magic-michael

Your deduction from this that they are trying to pass of the content as news is actually crazy.

That's what I mean, he doesn't look at the content itself

Absolutely, spot on. These publishers aren't just letting anyone post. If you actually check, the writers are legit experts in their fields.

Take a look at the authors and their LinkedIn profiles—they’ve been covering these topics for years

Not all of those sites were innocent of doing it the correct way.

How do you now they are completely separate? Or that there is no oversight?

Answer: You don't know. You're just speculating.

Can you show me where the garbage content is? They seem to all have experts that have written in these areas for decades.

When online directories were still relevant, this issue was already a common occurrence. For example, DMOZ, and the number of spammy directories that existed for link building purposes.

From my experience following Forbes Advisor (being a close competitor), the content actually seems to be of good quality, with experts contributing to different sections. They seem to really invest time and money into making it work, which stands out compared to other affiliate-driven sites. The editorial expertise in areas like insurance and finance is pretty evident, with professionals leading the charge.

Despite some of the concerns raised about leadership decisions and outsourcing, the quality of the content hasn’t taken a hit from what I can see.

Are they truly outsourcing everything as cheaply as possible? Or is it more nuanced, with key areas of expertise retained in-house.

It’s interesting that there’s a lot of frustration about revenue numbers being hidden. But let’s be honest, if they did expose the revenue, wouldn’t the first move be to shout it from the rooftops? People love to complain about a lack of transparency, but sometimes those same people are the first to use that info to stir things up even more.

sounds like things have changed a lot over the years you've been there? Interesting hearing how editorial and business teams have interacted—always feels like a tough balance when growth kicks in.

do you think the culture shift was just bound to happen as the company got bigger, or were there some key moments where things really started to shift?

I’m on the Editorial team at RV - so know the finance and insurance space well, and we deal with similar dynamics with the sales side, so I get where you’re coming from. I’ve seen stuff like this play out before, but curious to hear how it unfolded on your end.

What's the issue with all these websites? Is it simply that you have a distaste for affiliate sites in general?

It’s worth noting that Lars Lofgren’s own affiliate site (the person that wrote this article), hradvice.com, was impacted by a Google update in August, so there might be some personal bias and motive here.

But I’m curious—what exactly are the criticisms you have towards platforms like NerdWallet and Bankrate? Would love to better understand.

Is it unfair though?

While there’s definitely optimization for search, it doesn’t appear to be purely about that. A lot of the content, particularly on Forbes Advisor and Forbes Health, seems user-driven and genuinely helpful. If you spend some time exploring those areas, you’ll notice well-researched, in-depth guides aimed at offering practical advice.

Just some quick research and Google searching:

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/savings/financial-eme....

https://www.forbes.com/health/nutrition/diet/healthy-life-ex....

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/digital-wallets-payme...

Google has lost a small amount of market share, but nothing too significant to warrant "most of us have simply stopped using Google": https://searchengineland.com/googles-huge-search-market-shar....

I’m not sure how this applies to the conversation. The challenges being discussed here are centred around managing compliance and long-term sustainability within specific platform ecosystems. It’s about navigating policies, ensuring longevity, and minimising risk rather than short-term shareholder gains. The generational divide you’re mentioning doesn’t really seem relevant in this scenario.