involved when Google tries to kill off an online advertising model that they don’t control. The vast majority of the public will never hear about the nofollow etc, and if they hear anything, it’s going to be that buying and selling links on your website is bad.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Ben, your arguments are easily refuted.
Pagerank is Google’s creation. Yes, they attatched it to links. Google ONLY needs people to put nofollow tags on purchased links if people want Google to look favorably upon them. It’s Google’s service, they created it, and if you want to benefit from it, you’ll play by their rules.
You’re right on the second point also - Buying a link isn’t necessarily trying to game Google. So, if you’re not interested in gaming Google, you have no problem putting a nofollow tag on purchased links.
Your last point is the best one - “Google tries to kill off an online advertising model that they don’t control”. Google has stated MANY times that buying links is not inherently wrong in their eyes - they understand the value of it. Their problem comes with links that pass pagerank because they don’t have a nofollow tag on them. So, this business that they are “killing” is directly related to their business - the advertising model NOT related to Google is just fine in their eyes.
I don’t like how much power Google has right now either - and I hate the fact that we have to listen to what they say to remain competitive. However, the idea that they are being unfair in protecting their business is childish and one sided.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:48 am
I understand that Google is trying to protect their business but they aren’t doing it by improving their product, they’re doing it by trying to dictate what other websites do.
The other HUGE issue is what Google considers a paid link. Obviously if I say I’ll pay you $$ per month for a link on your site that’s a paid link. But what about if I offer you a service or good in exchange for that link? Maybe I will host your site for free in exchange for the link. Is that a paid link? What if you link out to your clients (which Google itself does in several different places)… is that paid? Obviously if they hadn’t given you their business, you wouldn’t be linking to them so that’s a monetary motive behind the link. Are reciprocal links paid links? What about affiliate links?
My point is, Google is trying to dictate how people link to each other and that’s messing with the very fabric of the internet. Sure you can do whatever you want and not be allowed in Google but with 65% of the searches in the US going through Google, is that really an option anymore? There is such a thing in the US as unfair business practices and IMO Google has crossed that line.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
With any decision like this, it’s always risk vs. reward. More than likely, eventually Google or someone else will catch you buying links and you will get penalized. The only question is will you make enough money between now and then to make this a solid investment. For people who toss up throw-away sites, buying a ton of links, getting massive traffic for a month or two and pullin’ in a pile of cash is enough of an incentive to do this, they don’t care about the long term repercussions. However, if it’s a site you’re hoping to have up for a while, then this certainly isn’t the way to go.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
The Risk and Reward of Buying Links: A Case Study | Internet Marketing | Strategy & Services
In spite of all the controversy and backlash we’ve seen in the last few months stemming from the purchase and sale of links that pass …
April 16th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
STUMBLED!
Its a grey area right now.
VOTED for you at:
http://www.newsdots.com/industrynews/a-case-study-internet-marketing-strategy-services/
April 16th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
You can say what you want about Google having a problem with you buying links without no-follow attachedm but the problem is that Google is not taking its own rules seriously enough. As mentioned earlier, Google cannot always 100% distinguish between a paid link or a organic link. This is massive problem, and it is Google’s problem.
How am I supposed to rank on Google without buying links, when Google is recognising the paid links that some of my competitors have had in place for years?
Lets look at this example… famous Gambling (won’t call out a name, you can look) ranks No.1 on Google undisputably for ‘Online Casino’ - the entire site has a silly amount of links poiting into with chosen anchor texts - who can imagine a gambling site getting 300,000+ organics links with many that just happen to be with the appropriate anchor text! Surely google has manually reviewed and checked the No.1 ranking site for such a term (im sure they rank very well for many others!) but it has not received a penalty? I wonder why? Sounds dodgy to me. If Google wanted to get serious about stopping paid links it would start penalizing the ‘BIG’ sites that are ranking well and clearly buying links. If Google don’t do this then they are basically saying to other sites ‘you can’t compete unless you buy links’.
Anchor text is one of the major problems… come on, who would seriously link to someone with only the words ‘Online Poker UK’? But if you wanna rank for that term, thats what you gotta do and the only way you can get those links with that chosen anchor text is by BUYING IT! It’s a massive catch 22 put in place by G.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Gosh those were some really interesting comments to read. I think having such an informed and argumentative but civilized discussion ensue from your blog post is a dream for every blogger!
April 18th, 2008 at 4:01 am
[…] The Risk and Reward of Link Buying. Excelent article by Mark Butler at Courts Internet Marketing School. […]
April 20th, 2008 at 1:51 am
[…] considered a paid link. Mark has a great post on Court’s Internet Marketing School discussing the Risk and Reward of Buying Links. He goes over a very interesting case study and helps to clear up some of mystery behind why Google […]
April 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
[…] Article by Marc of courtneytuttle.com […]