« SUNSHINE STATES OF MIND | Main | GOLDEN STATES OF MIND »
FINDLAW & GOOGLE BATTLE
My colleague Sean Doherty, tech editor of Law.com, and I have been hearing a lot of noise about the battle between FindLaw and Google.
Sean posted on it here on his Legal Technology Blog with links to some of the discussion.
I'm also copying his post below:
I see that there is some discussion about Findlaw and its practice of marketing and selling links. Some believe this to be an ethical issue and conclude "shame" on Findlaw. Others view it as a business decision.
Now, if you believe Google and its ranking policies are the law, then perhaps Findlaw has violated it. However, I don't adhere to the fact that Google's ranking policy and their search algorithm are the law of the land. Marketing and selling links on Findlaw is a business decision for which a buyer shoud be aware of his or her purchase.
Here's a rundown on some of the discussion:
* Ambrogi * Trademark Blog *Merenda *O'Keefe1 O'Keefe2 * Law Librarian Blog
Sean has asked Findlaw to comment -- and he's going to continue to follow
the conversations on his blog.
Update from Monica:
We will be covering this story in the next issue of Law Technology News, but in the meantime, I got a briefing from one of my top advisors, who asked not to be ID'd.
Here's his read of the situation:
A summary of the issue:
FindLaw has actively been promoting a program selling between three to eight links from the FindLaw site for $1/month. These sales violate Google’s policies. Although the story was broken by an SEO named Oilman here , there's more at issue, but here's some background first.
The easiest explanation of why it is such a big deal is written at the Get Lawyer Leads blog: “this is a clear violation of Google’s policy against search engine spam, and these links will almost certainly be devalued when reported. (Google’s top cop, Matt Cutts has already taken note and commented in the thread at oilman’s site, so it appears to already be a done deal).” Entire post here.
Here's a brief overview of search engine optimization:
One of the ways Google determines where a given site will rank for a specific search is the number and quality of inlinks to a website. The simple theory is that very interesting pages will be linked to by many people. A page or website with a lot of links therefore has a lot of authority (Google measures authority on a 1-10 logarithmic scale called PageRank). Taking it one step further, a link from a high PageRank site (like CNN or FindLaw) is more valuable than a link from a low PageRank site (like www.dougscrabshack.com).
To avoid gaming of their algorithm, Google works very hard to make sure their search engines aren’t being manipulated through search engine spam. One of they ways the define spam is the selling or buying of links from high PageRank sites to artificially convey authority on a given webpage.
Google actively penalizes sites who engage in these activities when they are discovered. The most famous example involves BMW, which was entirely delisted (removed from search results) by Google in 2006 for spam violations.
You can read more about that here on Matt Cutt’s blog. Matt Cutts heads up Google’s anti-SPAM efforts and as a veritable celebrity in the world of online marketing.
Matt has taken a strong interest in the FindLaw issue. Not only did he post a comment on the Oilman blog and even twittered it. So he is aware and Google and other search engines will likely penalize FindLaw and/or sites they link to, for this very clear violation of Google’s policies.
The most juicy insight that no one seems to have picked up on, however, comes from FindLaw’s own letter: “As you may or may not know, FindLaw has been providing SEM programs to law firms for the last four years.
The product has been very successful at elevating the natural search results of law firms in all of the major search engines and has helped them generate more business from search engines.”
So it seems FindLaw has been doing this for a while and only got caught when it moved outside of the law firm market. This admission means there are already firms paying FindLaw for this program – and now that Cutts has presumably removed the value of the links – a bunch of firms are essentially paying for nothing. By now, FindLaw knows this result – and the ethical thing to do would be to publicize their mistake and refund money. So far, FindLaw hasn't done so.Here's Kevin O'Keefe's post.
Attachments
Note: the author of the above-two files requested that his name be redacted, which we agreed to because his identity is not critical to this story.
Download semc_adproductspeccustomer_3.doc
September 8, 2008 in Marketing, Technology | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345280a669e200e5550911418834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference FINDLAW & GOOGLE BATTLE :
Comments
Thanks for mentioning the FindLaw issue.
But rather than just asking FindLaw comment, why aren't Incisive Media/ALM publications investigating this issue? Legal reporting in major publications like yours is critical to having an informed legal profession when it comes to buying services and products, in this case SEM (search engine marketing) products from FindLaw.
There are people who will talk out there - ex FindLaw reps and lawyers. There are internal FindLaw documents that can be obtained. In that fashion, some investigative journalism can be done.
For whatever reason, I get calls and documents sent to me even though I just run a company and publish a blog. Perhaps it is because I have been willing to historicaly put in what little time I have into reporting on items I think benefit lawyers when it comes to legal Internet marketing.
If FindLaw did in fast pull a fast one on Google and lawyers, what do you think FindLaw is going to say when you ask them for a comment? If FindLaw is trying to cover up its action in order to prevent missing '08 sales goals so that Thomson Reuters stock does not slide further, what do you think FindLaw is going to say when you ask them for a comment?
There is way too much shallow reporting going on here by the traditional legal reporting Industry. I find it truly amazing that the Wall Street Journal beats the National Law Journal and Lawyers Weekly in covering this story, when both of those publications were informed of possible FindLaw misconduct 3 weeks ago.
Reporting on what blogs are saying and reporting on what FindLaw is saying or in most cases not saying isn't up to what I thought journalism was all about.
Posted by: Kevin OKeefe | Sep 7, 2008 1:12:35 PM
I’ve seen Kevin from Lex Blog push several false accusations for weeks now like he was being paid to do it. And after analyzing the industry of law marketing you begin to realize that Kevin and a few of the other "shame on you" story tellers are directly competing with findlaw for marketing dollars. So in a way, they are getting paid to do it. I think we should realize the economics of this so we understand who’s motivated to say what. Taken from Kevin's own blog, “A LexBlog package is a turn-key lawyer Internet marketing solution -- you're ready to go faster than you ever thought possible! Whatever your needs, budget or package you choose, here's what we do for you”.
Should we take the word of an organization who is in direct competition with the organization they are accusing? Honestly…this is so silly and I am shocked that this guy has mouthed off as long as he has without a proper smack down. Kevin – Seriously, STFU, you are a capitalist liar in pursuit of nothing more then selling your next deal!
Posted by: James | Sep 7, 2008 8:09:54 PM
Monica, I'm sorry that I dragged this anonymous person going by James onto your blog. My commenting on this issue without FindLaw responding on thise issue like FindLaw has on other issues in the past has left a vaccum that sucks people like James in to speak on FindLaw's behalf.
As I explained in other places he or she is posting, everyone has known for years that LexBlog's turnkey blog solution competes with FindLaw.
Folks also know I comment on Internet legal marketing and various other legal industry subjects, no matter the company or whether LexBlog is in competition with a subject or not. Maybe more than I should. ;)
Again sorry if the comments are becoming less than productive.
Posted by: Kevin OKeefe | Sep 7, 2008 10:46:35 PM
It does not matter if one group or another spilled the beans about Findlaw's selling of links. Selling links for the specific purpose of increasing pagerank or increasing SERP ranking is specifically against Google TOS. That is plain and simple. If FindLaw had nofollowed the links for piped them through an laternate PHP file then there would be no problem. But then they would not have been able to charge the rediculous privce of 2500 dollars per month for them either.
Internet marketing is a tough arena. Every one want the same thing for their clients spot #1 on Google SERPs so expect a lot of rating out of cheaters. Its the nature of the beast.
Posted by: SFOLaw | Sep 9, 2008 7:33:16 AM
Googles TOS are irrelevant, who voted and made google god? I dont remember that vote. Maybe I'll create a policy that states no website shall sell banner ads. If I did, do you think anyone would listen? Of course not. And who is google to tell folks they cannot sell links? Google is a company thats sells links and makes billions of dollars doing it.
Posted by: James | Sep 9, 2008 9:22:15 AM
Thomson Reuters' John Shaughnessy has submitted the following response:
FindLaw does not sell links to law firms. The product that was referenced on our competitor's blogs was a new corporate advertising product called SEM-Corporate (SEM-C), which was introduced in July as a relevant content syndication program for business advertisers trying to reach legal professionals. SEM-C was not a product for law firms.
An unauthorized communication went out to corporate advertising prospects that misrepresented how the product was intended to work and didn't fully and accurately describe it.
To address any potential confusion with our law firm products, FindLaw immediately cancelled SEM-Corporate. And, while not required by Google, FindLaw chose to place no-follow tags on some links to avoid even the
appearance of non-compliance with relevant Google guidelines.
While Google was reviewing this matter, FindLaw's page ranking on the Google toolbar was slightly reduced. After several days though, FindLaw's prior ranking was restored.
This played out without any negative affects to FindLaw law firm customers, and performance remains consistent with the commitment to deliver target levels of traffic improvement for their Web sites based on a wide range of SEM/A services and tactics. FindLaw has consistently
met this commitment to customers in the past, and currently customers continue to receive traffic at or above target levels.
FindLaw products and services are based on search engine guidelines, accepted industry best practices and are similar to those of most reputable SEO companies.
Posted by: Safia Maharaj | Sep 9, 2008 12:24:00 PM
Keep going Monica. You've got the issue.
I received those same documents as well as the FindLaw sales literature from '07 on FindLaw's SEM (search engine marketing) Advantage program, which program continued into '08 that talks first thing about inbound links to law firms as part the sale of the FindLaw SEM package to law firms.
SEM advantage, including inbound links from FindLaw sites, was sold to law firms, not corporations. And this documentation and the SEM Advantage literature from '07 is clear evidence that it's been going on a long time.
Safia's response is the party line given by FindLaw to the WSJ and mirrors FindLaw's talking points given to party faithful at FindLaw. The more I see this lame response, the more I think FindLaw is trying to cover up the sale of links to law firms.
As in most things, coming clean early is often better than going with a cover up. This is going to be Linkgate before its all over and FindLaw's reputation is going to be tarnished for quite a while. That's a real shame. FindLaw and its employees deserved better.
Monica Bay responds: To clarify: Safia Maharaj did not respond -- it was Thomson Reuter's spokesperson John Shaughnessy. Safia is LTN's administrative assistant, she posted Shaughnessy's remarks that we rec'd from him, as I am traveling and did not have access to my computer.
Posted by: Kevin OKeefe | Sep 10, 2008 2:48:58 AM
Kevin confuses a lot of facts...Are we sure his name is kevin?
Monica Bay responds: "Robyn" -- why is your email the same as prior commentor "James?"
Posted by: Robyn | Sep 12, 2008 2:43:07 PM
if google wants to penalize, then its certainly their right. but findlaw has the same right to sell links as part of their business model. just like many other issues, its all relative as to who is right.
Posted by: NJ SEO | Apr 25, 2009 10:08:16 PM
The fact is that Link Acquisition will never die. I actually was speaking to a guy about this the other day and the thing is... Google may penalize it, but how can they penalize something they don't know about ? :)
Posted by: John Carter | Nov 11, 2010 9:14:53 AM
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Follow me on Twitter
