Author Rank - Using the brand as the author
-
Hi i'm building a new site and want to start building up author rank right from the start.
If you are building author rank for a brand, do you think its fine to use the brand as the actual author of the content, instead of a actual person?
Or using a stage name rather then a persons actual name, and have your writers write under that particular stage name?
Would love to hear peoples opinions.
Cheers,
Mark
-
I think that they could post article under your account/name... so when they leave.. it's yours... it is to build up your authorship, not theirs..
-
Thanks
From what i've read so far, if you do hire a writer/employee and have the articles posted under their name, but then they decide to leave the company, they take the author rank with them?
So how can brand, deal with this potential issue?
-
Why wouldn't you just implement rel=publisher? If it's a brand responsible for the content, my understanding is that that would be the appropriate thing to do.
-
If you are talking about creating authorship linking specifically (i.e. using rel=author markup) you can't do that using a brand, Mark. Google won't let you. Authorship can only be connected to a personal Google+ profile. Which makes sense when you think about it. A "brand" can't write an article. Only a person can.
Forget about trying to create a personal profile that is actually the brand name. Google is very specific that personal profiles must be real people, and quite regularly removes accounts that don't meet the criteria.
If you do want to connect your content to a brand, you'll need to use the rel=publisher markup instead, connected to a Google+ business page Unfortunately at this point that "publisher" connection doesn't yet lead to any kind of rich snippet advantage in the SERP (eg. an image next to the search result as in rel=author).
There is talk that Google will eventually start using a brand image or logo in SERPS associated with rel=publisher but it's anybody's guess exactly when, or if, this will actually occur.
As for creating a fake persona to represent all the contributors of content - since this is diametrically opposed to what rel=author is supposed to represent, I have to assume Google has (or will devise) methods for detecting that kind of manipulation and devaluing or penalising it.
The whole point of authorship is that is supposed to allow creation of a trust relationship with the writing of a particular person. If there's anything we've learned this year from all the algorithm updates, it's that trying to manipulate legitimate ranking/authority signals purely for marketing purposes is a fool's errand. You may get away with it for a while, but when it gets clobbered, all the effort you put into the manipulation will have been wasted. Or worse yet will get you penalised. Trying to represent the work of several writers under one "stage name" is just such a manipulation.
Best suggestion at this point? Use rel=publisher markup for "brand" content (like product descriptions etc) and connect individual authors' content (like how-to articles, blog posts etc) to each individual's personal G+ profile.
In other words - use the tool as it was intended, instead of trying to pervert it purely for marketing benefit.
Paul
-
Dear Mark,
The answer lies in your question and depends on your decision as whom you would like to promote or build reputation for. So, if you want to build the rank for your brand, you go ahead and do so and if you want to build the author rank for a person (he is your brand in this case), you go for it. Let us take a look at a scenario. Suppose, I own multiple brands, I would build author rank for my name so that I would be recognized as the one behind all these brands. I am the brand here. Coming to your case, if I were you, if this brand is going to be my biggest investment or a dream project, I would stick to building the author rank for my brand as going forward, I can leverage the brand name and use it to my advantage. Suppose, I am likely to come up with multiple web properties or brands in future, I would rather build the author rank for my name as I am the one standing behind all these brands or web properties and I want all the recognition and all my current and future brands can leverage my recognition.
Please note that the above opinion is personal.
Best,
Rafi
-
According to the https://plus.google.com/authorship page,
- Make sure that you have a profile photo with a recognisable headshot.
- Make sure that a byline containing your name appears on each page of your content (for example, "By Steven Levy").
- Make sure that your byline name matches the name on your Google+ profile.
- Verify that you have an email address (such as stevenlevy@wired.com) on the same domain as your content. (Don't have an email address on the same domain?
A brand is rarely an "author" - someone did the writing. Google wants that person tied to the work they created. Now, there may be ways "around" this but getting "around" stuff in SEO is why so many people scrambled so badly this year.
This page dissects it further: http://www.optimum7.com/internet-marketing/google-optimization/pros-and-cons-of-google-authorship-for-businesses.html
Most notably:
A company or brand’s Google+ page cannot be designated as the author of any web content. Therefore your company and brand name will not come up as the author in the web results.
**Warning:**If you’ve considered creating a company persona under the guise of a real person in order to have all authorship attributed to that particular Google+… Don’t do it! This really undermines AuthorRank and defeats the whole point of authorship. Google may also penalize you for trying to cheat their system… just as they’ve done for poor SEO practices through Google’s Panda-Penguin algorithm updates.
That's what I would follow. I would not suggest trying to game Authorship at all.
-
I guess this would depend on many instances. What are you selling? What is your site about? Which will benefit you more? If your selling a cd of yourself and your the author then I would say go with the author. If your selling a 1 of a kind brand that no one else in the world has, then go with the brand name.
Eventually you may want to just do both, but since your starting, it's not a bad idea to go with brand, because it will be those are considered the most natural backlinks to your site that isn't your url.
Have a great night.
MB
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
-
How can I use the images to improve my SEO?
Hi there, I am starting to work on my web and I have a question regarding the featured images of the articles. How can I work with them to improve the SEO of my posts? Thank you in advance! 🙂
Content Development | | lucywrites0 -
Blockquote, q, cite, when to use it all?
I'm asking this question with the full recognition that the issue may be a little contentious and possibly unresolved, but I would like the opinions of those here anyway. When I quote another article in mine I always use either blockquote or q. (q is an inline version of blockquote). But I recently learned you can add a cite attribution to those tags. Like so: I have a dream... or
Content Development | | eglove
<q cite="www.example.com">He who doesn't ask himself...</q> But these links don't show up anywhere, only in the code. To be as ethical as possible, I also put in an anchor link. That also is my first concern. Can putting the same link twice essentially right next to one another cause issues? To add to the complexity, I've also been researching the <cite>tag. And it's history is a little... well... rocky. It seems as though the current standard is to use either blockquote or q and then add in cite as a footer to it. Like this:</cite> They seemed to think that the greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves. It was considered as being bad enough to be a slave; but to be a poor man's slave was deemed a disgrace indeed! <footer>Douglass, F. (1999). <cite>[The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass]([link to book (or article where appropriate)])</cite>. Oxford: Oxford University Press,</footer> Notice the cite tag is only around the link to the item in question. Not the entire footer. Also note that the footer is inside the blockquote, thus it is not meant to be at the bottom of the page. So IF this is the standard way to do things, it answers my first question. But is it? And can the use of the footer tag confuse search engines? Ugh, crazy all over the place question, I know. But I'm struggling to find the right way to handle quotations in a way that is both academic, and SEO friendly. Start from the beginning if you must. 🙂1 -
Translated text: should I use canonical link?
Hello everybody, I'm writing an article in Danish, which I have translated into English on a Danish blog. But I'm not sure if I have to use the canonical link from the English version to the Danish, or whether I should just publish both without using canonical link. What is your recommendation for this? Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks & regards, Jonathan
Content Development | | JoLinda910 -
How does one write different pages of their website that are very similar in nature with using too much duplicate content?
We are a service provider and we have different links on our website to each of our services. The problem is the content that we would have for each is very similar. How can I ensure that it is not deemed duplicate content and ranked poorly because of it. Thanks
Content Development | | JayTurner0 -
Content Marketing, Who do I use?
I know nothing about content marketing, so who do I hire? Who are the authorities & leaders in this new era of digital marketing.
Content Development | | KristopherWho0 -
Should we implement rel=author on every past blog post
Hi guys, we're in the process of implementing rel=author markup on our blogs containing more than 3,000 posts. They are written by about 50 different people, and some of them don't blog anymore or are no longer with the company. Should we have rel=author for all blog posts, even those published in 2006? Thanks for your help!
Content Development | | lgrozeva0 -
How can I rank using translated content?
My friend has a website with similar content to mine, in a different language however. He has allowed me to translate his content if I link to it every post (can be nofollow). Does Google penalize me for clearly translated content? How can I make sure it ranks well? BTW, if I convince him that I don't link to him, is it better SEO-wise? Best,
Content Development | | kikocherman
Cherman0 -
Duplicate Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, is it a problem?
Hi, If i use same terms of use and privacy policy content across my websites, does it amounts to duplicate content issues? Does it affect my websites in any manner? Regards
Content Development | | IM_Learner0