I saw a nice post a few decades ago called "The Reciprocity Link Building Method" by Canadian SEO Melanie Nathan, in which she explained a method she often employed to develop high-quality connections for her clients' websites. The idea, as I understood it, was to first identify a website that would be appropriate to link to from your client's site. Then you'd go over their present links to determine if any of them were damaged (went to dead pages or sites). If you find any, you'll utilize this data to start a conversation with the site owner or webmaster, and you'll eventually mention your customer's site as a replacement for one of the broken links. I thought it was a brilliant idea, a terrific opportunity to meet people in your client's business, and a win-win situation for everyone.
Nick LeRoy, a search marketer in the Minneapolis area, just published another post on the subject. Nick discussed the same general method Melanie had stated, as well as a real-life email example he had sent. He added to the webmaster in his example email that he had a favourite site where he liked to buy things for his son on birthdays and holidays. In a follow-up email, Nick cited "his son" once more, noting that he appreciated the things on this website because they made his son think. So far, everything appears to be going well, right? Nick, on the other hand, does not have a son! On the post, I left the following comment: "I had no idea you had a son, Nick (as per the emails requesting a link).
If you don't, are you advocating that people form trusting relationships with webmasters by misleading to them?" There were a lot of responses, which you should read on Nick's site. What he did was obviously not heinous in my opinion, but the situation raises a lot of questions. Was lying absolutely necessary? Isn't this the kind of behaviour that tarnishes marketing in general (not just search marketers)? Couldn't he have done things the same way he did them without lying? I believe he could have done so. According to Nick, informing the webmaster that you're looking for links on behalf of a client lowers your chances of getting the link. It would be fascinating to put that hypothesis to the test, and it could very well be correct. Even if you obtain fewer links as a result, lying in any element of business—or life—doesn't justify it. (Are they truly two distinct entities?) Deception in any form is lying. Even if it's just a small white lie, it's a lie nonetheless. Even if you receive more links as a result of it. Even if it means more business for you. Even if it makes you look better in your boss's or client's eyes.
This leads to another point: How would you feel if you were the boss of someone who used this technique? Any sort of dishonesty within your organisation should be a no-no if your corporate culture is one of honesty. I can assure you that if one of my employees did this, I would be really unhappy in them and explain why we do not engage in misleading techniques. I'd similarly be perplexed as to why I'd have to explain such a concept to an adult. What about the customer? Were they aware that their search marketing firm was deceiving them in order to get links? Is their corporate culture such that this isn't an issue? Or did they have no idea how their connections were obtained? If you're deceiving your clients on their behalf, you should seek their consent and written sign-off first, so it doesn't come back to bite you later. Personally, if I hired a corporation to provide a service for me and they did so in a way that involved any type of deception, I'd be suspicious of what else they were doing.
Is it possible that they overcharged me? Did they really have the abilities they claimed? Not to mention the unknowing webmaster who distributed the link on the other side. How would they react if they later discovered they had been duped? Would they have a negative impression of not only the marketing firm, but also the firm to which they were linking? What if they were so cheated that they decided to share the information on social media? What would the client think if they ended up with a reputation management disaster as a result of the technique? Surely I'm exaggerating here, because we're only discussing a minor white lie. Is it true, however, that the size or colour of the lie makes it less deceptive? And we're talking about link building particularly. There's a reason I despise it and refuse to do it.
As far as I'm concerned, link building is a deceitful tactic in and of itself because it's typically done to secure a phoney "vote" for a website. It's an industry that shouldn't exist, and that wouldn't exist if Google didn't put so much emphasis on links. We'd have a lot less deception (and payment) going on behind the scenes if that component of Google's algorithm wasn't in place. Because ethics are frequently viewed as situational, we can argue them indefinitely and never reach an agreement. What is immoral in one scenario may not appear to be unethical in another. Obviously, life-or-death situations differ from marketing situations. If telling a falsehood is going to save someone's life, then by all means, tell a lie! Marketing, on the other hand, isn't a life-or-death situation.
Most cultures think that lying and deception in order to gain someone's favour is wrong. This isn't a case of "black hat vs. white hat." There's nothing to do with hats in this. I don't care what approaches or methods you utilise to generate more focused search engine traffic when it comes to search marketing. There are no tactics that I believe are more or less ethical than others. I'm not interested in what Google says in their Webmaster Guidelines because I don't need to know. You won't get into trouble with Google if you understand that all they care about is that your website isn't dishonest in any way. They need to know that the information on your site and the information you supply to Google are reliable. That's all there is to it. So many ethical dilemmas boil down to one question: Is it deceitful or not? I'm concerned about search marketers who believe that lying is an unavoidable aspect of their profession if they want to succeed. It's not only wrong, but it's also a depressing reflection on our industry and probably our entire planet.
