Working at an agency is great for a lot of reasons, but if I had to pick my absolute favorite it would be the insight you gleam from client feedback. Successfully dealing with client questions and assertions is an extremely empowering thing because it helps build a fundamental methodology for framing future discussions with other clients as well as prospective clients that are trying to decide whether to go with you or some other provider.
One of the most common types of client feedback that I’ve gotten over the years has to do with SEO link building, and here’s the general gist of the conversation:
Client: “Your team has only secured x number of links for me this month and since I pay you X number of dollars per month, each of those links cost me X dollars. I’m paying too much per link, so you guys should start securing more links per month”
Us: “Remember that not every link is equal and that it takes time to secure quality links with keyword-rich anchor text.”
Client: “Don’t try to confuse me with your fancy SEO lingo. All I know is that if some is good, more is better, so we should be securing a lot more links. Besides, if you secure more links for me, I’ll be paying less per link.”
Us: “Focusing on the number of links secured as a success metric is not really a good idea. Instead, we should continue to use our time-test method of tying our link-building efforts to increased rankings, traffic, and conversion for the specific keywords that we target.”
Client (this not said out loud): “Yeah, but if I do that, then you guys can clearly show the exponential ROI that your services are providing, which means that I cannot try and squeeze more work out of you without paying any extra money.”
Obviously, not every client has this secret agenda. In fact, very few do. Most clients that ask us about the quantity of links secured quickly grasp the concept of quality vs. quantity once we explain it to them.
However, just in case you’re not clear on the concept, here are some things to keep in mind:
- Most of the avenues for securing large quantities of inbound links have some significant and fundamental flaws. Directory submissions usually result in very poor quality links, paid links can be devalued by search engines in one fell swoop and provide no marketing equity (e.g. they disappear the minute you stop paying for them) and automated methods (blog comment links, forum links, etc) can lead to penalties and even removal from Google’s index
- Securing vast numbers of inbound links is unlikely to be the best path for building a natural link growth profile, which is what Google’s algorithm seems to prefer
- Because of the way Google’s algorithm works, a single high-quality link can be far more potent than dozens or even hundreds of low-quality links.
- There are at least four key factors that determine the quality of a link
- the age of a link (how long its been there)
- the authority of a link (a link from a New York Times article, which itself has many inbound links from authoritative sites, is much more potent than a link from a mom & pop site with just one or two inbound links of its own)
- the relevance of a link (if my SEO posts get inbound links from places like SEObook.com and HighRankings.com they send a clear signal to Google’s search engine spiders about the types of keywords I should rank for)
- The anchor text – the literal words that are being hyperlinked – of a link (If I want this site to rank for the term “SEO”, getting an inbound link that has the anchor text “SEO” in it is infinitely more potent than getting a link that simply reads “Hugo Guzman” even if said link comes from a more authoritative site)
- It takes a significant amount of time and effort to secure links that satisfy one or more of the prerequisites listed above, particularly considering just how fickle webmasters have become when it comes to linking out to other websites, especially if the site in question does not have “link friendly” content.
Unfortunately, I cannot list specific clients or keywords, but I can tell you that over the years we have been able to secure top rankings for mega-competitive keywords across a variety of verticals for a number of Fortune 500 caliber brands (retail, insurance, and real estate just to name a few). We’ve also been able to achieve similar success for medium-sized organizations that are also battling for similar high-competition keyword phrases.
And in each of these cases, we’ve employed a link-building methodology that values quality over quantity.
P.S. It’s worth mentioned that on occasion I will have a conversation with one of our advanced clients about ways to build massive amounts of inbound links on a monthly basis. There are some legitimate ways of doing this, but I would only recommend it if your company has an in-house SEO specialist capable of properly coordinating the effort so that it doesn’t backfire. If you leave it to your provider and you don’t have an in-house expert to temper your provider’s point of view, you could be led into potentially dangerous waters.
Related Posts:
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Nice post. I particularly like your point about how not every link is equal…we’ve worked for ages to get an average link, and we’ve gotten lucky and had a fantastic link go up after a 5 minute conversation.
Building a giant list of links is good if the links are good, but I’d rather have a few good ones than a ton of crappy ones. We struggle with this with certain clients who simply want more, more, more. I think that sometimes clients can just see the dollars they spend, and they can break that down into numbers that make sense ONLY to them. Link building isn’t as simplistically qualified as many clients would like.
Hey Julie! Thanks for the comment. I’m honored that you would take time to share your thoughts on my humble little blog.
I’m also glad we’re connected on Twitter now. Keep in touch!
P.S. Great way to put it… “certain clients who simply want more, more, more.”
Hugo,
Have you had experience with using low quality links to try and rank sites?
Also, you state:
While I know that’s a popular statement, the only people who can confirm or deny this statement would be Google engineers. I’ve found a lot of people buy this hook line & sinker without validating with tests and data of their own.
Nice Post Hugo, what do you think about the latest updates in Google’s Algo…? Will be glad to read your thoughts over it.
Thanks for the comment, Ben! I’ll take your questions one at a time:
1) I’ve definitely had experience with using low-quality links (off topic, low authority, from new sites, with no target keywords in the anchor text) both as a consultant as well as when working with agency clients. This is most common when the site in question has absolutely no “link friendly” content, which more or less forces reliance on low-quality links. I’d say that in the dozens of scenarios where that was the case, we’ve had little or no luck ranking for highly competitive keywords.
Note: I made mention of this in the post, but I think it’s worth restating that of all the “quality” factors, anchor text appears to be the most important one. The reason I say that is because we have seen examples of sites that manage to rank for relatively competitive keywords by simply securing solid anchor text, even if the anchor text comes from sites that are otherwise of low quality (new sites, lacking relevance, lacking authority).
2) I don’t agree with you that only a Google engineer can be sure of this. I think that there are a variety of experiments that can be done to show that a single inbound link can outweigh dozens or even hundreds of inbound links (all things being equal otherwise). But one of the easiest “proofs” of this phenomenon comes from the world of paid linking. A single, properly veiled paid link with exact-match anchor text will do more to help rank for a particular keyword than hundreds of other inbound links from pages (especially if those links have non-targeted anchor text or are of the run-of-site variety or come from deep directory pages that hardly or never get indexed/cached, etc).
In the end, I certainly cannot say that my statement is 100 percent verified, and I had a feeling that someone might question it (and I’m glad you did) but I feel that I have enough anecdotal evidence to make the statement.
Thanks for the comment, Hasan!
My thoughts on Google’s algorithm have more or less always been the same:
Don’t chase the algorithm and its changes. Just focus on building a site that people like and stick to tried and true SEO principles (fresh link-friendly content, keyword research, page-level optimization, internal linking, server-side optimization, external link-building and analytics).
The rest will take care of itself.
Hugo, I’m with you now. By quality of links, you don’t necessarily mean the site they’re placed on, but are including the anchor text in that calculation as well.
In that case, I absolutely agree with you. Anchor text is critical. Quality of the site that anchor text appears on? Well, that’s debatable and where I tend to think quality is a tad bit over-rated.
Good post & discussion!
Hugo,
I enjoyed your post. One question for you. You say in your example of ranking for the word SEO, and only using that term in the anchor text of your link building campaign. I have also heard that it is a bad idea to use the same keywords in your anchor text repeatedly. Should you use variations of your keyword phrase in your anchor text or just use the phrase you are looking to be ranked for? Can you shed some light on that for me? Thanks!
Sigh. You bring out bad memories. Only recently we had to pass on services of one of the best (IMHO) link builders out there, whom I was dying to work with. The reason for their refusal to work with our client is exactly this: the client demanded to work according to the amount of links and not by quality and the link builder refused to work according to that model (rightly so).
What’s interesting to me in this never ending debate of quality vs. quantity is that no one ever brings up the PR/marketing angle of this. While building quality links has a great effect on search, it also helps just for flat out visibility of your business/product. Maybe publicists are the new link builders?
Hugo, great post!
One question for you. You mentioned that anchor text is key, but is it smart to use the same phrase over and over or is it better to use a variation of the phrase. For example, the phrase SEO vs. using SEO, Search Engine Optimization, Search Marketing, etc. I have read somewhere that using the same anchor text repeatedly is a bad thing. I know the best way to find out is to do your own testing but what are your thoughts on this? Thanks!
@Ben – Thank you so much for offering up a differing opinion and point of view to this discussion. It helped stimulate some thinking on my part and helped me further flesh out this concept. Much appreciated, bud!
@Jeremy – great question! Definitely very your anchor text as much as possible. It’s much more “natural.” That said, exact-match anchor text is a very powerful thing. Always remember that.
@Branko – smart move my friend (not hiring that provider). P.S. What happened to Germany the other day? Very surprising result.
@Alison – Thanks for the comment! there is no doubt that PR folks/publicists can play a huge role in building links (and traffic/awareness). However, it’s important to note that, sometimes, even a link from a relatively unknown site that drives no traffic or awareness is still incredibly valuable from an SEO point of view because of the anchor text or age of the link. That’s where an experienced link-builder is invaluable; knowing how to find diamonds in the rough that might have little or no PR/publicity/branding value but can drive significant ROI on the SEO front (e.g. links that often fly below the radar of the traditional PR/publicity expert).
I get that Hugo, maybe it just means that there is a whole group of folks out there ripe for education? Internet marketing and PR will intersect quicker than folks think…
No doubt about, Alison! In fact, at my agency, we make connecting with and collaborating with our client’s PR folks a top priority. SEO and PR are a very natural pairing.
Thanks for the words of caution. I think its great that you take the time to try and educate the client so they have a better understanding of the process.
I’ve seen time and time again that valuable, quality, and relative links from high authority sites help client rankings overall. Quality over quantity conquers all in my opinion. With clients that are new to the SEO industry I find that you have to continually reassure them that you know what you’re doing, and that they should trust in your expertise. It’s understandable, however, that they would have some reservations. The industry moves pretty quickly, and there is still information out there claiming that the overall # of links far outweighs any other factor. That old information is all that some clients see and believe. I tend to think it’s because that seems to be the path of least resistance to the uneducated. What they fail to realize is that search engines have become more educated to the ways of link building and SEO in general. So don’t cha think the overall metrics and measurements for determining rankings would also change? Nah…that seems too hard to comprehend.
Thanks for the feedback, Cliquekaila!
I definitely think that going for something simple to measure, like quantity of links, is a security blanket of sorts. But like most security blankets in the marketing industry, it will only lead to disappointing long-term results.
Hi Hugo,
Great post & discussion!
I’d like to chip in on Bens point about linking with “low quality” sites or non-relevant sites. In my experience I think its good to spread the “quality” of your link building. If you link with a few new sites and 0 PR sites, their “quality may grow over time thus your link juice will grow over time without you doing more work. Also, as everyone including you states, Google likes “natural” links. It’s not natural to have only PR 5,6 & 7 link backs.
Asl long as you don’t link to bad neighbourhoods, I’m all for a bit of quantity as well as quality
Thanks for the comment, Mark!
I do agree that getting a good mix of varying “quality” links is a smart policy. However, I would not lean on toolbar PageRank as the measuring stick for quality. There are other factors that are likely a much better barometer.
thanks for article. Always good teams on ow to deal with clients is much appreciated.
You’re welcome, Al!
It’s quite interesting reading about the secret agenda in your post. It’s certainly true that clients can continue to argue about links, even when they are having demonstrated very clear returns on investment indeed. It’s almost as if they are blinded to what counts the most to them – their bottom line, because of their obsession with this aspect. Strange.
Hi Hugo,
Excellent post! – Some of my clients just don’t understand that a back link a day keeps the doctor away…
And I totally agree with Mark regarding “natural” links. Spread the load and don’t forget 2th level links.
@Mark – yeah, it’s a scary situation when it happens, but fortunately, it’s fairly rare in my experience.
@Valgren – thanks for compliments and feedback!
In most cases your right! less is more. If you focus primarily on links that are going to give you big cred points, you focus less on those that don’t!!!!
as far as i know, the position where inbound links are placed is also an important factor in link building.
i.g.,a link at the beginning of the document to your site is much better than a link at the end of it.
Great post, link building is a tough one. We try to get clients to help us by giving us leads to their vendors or customers that may allow. But usually that effort lasts about a week if that! Clients just think it is a waste of their time. So we end up plodding along through the normal channels that end up with not so hot links. Sometimes we share a few from our book of clients to keep the love in the family, but unless your site is a real attractor it won’t build links naturally.
One thing I always wonder about, is that everyone thinks that by posting on blogs and using embedded links here and there they will add to juice – but by using the SEOMoz toolbar you can see that virtually all blogs, newspapers and magazine sites are nofollow. We have been down the rabbit trail of searching “dofollow” on Google, but that is a bunch of garbage too for the most part. Anyone have advice or perhaps even with a nofollow Google does see the action?
{ 3 trackbacks }