Like many bloggers, I am already active on various social media platforms, so to offer a tweet in return for the space on my site, the traffic it brings, plus the “Google juice” of a link does not seem balanced. I think all too often the blogger’s supposed need for exposure and hits is taken for granted by agencies, who think we will be willing to offer our site space, time and influence in return for some spikes in traffic, which many of us have already.

In this situation, as far as I’m concerned, the agency wins because they get paid for placing the links with their client, the brand wins because they gain more customers and exposure – but the blogger? They may get a few extra hits on their site, but so what? Unless we’re talking thousands here (which is doubtful for a post like that) which could bump up affiliate ad income, then it seems to me the blogger is very much the loser in this situation.

Another point I think SEO’s should note if taking this tactic is looking at the TYPE of traffic they can offer the blogger. If you read my blog, you would know I tend to write about what it’s like to be a mum, relationships, family life, lifestyle themes and parenting dilemmas. My readers come here to read about my take on those things. I’m not known for running incredible competitions. Occasionally I write about a brand I love or write an advertorial post about a relatable situation etc, but these posts don’t bring me huge spikes in traffic compared to my regular hits.

To offer a post linking to a comp on another site may get me a few extra hits from a tweet from the company – but would it be the “right” kind of traffic? Would they be potential readers who are likely to stick around and read / subscribe / come back for more?

These are all things a blogger will ask themselves before accepting to host commercial content for no payment or no product in return. It’s worth keeping in mind when extolling the “little boost” an SEO agency could provide.

Thanks for your comment though, it’s really good to see the perspective from the other side of the fence.

I would love, of course, to be paid for content a lot more – but I know that as a reader of blogs I very quickly get turned off by most sponsored posts.

I think that a lot of companies are still playing catch up with what our TIME is worth – not just what they get in return for their item/cash but the time we invest in doing it – they need to consider compensating for THAT too. They wouldn’t get an advert in a national paper for a freebie in a lot of cases – and the paper certainly wouldn’t give them that space for a tweet!

I don’t really know where I’m going now – I think this whole relationship is still in flux and will be for some time – we have to encourage the newer/smaller bloggers to place value on their commodity too in order to get the same for ours.

I am in dispute with one who asked me to write an article and we agreed a price. That was it.

I upheld my side of the bargain, duly labelled it as sponsored and sent them the link.

“oh could you remove the word sponsored, we absolutely cannot have that on there”.

Er no. You cannot.

They think we will fall for their blatant lies and that we don’t know what the rules that WE NEED to adhere to state. Not just what Google state (there are some that don’t care what Google say, Google is not law after all). However the ASA is law and I will not damage my reputation for some SEO who is trying to bully bloggers for their client.

Sorry, that got a bit ranty (not like me ).

Great post, Molly