People also ask
In practice
The rule exists because anchors are read by two audiences with different tolerances. Brand anchors survive every border: the product’s name is a proper noun — German, Japanese and Polish readers all see it as the name, no translation needed, no awkwardness created, no manipulation signal possible. Descriptive anchors are where translation fails: a keyword phrase converted word-for-word produces text that reads as machine output to every native speaker — the phrasing is wrong, the idiom is wrong, and the editor who agreed to the placement now has to publish a sentence that embarrasses the page.
The correct method: descriptive anchors are written in the market’s language from the start, from the market’s own search behaviour (what do buyers in this market actually type — which is often not the translated phrase at all), by the native-speaking editor who is shaping the content anyway.
The campaign mechanics: the anchor plan is set per market with the same structure everywhere (brand-heavy, descriptive in natural phrasing) but not the same strings; the approval pack lists the exact anchor per placement so the client — who may not read the language — sees what was agreed; and the profile review at the end reads per-market, because a “natural” distribution in English says nothing about the German one.
The related temptation to name: English anchors on foreign sites for “consistency” — occasionally natural (developer audiences, English-language product names used descriptively), usually just easier for the vendor, and recognisable as lazy the moment a native speaker reads the page.
See also: Native-language editing, International link building, Multi-market anchor strategy.
Checklist: International Link Campaign.
Related service: International links.
