Green like Trees or Green Like Money?
August 19, 2008 16 Comments
Today a talented co worker with a nice smile pointed out a new website online where you could contribute 2 dollars, and they would plant a tree and give you a digital tree on their website. This idea was intended to be a charitable situation, but when it was Sphunn, it caused quite a few negative sphinns, and a lot of venom. ( Update: Unfortunately, It was removed from Sphinn, but I did manage to save a few of the quotes below from the discussion )
Is it ok to take greenback to become Green?
There are a couple of issues at play here, the first one being a morality question. Sassy internet blogger Sugarrae says that she has a problem with this:
Because this was a shady way to promote this, you got called out, now you’re being an asshat about things by trying to justify using a charitable act to earn money. Not cover your costs, but earn money.
In his defense, the creator of the site, Troy Dunn, Director of Web Development at Page1Solutions, rationalizes that
I don’t know how much time the rest of you have spent working for non-profits or raising money for the environement, but it’s not easy. So I came up with a way that benifts website owners and the planet. Not sure what the big deal with that is.
My personal take on it is that I don’t have a problem with people getting a benefit by running a green operation to plant trees. That would be like saying that people shouldn’t get any money back when they recycle…It’s not BAD that they received money for doing a good thing, it’s a good thing they did something positive, it’s just a bonus that they got paid too! What’s your opinion?
The other conflict should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to the search engines recently. The problem is that the tree’s he is selling on his site come with a hyperlink. Just think, if he had just left off the link part of the program, he might have avoided this problem all together. However, since it’s now part and parcel of his site, we need to ask what about Google’s stance on paying for links…
There could be a counter argument that any SEO is going to know that only the first few links on the site are going to be worth anything, so in terms of actual seo benefit, it’s a bit questionable. I think that if he adds No-follows to the links, that he will skate past google’s paid link prohibition, and people can still feel good about planting a real tree and a digital tree.
Update: The Sphinn of this article discussion was *I say questionably* removed, I sent an email to Sphin to find out why,
Hi Jeremy,
The submission was removed as 5 members of Sphinn marked it as spam.
We do not see it as relevant to Sphinn and it also isn’t a news story
or topic of discussion.
Hmm, “Break Dancing SEO’s” is relevant to sphinn, news story AND a topic of discussion though…
Here is my response to Sphinn:
I disagree with you and think you should reinstate my post: It is a topic of discussion as well as being news worthy:
1. Before you removed the other sphinn discussion there was a large number of SEO industry people involved in debating the post-
2. It’s a discussion of a site that may be considered selling “paid Links” – Absolutely this is a “Topic of Discussion” in the seo industry. Are you saying there is no debate about paid links?
3. The ethical question of utilizing a web charity to make a profit, and also contribute to the environment isn’t “newsworthy”?
It’s not like recycling..
It’s like standing out front of Wal-Mart with a bell and a red bucket and then only giving half to the Salvation Army.. Because after all, you spent your valuable time standing there ringing the bell and deserve to be paid..
As for the link selling, I could care less about that than just about anything else in the great big world.. He’s welcome to sell all the links he wants, that’s between him and Google..
BTW – looks like your post at Sphinn got deleted too.. Someone over there has friends covering for him..
Howdy Feydakin,
I myself used to be involved with several charities, both governement funded and privately funded. Out of government grants received for assistance, 60-70% went to the organization to get everything done… now is that right?…not sure…
I see what you mean though, he could be a little more transparant in his efforts. Then again, those people who do collect money in front of Walmart actually DO use portions of that toward their organization, which often includes benefits to the people who actually do the standing.
In terms of selling links, I wonder how quickly he might get slapped down by Google, or if he’ll skate by… Google is a fickle god…
wow…that sucks about my post getting deleted… I don’t see how my post violated any sacred rules…
I am going to ask and see if sphinn will tell me why.
I would agree with you, except he isn’t an 301c organization, he’s some guy saying give me money so I can give “some” to the charity.. Just not cool..
I purchased a group of trees and will gladly take a link but personally would rather have the link nofollowed.
I purchased a group of trees fully aware that $1.00 would get distributed for a tree to be planted and $1.00 going into the pockets of the site owner. Everyone needs to make a living from their efforts or creativity and I don’t fault the site owner for that; more power to him.
The added advantage for me in my opinion is that if the site picks up publicity in a positive way then my website will pick up traffic.
@feydakin Ok..wow… You’re right I didn’t think about that aspect
@John I agree that if he no-followed the links he would have avoided the whole issue.
On a seperate note: Looking at his source code he added this to his page coding…
– Ha, you found my secrect message. But, while you’re reading this, I’m in your base, killing your d00ds!
@John Jones, why not just give all the money to the Arbor Day foundation?? I don’t know anyone that “volunteers” to help a charity that expects to be paid.. It’s just disgusting..
As long as it promotes awareness of what we are doing to the environment, I’m all for it.
http://www.digitalovercast.com/gogreen.html
“With average compensation of $114,000, the chief executives of Seattle-area non-profits are among the lowest paid in the nation, though most still bring in six-figure incomes.
Nationally, charity leaders earn an average of $142,000 per year in salary and benefits, according to a compensation study released last week by Charity Navigator.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/287959_nonprofits09.html
Pingback: Musings For A Darkened Room » Blog Archive » If You’re Helping The Environment, Who Doesn’t Profit?
@feydakin
Publicity of course. You don’t possibly think fortune 500 companies contribute to charities out of the kindness of their heart do you? They are in it most likely for the tax write offs and the publicity potential.
I bought 12 trees. Of which six are virtual and should that site get any publicity then my site would benefit.
I see this as an investment towards keeping the planet green and a marketing strategy. Nothing wrong with that.
Troy, You took a lot of heat on Sphinn for the “Link Scheme” aspect. I personally think that a positive contribution to the environment is a good thing, and creative ways to reach to markets who normally wouldn’t be envirnmentally active should be encouraged. However, how do you respond to the concerns that you are selling links? Is it a “consequences be damned” approach that if Google decides to act, then so be it? Have you considered changing the linsk to Anchor text links, and then adding no-follows?
It’s called Sphinn disease Jeremy. Let it roll off your back. You’ll find those of your own kind…even there.
Like me.
In the meantime, here’s some schweet Sphinn reading for your enjoyment. Just a couple things. *wink*
Kimberly Bock (spostareduro, the Sphinn underdog defender..haha)
http://learningseobasics.com/index.php?s=Sphinn&sbutt=Find