Giving Customers Discount in Exchange for Inbound Link (Kosher?)

[abmagna]

Hey y'all. This idea popped into my head a few days ago and I was wondering if anyone has tried it and if it would be negatively interpreted by the major search engines:

What if I gave customers a discount off of their shipping, for example, if the agreed to add an inbound link from their site to mine. Assuming that three or four customers a week took my up on the offer, it would appear that the inbound links were being gradually added (which from my limited understanding is much more desirable by the search engine that having 1000 added overnight). To make it even more complex, I could increase the discount the customer would received depending on the quality of the inbound link and/or the amount of time the customer left the link in place.

Has anyone ever tried this? How did/does it work for you? Are there any downsides to this?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

[Gooner151078]

I think it's an excellent idea. By providing an incentive, you are able to purchase links at a much better value to your business.

Maximisation of stakeholder contact points is a great way to build links and IMO far more controlled and structured than outsourcing. However, why stop at customers? Look at staff, suppliers, sister companies and generally anyone that has an interest in your business.

[glengara]

Have a look at message 11 and 13 from Robert Charlton on this thread -

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...ad.php?t=12836

[SEMBasics]

I think you could get away with it if you slightly changed the terms. Instead of a discount for a link, offer a discount for a testimonial, article, review, etc. about your site and/or products. Of course, the testimonial et al will have to include a link to your site, but you are not paying for the link per se, but rather for the "endorsement". Also, part of the deal should be that this endorsement is naturally worked into the content and structure of their site.

[mcanerin]

Keep in mind that Google's system is based on the idea that a link is a freely given "vote" indicating you feel the target is worthy or important.

Whether or not that is true is the topic of considerable debate, especially when talking about commercial sites, but that's a different topic.

Because of this, Googles position has been consistently placed in the "we don't like any form of links that don't match the pattern our search engine uses to function". That's fine from an engineers perspective, but obviously a bit naive from the perspective of the modern internet.

Ironically, Googles decision on the importance of links has, IMO, contributed to the number of bad links and schemes out there, but that's also a topic for a different discussion.

So the bottom line for them is, if there has been any incentive (reciprocals, payments, discounts, etc) for the placement of a link other than the actual quality or content of the target, then it goes against the ranking paradigm they use and therefore "crosses the line".

Their answer to this is to tell people to no-follow links like that. Most SEO's consider that an attempt to close Pandora's box after the fact, but, once again, that's a different topic.

Bottom line, Google doesn't appear to like any incentive for a link other than the content of the site itself.

Of course, there are many reasons to get people to link to you other than search engines, so their opinion is a bit parochial, but it's important to know about nonetheless.

Personally, I don't think they should be telling me what links I can and can't get, and how. It's a big web out there, and there are more ways to market than SEO. If all the search engines disappeared tomorrow, the web would still be alive and well.

At the same time, if your *only* reason for getting those links is to manipulate Google, rather than drive traffic, then I personally think you are crossing the line. Focussing on keyword-ridden anchor text, rather than smart sales copy, would be a clear indication of this.

Ian