Editorial Link vs Sponsored Post

[BV222]

I've recently been offered a promotional opportunity on a reasonably high authority website in the same market as the site I'm running. Whilst trying to get in front of the website's target audience, I'm also looking to improve keyword positions for a particular search term and related terms.

I've been given two options:

1. A dedicated sponsored post (500+ words, images and links) about the company and the particular category of products I'm looking to promote.

2. A mention in one of their typical blog posts, including 1 image, text and 1 link. This article will include links to other websites. So a more natural page, I would assume.

Both options offer dofollow links.

I've read about Google's rules on sponsored posts, dofollow/nofollow, etc. But many people also contradict this (as is typical with SEO). A whole post about our products would obviously be better but not if it's at risk to our site. I'm obviously keen to obtain a few decent dofollow links and we are paying for this promotion. I'm also aware of stipulations regarding this too. But I think it depends how you look at it. You have to promote your online business somehow and paid advertising is an option. If you happen to obtain dofollow links as a result, that's just how it is, isn't it? Essentially, there is not much difference between this and other forms of outreach in terms of the links I'm acquiring. This is just a more direct route of achieving the same or very similar result. Having analysed some successful competitor sites, they have acquired both dofollow and nofollow links on high authority sites through paid promotion.

I'm very interested to hear others thoughts on the matter, as I am a little nervous about which option to choose, if any. I'm obviously also keen to increase the search position of the term/s I'm targeting too.

Many thanks

 

[justinaldridge]

This is a really interesting (and grey) area. From Google's perspective anything that is paid for is not something that has been earned, so you shouldn't get a ranking benefit from it.

However, most forms of marketing are paid for in one way or another.

Personally I would say go with whatever option suits you best. I would assume option 1 would showcase your products better to the website's audience.

Those links are unlikely to harm your site. If anything Google may choose to ignore them if its algorithm detects that perhaps the links aren't natural enough. If the site is strong and relevant we often find that the links are not discounted.

What we are seeing at the moment is that manual penalties are being given to sites for not nofollowing paid-for outbound links. So if anyone is going to get affected it will be the other site.

From your point of view, the possible impact on your site is that you just won't get any ranking benefit from those links.

I know some people will argue this but this is how it is at the moment.

 

[fisicx]

From your point of view, the possible impact on your site is that you just won't get any ranking benefit from those links.

I'd suggest that this is the more likely outcome. Google is getting wise to these sort of tricks and can spot a promotional post a mile away.

 

[BV222]

Again, thanks for the response.

I have since done more research and come to the same conclusions.

 

[webgeek]

Advertorials, done well, are the bread and butter of enterprise SEO.

For the other 99.9%, advertorials that are done poorly or with mediocrity are a great way to get you a Teleflora kinda arse kickin' that'll have you in tears at what happens to your rankings.

Create some infriggincredible content and offer it, exclusively to a site in your niche. Then do it again with different content for another site.

People love to publish great, original content. That's how you get sustainable backlinks - in limited quantity. You can't go hog wild with guest posting without some risk.

Advertorials have risk - it's up to you as to whether or not you want to risk a paid post banhammer from benevolent big G.

 

[makeusvisible]

The thing to remember is that Google's Guidelines are there as an advisory, and one which you should definitely stick to. However, also keep in mind that there isn't a man sat at Google's HQ manually checking which links are paid ones and investigating them on a case by case basis. They have to create hugely complex algorithms that try to learn from experience what is breaking their guidelines and what isn't.

So I suppose to flip it, your question is....."will Google's algorithms be smart enough to know I am breaking their Guidelines".....and in truth nobody can answer that question with certainty.

I would have in the back of your mind that once your link is on that external site, you have no control about that site going into penalty in the future, for selling outbound links..... and if that happens it will almost certainly impact you in a negative way.

 

[Ekim Saribardak]

Most of the websites that allow sponsored blog posts mention it somewhere in the published posts as "Sponsored Post". And I believe google is smart enough to realise it's a paid link.
Nonetheless, I believe from personal experience, If you get links from sponsored posts on powerful websites, it still has some (mediocre) value for ranking. (unless that website is all about paid links ofc.) The quantity of "referring domains" has a higher value these days if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Steve Alphabet]

Can you try both and see which one brings you better results? Set up some tracking in Google Analytics, maybe an enquiry form/pop-up on the page visitors will land on, and see what type of traffic you get.

 

[webgeek]

Most of the more expensive / high authority / high trust sites do NOT mention they are sponsored blog posts, because technically they allow 'free' publishing, if your article meets certain guidelines.

However, they also accept admin fees as a gratuity for speeding along your content and into a near-term slot on the editorial calendar. It's not far different from how the UK immigration system works (pay more for fast service).

I can assure you those high authority / high trust, niche relevant sites that are the most likely to make a positive impact do not make any mention of being sponsored/paid in any way, shape or form. Then again, not everyone has several hundred Pounds per article as a publishing budget.

 

[websensejim]

Option 2 seems to be the one that would get more traffic (it's an assumption without seeing the site, but a fair one I believe). I'd always choose traffic over any other potential link benefit.

 

[Adam-Smith]

I think 2nd option looks natural for your post. But 1st one looks quite promotional and keywords stuffing totally prohibited as well as against the rules. Also, I agreed with websensejim.