27Nov

InLink TextLink Ads

Posted by Steve Renner as Blogging

A New Online Advertising Text Link Ad service, InLinks has been introduced by New York Media firm, Media Whiz. This new service which has been met with some differences of opinions in Blogging Community seems to run a little in the Grey Area of commonly acceptable advertising policy.

As the operators of acesse.com (Search Engine) and it’s AdPacs Online Advertising Service, we are extremely sensitive to the legalities of Online Advertising as it relates to our Advertisers, Publishers, and Affiliates (iNetGlobal Marketing Consultants).

InLinks is a way to Make Money Online by selling Links on your Blog (or Web Site). Advertisers can buy Text Links, which you (the Publisher) embed in your Blog Posts.

This all seems pretty straight forward, the controversy is over the fact that the InLinks pass Link Juice (Do Follow) to the Advertiser and there is no indication that these are Ads at all. Content sites are paid a flat rate per month per ad sold. This may be considered Deceptive Advertising, and goes against Google’s Ad Policy.

Google SEO Master Matt Cutts weighs in on the deal:

Google has been very clear that selling such links that pass PageRank is a violation of our quality guidelines. Other search engines have said similar things. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has also given unambiguous guidance on this subject in the recent PDF at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/03/P064101tech.pdf where they said “Consumers who endorse and recommend products on their blogs or other sites for consideration should do so within the boundaries set forth in the FTC Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising and the FTC’s guidance on word of mouth marketing,” as well as “To date, in response to this concern, the FTC has advised that search engines need to disclose clearly and conspicuously if the ranking or other presentation of search results is a function of paid placement, and, similarly, that consumers who are paid to engage in word-of-mouth marketing must disclose that fact to recipients of their messages.”

Oh, but you say your blog isn’t in the U.S.? Maybe it’s in the UK? Then you’ll be interested in
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081277_en_5#pt11 which covers unfair trade practices and specifically mentions “Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial).”

But you’re not in the UK? I believe many of the unfair commercial practices directives apply through Europe, e.g. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/index_en.htm to prohibit misleading or aggressive marketing.

The reality is that accepting money to link to/promote/market for a product without disclosing that fact is a very high-risk behavior, in my opinion.

Jeremy at Shoemoney totally Rips Google for their stance on this, stating “Google Adsense/adlinks would be engaging in some of the most deceptive advertising methods I have ever seen on the internet.” Of course Shoemaker is no fan of Google since they Axed his Adsense account. (see his famous Adsense check)

Shoemaker goes on to further state that “there is absolutely zero way for them [Google] to detect inlink ads if it is done properly and Matt [Cutts] (and maybe former Googler Vanessa Fox who chimed in also) knows that.

I tend to agree with Darren Rouse over at ProBlogger who says “InLinks is banking on their ads being difficult for anyone to see as ads (including Google). I’m yet to see them in the wild but would bet that they are intended not to have a footprint that Google can see.”

Rouse has actually embraced InLinks and is advertising them all over his site.

InLink Ads are clearly against Google’s quality guidelines and if you’re caught selling them your blog is likely to be penalized, so proceed At Your Own Risk!

From the BlogSphere: