• Matt probably earns a salary from Google as head of webspam
• Matt has been with Google since 2000, so probably has a few stock options
• If Matt says something about a new Google service that encourages other bloggers to write about it as well, it probably has an effect on Google’s share price, so there is a specific financial incentive.

We have seen how blog discussions can have both a massive positive and negative influence on large company share value, especially with Apple.

Full Disclosure From Google – No Way?

• Matt doesn’t have a comprehensive disclosure policy – he does have a short disclaimer to hide behind
• Matt doesn’t use nofollow on links to his source of income
• Matt used to post messages on popular SEO forums as “Google Guy”, but there was never any specific disclosure

Now whilst Matt has mentioned the FTC in relation to paid links before, it has always been in the sanctuary of his “private” blog. At SES San Jose I believe he is there in his official capacity.

Here are quotes from 2 live bloggers

Tamar at SEO Round Table

Matt is up first. Are paid links evil? He says that this is the wrong question. But the right question is – Do paid links that pass PR violate search engine quality guidelines? The answer is yes.

The FTC has said that you must disclose whether you are being paid to market.
Disclosure on the web: the web is used by both people (surfers) and machines (search engines)

What is adequate disclosure on the web? It is understood by both machines and people.

Make a clear disclosure: this won’t pass PageRank -
- Redirect URL blocked by robots.txt
- redirect through URL that does 302
- JavaScript
- nofollow
- Meta tag with nofollow

The Lisa at Bruce Clay Internet Business Consultants

Matt says that asking if paid links are evil or not is the wrong question. He says the right question is, “Do paid links that pass PageRank violate search engines’ quality guidelines?” The answer to that is yes.

He adds that the FTC has said that word of mouth marketing is like any other kind of marketing, and if you’re being paid to say something you should disclose that. Adequate disclosure means it is understood by both people and the machines.

How do you disclose a paid link to the search engines?

* Redirect through URL locked by robots.txt
* Redirect through URL t hat does a 302
* JavaScript
* Nofollow the link

Google says you can buy links within search engine guidelines – meaning they can’t pass PR. Google doesn’t care about those links. However, you cannot buy links that pass PageRank.

Examples of PPP links – fundraisers, donate cars, online, credit, super slots, providers, junk yards, online casino, bypass pill, dating advice, USA online poker, etc.

Both people and machines have to be able to understand the disclosure?
Also why does Lisa use the PPP acronym and not that of paid links rather than paid reviews?

Lets Take A Look at… YouTube

There is no requirement for disclosure
Views and ratings are counted whether a video is commercial or not, and commercial content can make it to the top of YouTube rankings.

Lets Take A Look At… Referral Units

Seven months ago I first published an article about how Google’s guidelines for their referral units don’t tally with FTC and WOMM.
3 Months ago I highlighted that specific questions regarding WOMM with referral units in response to articles on the Google Adsense blog were going totally unanswered.

So Many Different Compensated Links

Just the other day I wrote about the need for a level playing field for paid links.

Based upon current logic the WOMMA should be kicked out of the SERPs for having paid links on their site, along with all their members.
Hey guys, it only costs $1000 per year to join WOMMA, but you could probably barter a little SEO help and get them to pay you, with all those member pages being counted as duplicate content and supplemental.

WordPress

Matt is known to be a supporter of WordPress, and Google are going to make a lot of money displaying advertising on their high ranking blogs.

Surely Google should also have had a word with them about their linkfarm – I have also written about their linking structure in the past.

Matt Cutts still retains a link to WordPress.org on his blog.

From the WordPress default theme (hidden in a comment)

If you’d like to support WordPress, having the “powered by” link somewhere on your blog is the best way, it’s our only promotion or advertising.

So you are paying for use of WordPress by giving them a link – it is advertising without a nofollow on millions of blogs, not to mention the default blogroll and half the WordPress developers selling text links – yes Matt Cutts is using blogging software funded in part by text links.

Web2.0 Sites

At least one of the following sites is sponsoring a very popular WordPress plugin that gives them links, lots of them, quite certainly from millions of pages.

Digg, Del.icio.us, Netvouz, Dzone, ThisNext, MisterWong, Wists

The Sneaky Javascript Advertising

Javascript advertising and widgets is never totally innocent

If you want to be standards compliant as well as using script tags, you also use noscript, and include a link.

1000s of top search terms are dominated by people using links hidden in noscript that most users never see, and copy and paste without even realising it.

Some also take a standard link, and then modify it using javascript and CSS to look like an image link.

Do these huge corporations using these tactics have to now include nofollow on the noscript links?

For a light-hearted look, I have to post this video

Rentvine created this video, which isn’t their niche – they are a home rental site.

Ultimately it is Google’s search engine, and they want to provide better search results and encourage ethical SEO practice.

When I write a compensated review of a service, I almost always spend hours on them, far more than your average Yahoo intern working for the directory, and I earn far less.
The reviews are always relevant to my audience, and I am selective having turned down the last 3 offers I was made to review sites, over $400 I could have earned but didn’t because I respect my audience, or didn’t feel qualified. I only review a service when I can offer insight, opinion and feedback.

As I have mentioned in the past, this topic is of specific interest because of my future startup plans, where the links will be as “whitehat” as Matt Cutts linking to Google, or Robert Scoble to Podtech

If 100,000 shareholders, employees and companies for whom I provide a very specific service for link to my site, is it going to be webspam if they are linking through to authoritative and highly relevant content? I have no plans to ask them to nofollow the links.

Update: I just read Rand’s writeup at SEOmoz on this paid links session at SES San Jose and it offers insight into the tone of the session, further clarification and there were also revelations from the Q & A afterwards.

#
To Matt Cutts – can Google remove the ability of individual pages to pass linkjuice
_
Matt says that not only can they remove single page’s ability to pass PR, they can also remove the ability of only certain links on a page from passing PR, and do.
_
#
To Matt Cutts – would Google ever ban a large brand for an extended period of time for engaging in manipulative link practices?
_
Matt says that Google had removed a very big site in the past for 43 days in total from the index, and this was noticed by Ben Edelman (sadly, I haven’t ID’d the site or post and Matt did not mention it)

The Ben Edelman reference seems to be in relation to WhenU 3 years ago and it seems that was mainly to do with cloaking.

Andy Beal sums up this SES session

I encourage you to read the notes and digest the information. Like me, you’ll probably come to the conclusion that buying select links from highly relevant pages isn’t going to get you into trouble with Google. Buying tons of spammy, non-relevant, run of site links, probably will.

On a subject like this I will quite happily link through to Fantomaster who sells cloaking software

Will it work? Will the Google monster, the paragon of Web Apartheid, finally relent?

Dana on the Online Marketing Blog likens this to a Transformers battle between Optimus Prime (Matt Cutts) & Megatron (Michael Gray)
I am sure the Toprank team recommend buying links on Yahoo, why is a paid review worse?

Update 2

Yesterday Duncan Riley on Techcrunch attacked the general WordPress attitude to paid links.
It would be interesting to look at how many WordPress developers, theme designers and plugin developers are heavily funded by the sale of text links.

Duncan also attacked Akismet, and he is quite right to do so. Spam Karma, with or without the addition of AKisment is actually equally or more effective at handling spam, and can be integrated with Akismet as an additional check.
It should also be noted that the Akismet “spam count” widget doesn’t use javascript, but is one of the widgets that produced a search engine followable link back to an Automattic owned domain.

As I mentioned recently, WordPress Sponsored themes still exist in large numbers on the theme database. In the comments on Techcrunch, Matt Mullenweg seems to be claiming that they have been all cleared out, but that is far from the case.

Duncan mentions the oft used phrase “people in glass houses” which does ring home my earlier article – A List Bloggers in Crystal Palaces Shouldn’t Throw Stones

Update 3

Michael Gray has now published his powerpoint presentation on Google Paid links.

I am not a user of Text Link Ads, but it seems emails have gone out about some code changes, and that they will now be using TinyURL for the links
TinyURL in itself is a 301 redirect, which could however then link to a further redirect or tracking script. I am not sure a chain of 301 redirects would be a good idea, and using TinyURL on its own is still passing juice.

Aaron Wall is also binging out the big guns, arguing why linkbaiting (which Google supports) is not suitable for all businesses.
Some of Aaron’s bullet points against linkbaiting include:-

• it is expensive
• it is time consuming
• the results are hard to predict
• it requires social connections
• it provides off topic low value traffic
• it typically creates content of limited commercial value (other than the ability to pull in links to rank other pages for stuff they did not have enough relevancy or authority to merit ranking for)

Regular readers however are going to be shocked about this but in my opinion…

Shoemoney’s Disclosure Is Better Than Rand’s

I am calling it a debacle rather than a debate, because in a debate there is at least a serious attempt to do some fact gathering. Maybe there were time constraints both in the planning and the delivery, and it is good to see disclosure being discussed, but I honestly expected after the previous round of blog and counter-blog for there to be a more in-depth look.

There Are Regulations For Bloggers

Major companies such as Clickbank require disclosure. As I pointed out in that article, they link through to the FTC regulations for Word of Mouth marketing.

How anyone can debate whether affiliates need to disclose without using the phrase “Word of Mouth Marketing” is just ridiculous.
There is a big difference between a recommendation and an advert in the sidebar.

It Is Not Who You Talk About, But Also What You Don’t Talk About

Why don’t you rip apart Google on their referral units, where they effectively prevent disclosure, whilst encouraging WOMM.
I mentioned this again recently in my post regarding the Feedburner acquisition.
People don’t criticise Google because it would affect their relationship with Google.

On the other hand, bloggers seem more than happy to jump on the bandwagon for linkbait talking about services that don’t pay the bills.

No Mention of Word of Mouth Marketing Association

I have had issues with the WOMMA and disclosure in the past, but at least I acknowledge they exist.

Disclosure Policy

It isn’t hard to do – Shoemoney now effectively has a disclosure policy, Rand doesn’t. All he really needs to do now is stick a link to it in his sidebar, or even better add it in some way to his feeds using something akin to my disclosure policy feedflare, and everything is 100% above board and he can drop as many affiliate links as he likes without feeling compelled by anyone to stick a little (aff) after links which not all visitors would understand anyway.

As I noted recently, John Reese is also using disclosure for AuctionAds affiliate links, follow his lead, as John rarely puts a foot wrong.

Shilling for Google and Yahoo? Grow Some Brass Ones

Maybe not, but I think the majority of people writing about SEO and the search engines in general need to grow some brass ones, such as Jack Humphrey has just demonstrated.

In fact lots of the blogs I have been reading up until recently on a regular basis seem to take no stance on major issues, and to just ask their reader’s opinions, or link out to people supporting their opinion, without actually stating it.

Payola

I deliberately didn’t link through to any particular article when I listed 32 kinds of linking Payola. It is interesting that the podcast highlighted at least one more form, and possibly more.

I actually like Dave Naylor’s take on this

I bet if I dig deep enough into any blog a can find a link out with a motive

How critical can you be of a company with whom you have an NDA, or with whom you might like to have a special relationship with in the future?

As always I am not a lawyer, and this is just for entertainment purposes. I am sure WOMMA have some lawyers though, so they really should take a lot more care with what they state and how they state it.

They were referencing the recent story in the LA Times about Pay Per Post and disclosure.

In the article they criticise the disclosure policy on Colleen Caldwell’s blog, which is fairly standard for Pay Per Post bloggers, a DisclosurePolicy.org badge “I disclose”, along with a disclosure policy based on their generator.

The “prominent disclosure” that PayPerPost purports? If you click on the icon in the sidebar it tells you:

The fatal flaw in their argument is that they are providing Jeff Jarvis and Jason Calacanis as examples of flawless business bloggers, and as I pointed out just a few days ago, and openly challenged, there may be no such thing as an A-Lister who has every legal and ethical concern covered.

Focusing on Orlando-based PayPerPost, Friedman notes concerns that such business models blur the ethical line between unbiased opinion and product placement. Jeff Jarvis and Jason McCabe Calacanis, two of the nation’s most respected business bloggers, are included amongst the critics.

You would expect these respected business bloggers who certainly earn a huge amount more than your typical Pay Per Post blogger, to have absolutely beyond reproach disclosure and other legal statements on their websites.

Please note that the WOMMA association and the LA Times effectively picked these two gentlemen as an example, effectively the pinnacle of excellence, because they are able to criticize Pay Per Post bloggers.

The LA Times

Why does the LA Times associate WOMM with paid reviews and not affiliate marketing. Where is all the coverage about Google Amazon or Ebay affiliates not disclosing, and not being required to explicitly?

How explicitly should sites like the LA Times declare their financial relationships with sister sites?

Smaller websites have to try to compete on a level playing field with sites that practice massive interlinking between their sister sites, and “partners”, they are all financial links.

I would link to the LA Times, but that is against their Terms of Service, which I would also link to, but again that would be breaking their terms of service, already broken by the WOMMA and Jason Calacanis (well unless they asked for specific permission)

Yes those terms of service are in the footer, but the LA Times obviously gets an exemption that work at home mothers don’t qualify for.

Jeff Jarvis

Lets take a look at Jeff Jarvis

Jeff does do a very good job of disclosure within posts, at least the few I looked for specifically about Daylife, I didn’t check all his content, it would have taken me a solid month.

Jeffs primary disclosure however is a link in his sidebar, that is only accessible from his homepage and date archives.
If you go to the “single” page of one of his posts, there are no sidebar links, and thus no link to his disclosure policy. There are also no easy to follow links from his single pages to the home page. You can follow a link to one of his tag pages (which he uses instead of categories), but that isn’t obvious.

In fact Jeffs blog layout is almost what I would regard as sacrificial SEO, intended to drive as much link equity to one particular URL.

I hope they are paying thousands for that sitewide link, certainly $3K+ a month based on the sacrificial nature of the site – I don’t know much about text link pricing in bulk, that is a guestimate, but the links are probably worth more.
I can understand why there is a WordPress sitewide link, most people publishing on WordPress give them a sitewide link, but very few would give their hosting company a sitewide link.
Jeff makes no mention of the hosting company anywhere on his site, such as saying how great they are to justify the link.

Jeff is collecting email addresses every time you place a comment, so you would expect some kind of privacy statement, especially with the amount of tracking going on.
You would also expect some kind of physical mailing address, because in some ways his blog is performing WOMM for the various businesses in which he has involvement.

Who has ownership of comments on Jeffs blog? Does he claim the right to republish or syndicate them? No comments policy in sight, though he does have an extremely limited rules of engagement, though not visible on single pages.

I didn’t look at his feed content, but most people don’t have a disclosure policy link in their feeds, and most people don’t have a physical address in case people read their feeds by email (CAN-SPAM).

Jason Calacanis

I can’t give you an example of Jason Calacanis’ disclosure policy, he hasn’t got one. In fact he has:-

I’m an “Entrepreneur in Action” at Sequoia Capital.

His about page is about his past, not about his current. It is well known that he has financial connections with www.ThisNext.com which is present all over his website without disclosure.
He is still running his blog on Blogsmith, yet supposedly he doesn’t work for AOL now, though he is probably still a shareholder… undeclared – he certainly touts everything AOL, specifically Netscape do right.

He also has tracking with Sitemeter and Google Analytics, plus more demographic data being supplied by Quantcast.
He collects email addresses, in fact you have to confirm that your email address is correct before a comment is posted. Great for spam control, but it is still personal information.
No privacy statement of any kind.

Jason’s ThisNext connection is also important, because in many ways ThisNext is a competitor to PayPerPost, and online reviews sites are not immune to problems with shilling reviews. A very recent example was the reviews Ben found yesterday on Home Depot. Disclosed paid reviews at least everything is out in the open.

When Jason attacks PayPerPost is it really just because of ethics and his concern?
He has a habit of making poorly researched statements for what is known as linkbait, another recent example was his attack on the SEO industry as a whole, which was thoroughly debunked by Danny Sullivan @ SearchEngineLand.

WOMMA Suggesting Regulation?

Now here is an interesting titbit from the WOMMA FAQ:-

5. Why aren’t there specific rules about what people say?
We work with real people, and the honest opinions that they form on their own. There is a fundamental complexity here — if you respect consumers and value their genuine opinions, than you can’t tell them what to say. We don’t script consumers; we ask them to share their opinions. Similarly, we can’t control the second- and third-generation conversations, what friends tell friends. But we can instruct them well about ethics, encourage them to be honest and open in all downstream conversations, and create a culture of ethical communications.
Some principles are absolute, however, such as our recognition that the consumer is fundamentally in control in this new environment and that marketers cannot lie or deceive.

This totally contradicts their recent statement

WOMMA will continue to monitor these issues, urging not only clear standards for ethical disclosure within sponsored blogs, but also strict guidelines on the method and mode of disclosure. Current guidelines are too weak and we therefore encourage their revision according to standards already set by the WOMMA Ethics Code.

Links Anyone?

What is with all these ethical sites and links?

The LA Times didn’t link through to Colleen’s site
Jason Calacanis quoted Colleen, but didn’t link through to her
Jason Calacanis did link to the LA Times, breaking their ToS
The WOMMA link through to a search result, and not a permalink.
WOMMA also link through to the LA Times, breaking their ToS

If you are quoting someone’s website, it is questionable practice not to link through to them with a followable link.

Conclusions

Everyone seems to be twisting stories to suit their own agenda, and no one in this discussion is 100% clean and free, and I am sure I have my own flaws. Everything I write has some level of commercial interest.

As I said just a few days ago, A List Bloggers in Crystal Palaces Shouldn’t Throw Stones, though the challenge in that post is still on if any A-Listers think they have everything covered.

I wonder if the LA Times charge more than Krak.dk for commercial deep linking without permission.

Thanks to Advertising for Success for the WOMMA link I followed.

Update:-

Dave Utter has just covered this story on Web Pro News, and I wish to thank him for highlighting the story to a more mass audience. It also shows how easy it is to make mistakes, and that maybe it is wrong to highlight a work at home mother for things that professional writers do by mistake on a daily basis. Dave though he quoted me extensively, forgot to link through to this post.

Though it is mentioned in the comments, I think it is important to highlight Ted’s recent post highlighting his discussions with the WOMMA.

Jason Calacanis continues to attack PayPerPost but have obviously read this post though wouldn’t link to it, because that would be balanced reporting, and Jason doesn’t really believe in ethical blogging, it is all just hype.

How do I know he has read this post but wouldn’t link to it?

Because he has added something to his sidebar

I would like to congratulate Jason on a minimal concession to ethical blogging, but how about some full disclosure at the head of every post about a competitor, PayPerPost, at the top of every post you write about them.
Also make sure you back date this disclosure through all the content you have previous written about them.
It is great you are going to have Ted on the Calacanis cast, but that isn’t enough to correct all the previous inbalances in your reporting.

Update2:

I have just left the following comment on Jasons most recent post regarding WOMMA. I am posting it here just in case it doesn’t appear on his blog.

I would like to congratulate you on your minimal concession to disclosure (the change in your sidebar disclosing ThisNext) but how about some unbiased reporting.
You should really include a disclosure in the first line of every post you have made about PayPerPost (a competitor), ThisNext, AOL, Weblogs Inc and Netscape (you no doubt have some financial interest still)
Surely you have the resources to do a better job of disclosure than a work at home mother.
A blogger with class, such as Robert Scoble, does link to people with differing opinion than himself, and has the balls to admit when he makes mistakes.
Where is your post stating why you changed your sidebar disclosure?

Update 3:

Just so there is no question that a change has been made, I just pulled this screenshot of Jason’s sidebar from the Google cache.

Just so there is no question that the comment I posted was posted, here is a screenshot of the results page after posting a comment. I assure you I am checking my email frequently, my emails are coming through with no problem (I use gmail), and the usual confirmation has not come through.

I would also love to highlight this previous post on Jason’s blog

Paying the top DIGG/REDDIT/Flickr/Newsvine users (or “$1,000 a month for doing what you’re already doing.”)

When Brian and I started Weblogs, Inc. the idea of paying bloggers–heck, even making money from blogging–was considered offensive to many. Blogging was, as the case was stated, a highly personal activity that should not be trivialized by the forces of commerce and greed. I don’t have a complicated relationship with money or capitalism: I love them both and see them as simply as fuel and the process by which fuel is produced. Money to me means time, time means quality, and quality means success.

Talent wins, and talent needs to get paid. I love paying talented people so they can sleep well at night doing what they love. That’s my biggest joy in business: gettin’ people paid.

The concept of “free” content producers, which I think WIRED called crowdsourcing, is going to be a short-lived joke. A loophole in the content business that will be closed by savvy startups which identify the top 5% of the audience and buy their time.

As we say in Brooklyn: everyone’s gotta eat

Update 4:

Tino Buntic has a thought provoking post on product placement, as long ago as the film “E.T.”
I bet they had some mention in the credits that it was a product placement, as films do these days, rather than a big warning sign on the screen whilst the product is visible.

Note to anyone linking through: don’t forget to use trackback, links are automatically reciprocated because I use the dofollow plugin.

This video was originally posted on the Google Adsense blog, and the presenter is Laura from Adsense Support.

Now I should point out that Google have been very clear in their wording with all the recent correspondence relating to Adsense changes, which in some ways makes this even more extraordinary.

The interesting bit in regard to financial declarations starts 1min:30 from the start.

It should be noted that this wasn’t recorded live, as you can see from the out-takes at the end, is in response to reader emails, and it seems that the responses were prepared prior to recording.

Here are some quotes:-

You should feel free to recommend and promote a product you are displaying a referral button for, but please don’t use language that implies that users should visit your referral site, or benefit you financially.

A later example also allows you to use the word “click” and give a strong recommendation – Word of Mouth Marketing

I use Firefox and use it to browse the web

I love Picassa, click here to get this great software

An example that would not be appropriate would be

click on these links to help me earn money

Now it was only a month or so ago that there was a huge amount of blogger attention regarding a letter issued by the FTC in regards word of mouth advertising. Many bloggers directed their attention to various paid blog post monetization models and said that this legislation was directed at them.
Many lawyers however also pointed out that this affected various forms of affiliate marketing.

Adsense Referral Unit (potentially) = Affiliate Marketing = Word of Mouth Marketing

So based upon that theory, anyone using Adsense Referral Units, and who in any way reviews a related product, or encourages someone to use a product that is part of the Adsense referral program showing on a page, should make a disclosure of some kind.

How This Might Affect You?

This actually depends on how you normally declare affiliate links when you are recommending a product.

Some of the recommendation links are very normal looking such as

Firefox with Google Toolbar (btw that isn’t a referral link)

Now I know many bloggers who would write something like this. They do that with every other affiliate link, so they should do the same for a Google one.

I Love Firefox, Click this link Firefox with Google Toolbar (aff)

But their readers understand that any link with (aff) after it helps to support the blogger. It isn’t quite “Click on these inks to help me make money”, but it is very close to that situation I am sure on many blogs, forums etc which have a very honest and open disclosure policy.

How about if you have a more general disclosure policy such as I have, or maybe a statement that your site is advertising funded, or a visit our sponsors section?

Adsense referral buttons are fairly inviting

You can obviously refrain from writing reviews about Adsense products, but it seems Google want to encourage WOMM (Word of Mouth Marketing).

If Google want to use WOMM, they have to allow their affiliates a free reign to declare they are being compensated for any referrals, however they like with no restraint.

I am actually quite happy with many of the changes that have been made with the Adsense guidelines. The Adsense team have been very forthcoming with information

I also know that a little guy is going to be more worried about complying with the Adsense policies and terms that this could easily be a major stumbling block in widely adopted disclosure.

Remember, I have a toolbar buttons site. One of the ways I intend to monetise that site is the referral buttons, especially when the new Firefox Google Toolbar comes out of beta.

Update: Google’s Dan Friedman has written a clarifying post on referral units that I had hoped would clear up this issue, but in all honestly it makes things even more confusing.
Clickbank now require affiliates to disclose, and Google seem to prevent that.