Is article syndication still a safe & effective method of link building?
-
Hello,
We have an SEO agency pushing to implement article syndication as a method of link building. They claim to only target industry-relevant, high authority sources. I am very skeptical of this tactic but they are a fairly reputable agency and claim this is safe and works for their other clients.
They sent a broadly written (but not trash) article, as well as a short list of places they would syndicate the article on, such as issuu.com and scribd.com. These are high authority sites and I don't believe I've heard of any algo updates targeting them.
Regarding linking, they said they usually put them in article descriptions and company bylines, using branded exact and partial matches; so the anchor text contains exact or partial keywords but also contains our brand name. Lately, I have been under the impression that the only "safe" links that have been manually built, such as these, should be either branded or simply your site's URL.
Does anyone still use article syndication as a form of link building with success? Do you see any red flags here?
Thanks!
-
Thanks everyone, you've helped solidify my position on this. Link building is extremely difficult and there are fewer and fewer "safe" activities, and unfortunately we don't have an active blog on this particular domain, but ideally I would rather they wrote 1 high quality article for our own site than 4 low quality articles for syndication.
Chris - I definitely agree that even if these articles don't hurt us in the short-run, they won't help us much in the long run, so I think I'll push back and get them to come up with some more ideas.
-
Is article syndication still a safe & effective method of link building?
People only "thought" it was "safe". Then penguin bit most of the websites that used article syndication.
We have an SEO agency pushing to implement article syndication as a method of link building.
When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I don't syndicate anything. Never have, never well. A page of great content costs too much money to give away. It feeds existing competitors and creates new ones.
I simply write good content, post it on my own site, and traffic has grown steadily over time. The more good content you have up, the more keywords it competes for, the more traffic you get, the more money you make.
-
Article syndication may help you build links but often at a cost to your own site's search presence. In the past we syndicated content to many high authority sites and received much referral traffic. However, in the long term this came at a cost to our own site's ability to rank for our own content.
What would often happen is that, even though we had published the content on our site first, a high authority site would outrank us for that content. Very few content partners were willing to specify our version as the canonical version using a cross domain canonical and inevitably our search traffic began to fall.
Since Panda we've realised that unique quality content is a must, and while we may have lost out on the referral traffic we might have received from content partner sites, we figured that having unique content and being an authority in our own area of expertise is what we should be aiming at - not getting masses of referral traffic which is often bounced visits in any case.
Really you need to weigh up what the benefit is to you from syndicating your content and whether this is worth putting your own ability to rank in search for your own content at risk.
-
David,
Something that you can be sure of is that links like that are going to be of less and less value to your site in the future. So, even if, in fact, it's "safe and works for their other clients", I think we all understand that it's not Google's intention that such links will always carry the value they do now or once had. While it may not incur any penalty at this time, their value to your site may be dubious and thus the value of such a service for company may be as well.
What is the value of those links? It might all just boil down to the question: Are you getting what you paid for?--and I think that's what you're asking. But, unless you're willing to tell us the price you're paying for the service, it's hard to give you an answer. On the other hand, you could go to top-tier content publicist and get a quote from them and see how such pricing fits within your marketing budget philosophy. These days, the more editorially-given a link appears to be to Google, the greater its value. As you scale down from that, the cost for acquiring them should be less and less.
Your company's link building is a trajectory based on how quickly it wants/needs visibility, how much visibility it wants/needs, its budget for this type of marketing, as well as its knowledge/understanding of this type of marketing. Faster, shorter-term trajectories targeting relatively small markets are on one end of the scale and do have their place. Slower, long-term trajectories are on the other end of the scale and can effectively achieve different business objectives, but not all of them. Base on that scale, article marketing today is on the faster, shorter-term, relatively-less-traffic trajectory. Does that meet with your company's business objective(s) and is that what you believe you're paying for?
-
I would be skeptical too. It doesn't seem like a good long term tactic because the websites are not linking to you editorially. Article syndication is typically considered to be a placed link, which Google doesn't seem to value as much as an editorial recommendation.
Here's a video from Matt Cutts from Google about article marketing which sounds similar to what is being proposed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5xP-pTmlpY
"Honesty I'm not a huge fan of article marketing..These are not as much editorial links where someone is really making a choice this is a great site...I would probably lean away from that."
The exception is if the article is syndicated on a highly trusted publication like a Forbes.com or Huffington Post in which case the links are trusted and seen as valuable endorsements.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Inbound Links - Redirect, Leave Alone, etc
Hi, I recently download the inbound links report for my client to look for some opportunities. When they switched to our platform a couple years ago, the format of some of their webpages change, so a number of these inbound links are going to an error page and should be redirected. However, some of these are spammy. In that case, someone recommended to me to disavow them but still redirect anyway. In other cases, some were "last seen" a year or two ago, so when I try to go to the URL the link is coming from, I also get an error page. Should I bother to redirect in these cases? Should I disavow in both cases? Or leave them alone? Thanks for any input!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AliMac261 -
Site Footer Links Used for Keyword Spam
I was on the phone with a proposed web relaunch firm for one of my clients listening to them talk about their deep SEO knowledge. I cannot believe that this wouldn’t be considered black-hat or at least very Spammy in which case a client could be in trouble. On this vendor’s site I notice that they stack the footer site map with about 50 links that are basically keywords they are trying to rank for. But here’s the kicker shown by way of example from one of the themes in the footer: 9 footer links:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RosemaryB
Top PR Firms
Best PR Firms
Leading PR Firms
CyberSecurity PR Firms
Cyber Security PR Firms
Technology PR Firms
PR Firm
Government PR Firms
Public Sector PR Firms Each link goes to a unique URL that is basically a knock-off of the homepage with a few words or at the most one sentences swapped out to include this footer link keyword phrase, sometimes there is a different title attribute but generally they are a close match to each other. The canonical for each page links back to itself. I simply can’t believe Google doesn’t consider this Spammy. Interested in your view.
Rosemary0 -
Inbound Links Inquiry for a New Site
For a site that is only one to two months old, what is considered a natural amount of inbound links if you're site offers very valuable information, and you have done a marketing push to get the word out about your blog? Even if you are receiving backlinks from authority websites with high DA, does Google get suspicious if there are too many inbound links during the first few months of a sites existence? I know there are some sites that blow up very fast and receive thousands of backlinks very quickly, so I'm curious to know if Google puts these kind of sites on a watchlist or something of that nature. Or is this simply a good problem to have?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Who's still being outranked by spam?
Over the past few months, through Google Alerts, I've been watching one of our competitors kick out crap press releases, and links to their site have been popping up all over blog networks with exact match anchor text. They now outrank us for that anchor text. Why is this still happening? Three Penguin updates later and this still happens. I'm trying so hard to do #RCS and acquire links that will ensure our site's long-term health in the SERPs. Is anyone else still struggling with this crap?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | UnderRugSwept2 -
Duplicate Articles
We submit articles to a magazine which either get posted as text or in a flash container. Management would like to post it to our site as well. I'm sure this has been asked a million times but is this a bad thing to do? Do I need to a rel=canonical tag to the articles? Most of the articles posted to that other site do not contain a link back to our site.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SirSud0 -
Google-backed sites' link profiles
Curious what you SEO people think of the link profiles of these (high-ranking) Google-backed UK sites: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.startupdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.lawdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.marketingdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.itdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.taxdonut.co.uk Each site has between 40k and 50k inlinks counted in OSE. However, there are relatively few linking root domains in each case: 273 for marketingdonut 216 for startupdonut 90 for lawdonut 53 for itdonut 16 for taxdonut Is there something wrong with the OSE data here? Does this imply that the average root domain linking to the taxdonut site does so with 2857 links? The sites have no significant social media stats. The sites are heavily inter-linked. Also linked from the operating business, BHP Information Solutions (tagline "Gain access to SMEs"). Is this what Google would think of as a "natural" link profile? Interestingly, they've managed to secure links on quite a few UK local authority resources pages - generally being the only commercial website on those pages.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | seqal0 -
Which of these elements are good / bad link building practices?
Hi, I need some help. I recently got some help with an seo project from a contractor. He did 50 directory submissions and 50 article submissions. I got good results, going up about 20 places (still a long way to the first page!) on google.co.uk on a tough key word Since this project I learned article marketing is not cool. So I am wondering about what I should do next. The contractor has proposed a new bigger project consisting of the elements listed below. I don’t know which of these elements are ok and which aren’t. If they are not ok are they: 1) a waste of time or 2) something I could get penalized for? Let me know what you think?? Thanks, Andrew 100 ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS [APPROVED ARTICLES] -> 1 article submitted to 100 article directories 50 PRESS RELEASE SUBMISSIONS [APPROVED & SCREENSHOTS]-> 1 PR writing & submissions to top 50 PR distribution sites each 150 PRIVATE BLOGS SUBMISSION [APPROVED ARTICLES] -> 1 article submitted to 150 private blogs submission 100 WEBSITE DIRECTORY SUBMISSION -> 1 url (home page) submitted to 100 top free web directories 50 SOCIAL BOOKMARKING [CONFIRMED LINKS] -> 1 url of site submitted to top 50 social bookmarking websites 40 PROFILE BACK-LINKS [CONFIRMED LINKS] -> 1-3 url's of site submitted and create 40 profile websites 50 SEARCH ENGINES -> submission to all the major search engines 20 NEWS WEBSITES -> Ping all links from reports to news websites
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | fleurya0