The natural link is dead.

Okay, that's an exaggeration. But it's pretty close to the truth.

Back in the late 1990s, I worked on a somewhat popular (about 1,000 visits/day) site about emulation. Those of us who worked on the site thought we were all good legally because we did not distribute ROMs, but emulation of older video game consoles is still questionable legally. Regardless, it was a fun project, and the sort of thing people did in the late 1990s and early 2000s, before everyone started blogging. The site is still up, which is probably the coolest thing ever, and has a links page.

Can you argue with the polka dot background on the banner and the textured background?

We linked to websites we liked. We rated and reviewed them. We did so because when people liked your website, they wanted to know if you thought any other websites were cool, so they could check them out too. Eventually we started asking other sites for links, and they started asking us for links, because both parties thought the other site's fans would be interested in their own content too. Most of the time, they were right.

It was the puppy love version of linking. Innocent, natural, and nothing but good intentions. We didn't do it to rank in a search engine, we did it for our users.

Google came along, and Google realized that links were a really good way to determine if a website was good and relevant, or uninteresting or irrelevant. They were totally right. While I worked on SGC with friends, my parents launched an online retailer selling imported gourmet foods. After paying $50 to have the site listed in "every search engine" I figured out that the more keywords you had on the page, you higher you ranked in AltaVista and InfoSeek, which were the ones to be on at the time (Yahoo was just an alphabetical directory.) So I did what anyone would do. I added a font color white tag, on the white background, and listed the keywords from the meta description about 100 times.

We ranked really well. That didn't change the fact that for 1997, the idea was a little too early, or poorly executed, or what. I'm not sure. Regardless, I don't think it was necessarily the most "relevant" website for the keywords I cloaked. So when Google came along and said "We're looking at links, not just keyword spam" I knew it would be good. And it was.  

At some point in the 2000s as Google grew, Google became the source of up to 100% of some companies' revenue stream. Today, having a page 1 ranking is worth significant amounts in profits, revenue, and a level of authority. Many of you work for SEO Agencies or as an independent SEO - how many of your clients ask you why you aren't on the first SERP for the term "seo?"

This made it advantageous to acquire links in any way possible. Google took care of some of that with the Webspam team, but they are asleep at the wheel now. News came out recently from Google saying "No, we're not sleeping, we were just resting our eyes!" Unfortunately, not everyone believes them, including me. After the way 2010 played out, I need to see major changes before I believe it.

In the past few years, people joined Facebook. Some joined Twitter too. Now, what I used to write a blog about... I just post on my Facebook status. And then I include a link there. It's easy and it shows up for the people I've chosen, or have chosen to pay attention to me. Maybe I tweet out a link I like. But I don't write a blog entry. I definitely don't start a website about emulation and keep at it for 8 years with no revenue.

There are two groups involved in linking nowadays: cliques and corps. And by corporations, I don't just mean businesses, I mean anyone who gains something of value by linking out or acquiring a link. This would include publications like TechCrunch, which trade coverage and a link for exclusive information. The other group is cliques. The SEO community is very good about this - I'll link your stuff, you link my stuff, we both prosper. If you link me and I never link you, you'll probably stop linking me because I'm not being a good friend and I don't belong in the clique.

Here's where we are today. In my opinion, 95% of links out there are bought and paid for in one way or another. It seems somewhat hypocritical of a group of people to say "Well I donate services and you gave money, you are black hat! You are being unethical! I am white hat and I will shine through, and I will win by being honorable and noble!" I don't say that as a critique of the angle of this site, or many of its members, I'm just suggesting we all be honest. There's no such thing as a free link anymore. 

While I do preach "create good content and people will come" I mean because they'll hit the Like button, they'll hit the Share button, and they'll Tweet it out. Those sources are still overwhelmingly organic and natural, though if they are emphasized enough some SEO Agency will figure a way to make a lot of money using black hat social media packages. I don't judge social media as right or wrong, I just judge it to be natural and honest right now.

Take a company I did a lot of marketing for a few years ago, CT Espresso. I did not know as much about SEO then as I do now, but I knew a little bit and tried getting links because I knew links were important.

It was dismal. I targeted websites that linked to competitors. I found out that some websites were happy to link to you... for a price. Other websites just never responded, no matter how many times I tried. I got creative, and tried to offer them product to review, or to supply something for a contest, but nothing really worked. So what did I do? I learned PPC! And I got really good at it, which landed me my next position, at a very large internet retailer called Optics Planet. 

Now Optics Planet is very different from CT Espresso, in that as a very large internet retailer, we get lots of low quality links from forums - not from forum spam, but from people who are talking about us, the products we carry, and more. We still have in-house SEO doing high quality link building, and we try lots of tactics to improve ranking, but it is still an uphill battle. As such, we've recently spent more time focusing on building likes and tweets of our pages and products, and are working to improve traffic generation from other sources even if social becomes a non-factor in SEO. We'll never, ever give up on SEO, but that doesn't mean we will just watch ranking drops, and more Google spam crowd the SERPs and do nothing. We have to move with the times.

Now if you are just starting out, and you don't have a clique to link to you, your other option is supplying something of value in order to get a link (which is also something of value.) Whether it's services, a link back, products, or money, you're trading something of value for something of value, and don't be ashamed. It works so long as you judge the quality of your partner. You probably wouldn't enter a business contract with a person who shows up at your office shirtless and stinking of booze regardless of how much value is in that contract, so don't do it online.

Most reasonable white-hats will agree - do what you must. Your livelihood may be at stake, and while white-hats would like you to try their methods, and give them a fair shake, and realize nothing easy is long-term effective, no white hat SEO expects you to be content with writing an article a week, emailing some random people asking them for links, and patiently waiting while you are on page 36 for key search terms and wondering how much you can earn by selling a kidney.

If you are a small website owner, or work with small websites, please share with us! What do you do? What has been successful for you?

If you are engaging in any black-hat tactics, it is probably not a good idea to link to your website or use your normal profile.