Its Official - Google doesn’t hate SEO’s - but we do have an image problem

Lisa Barrone from Bruce Clay followed up my previous post on whether Google hated SEO’s (from the 8th of August) which provoked the following response from none other than Matt Cutts from Google

“I also feel like if Google hated SEO, we’d know it. Google isn’t just tolerating SEOs; they’re going out of their way to help them and give them access to more information. We’ll always want more information and more data and more transparency, but if you look at what they’ve given us over the years, it’s pretty impressive.”

What you said. Google definitely doesn’t hate SEO. Sure, there are some bad SEOs out there that do bad things–sometimes even illegal things. See e.g. http://justinsomnia.org/2007/08/search-engine-marketeers-are-the-new-script-kiddies/
Stuff like that ends up giving SEO a black-eye with lots of people. And you only need to watch the Scoble video to see that SEO has an image problem with some non-SEO folks.

But Googlers know that there are a ton of great SEOs out there that help clients improve their sites and make the web more crawlable. And the more that we can do to help and encourage those SEOs, the better that is for the web and the search industry.

So the short answer is that Google doesn’t hate SEO or SEOs”

Which as it turns out followed on quite nicely from yesterdays post regarding changing peoples perception of SEO - and growing up into a respected profession - not an easy job - but one I would say is necessary in the long term

1 comment August 31st, 2007

Does SEO need to evolve

I have read a number of posts recently which unfortuntely in my opinion do not portray Search Marketing in particularly SEO in a particularly good light.

In particular there has been a long running thread over at Joost De Valk’s blog regarding DMoz, where a number of quite respected Search Marketeers and Dmoz editors have been involved in a sometimes quite heated debate. This followed of the initial post by Jeremy Shoemaker (aka Shoemoney)’s post regarding DMoz.

Whilst this is probably not the biggest, and probably not the ugliest of such examples (lets use the recent Scoble example or Dave Pasternack (Rocket Science) as others), however it does show what a powerful medium we are working with and unfortunately one which can have knock on effects.

With traditional advertising, spats were generally kept private, with maybe a few industry commentators privy to them, perhaps leaked out ocasionally to the press (if the company was big enough), however the Internet is different.

Having such a ‘discussion’ means hundreds if not thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people can read about your discussion, which in itself is not a bad thing (lets face it as SEO’s most of the discussion forums I would suggest are optimised - and thus probably feature more highly). However using the above example (Dmoz) as an example, somebody coming across such a post is hardly likely to look favourably on Dmoz, and may alter their perceptions of SEO as a result. Perhaps that example may be slightly far fetched, however the issue still remains that many of these conversations should be kept professional at all times, and in line with other more established professions.

People like Danny Sullivan and others have always worked hard to establish SEO and Online Marketing as a respected profession (rather than the Dark Art it is/was referred to as), however surely we have to act professional at all times, in order to earn respect, particularly from other sectors, both within advertising/marketing and externally.
At the end of the day, just because we have the power to do something, doesn’t mean that we should. Just because we can linkbait, doesn’t mean the tactic should be used willy nilly. Just because we have a strong opinion, doesnt mean that opinion should be shouted about on a public forum. In any other profession such activity (dare I say) would be frowned upon, and whilst we are different from other professions, at the end of the day, maybe we can still learn something from them.

7 comments August 30th, 2007

Demystifying the SEO myths…

A quick linkout to a very good article by Dan Thies, demystifying the SEO myths often bounded round the industry. Statistical SEO is often bounded round in various shapes and sizes including LSI SEO, however the following article explores some of the facts behind these theories.

To read more click here

1 comment August 29th, 2007

Paid Links - a UK SEO perspective Part II.5

If any reason, as to the issues arising from link development and why non-paid links are not without their problems
DMoz mob strikes again

Digg commentary on the above

For previous posts on paid links, please visit

Paid Links - Good or bad - a UK SEO perspective 

Paid Links - A UK SEO perspective Part II 

Add comment August 29th, 2007

Not doing enough research into your clients?

Right, a bit of time away from the paid links debate. I have just finished Dave Pasternack’s ‘Dave to ad agencies: Do your homework or get out of my office’ article on DMNews. Whilst I did start reading it awaiting another anti-seo rant - I did have to say I found myself agreeing with quite a lot of what he said (however I will hasten to add I didnt agree with the over-generalisation of SEO’s as a whole as a bunch of sheisters)

The article has come around as a result of a recent study by the Intelligent Business Group, a UK-based marketing think tank and provided an interesting critique of most advertising and marketing agencies primarily in the US. However the main discussion point from the report was just (in Dave P’s words) “out of whack today’s advertising industry is.”.

Other interesting findings were as follows:

• 100% of respondants stated that the ability to provide insight into their customers was one of the most important  factors - in order words the decision making process went beyond the ability to create mind blowing artistic work and creative, with agencies being seen as partners with significant expertise of the marketplace as a whole
• 85% believed that agencies didn’t do enough research before making their pitch. Even more suprising, 61% went as far as saying that they believed agencies did absolutely no research at all prior to pitch

Dave says the next bit far better than I can

“Can you imagine this situation occurring in any other professional field? What would you do with a doctor or lawyer who walked into your office to solicit your business, uttered a bunch of smooth verbiage, but couldn’t answer even the most basic questions about your legal or medical situation? Chances are you’d toss this charlatan out of your office within 60 seconds. And yet clients — and I’m talking about Fortune 100 clients — tolerate this behavior from ad people. If anyone’s looking for the reason why so many accounts churn or why so many CMOs last only a few months in their jobs, you’ve found it.”

However it is a shame that the article then descended into an over-generalised critisism of the search industry, however I will add that some of his critisism, unfortunately does have some validity. Internet marketing despite having come along way in the last couple of years is still very new, and personally I would suggest the advertising industry as a whole is still learning how people react/use the internet and thus how to most effectively target customers. lets not forget, the television industry probably has over 50 or so years on the Internet, and print even more, so there are definite learnings to be made.
However I will end on the following note - surely its how we as advertising organisations (whether online or offline) learn from such reports, and apply to this to our working lives will determine how effective we become. This is not a one-way process though, and I would suggest that both client and advertising partner have to work more closely together, in order to understand each other for any campaign to fully realise its potential.

To read Dave’s full article, please click here

Add comment August 29th, 2007

Paid Links - a UK SEO perspective Part II

I have just read John Andrews recap of the SES session on Paid Links (hat tip to Andrew Girdwood for the initial post on this), and have to say from my earlier post, possibly one aspect I missed was the subject of content development.

Both John and Andrew (and Google from the afore mentioned session) make reference to the value of unique content, which I would suggest all SEO specialists would agree with, is one of the most important aspects of SEO. However I do have to still stop short of the ‘Paid links are bad’ argument.

Whilst I would agree, a campaign based purely on paid linkage is surely not advisable or indeed should be rewarded, I still personally don’t see the problem with paid linkage (again I would highlight the fact this is coming from someone who hasnt employed such tactics to any real effect on the past).

However, move back to my original references to the offline model.

If I were to market my product offline, I may use a PR campaign (lets compare this to Content generation) and some direct offline marketing or magazine advertorials (lets compare this to link generation whether it be paid or unpaid). Offline works with a combination of the two factors (albeit the example above being wildly oversimplified), however the point is - surely Google’s algorithm could factor in such factors as uniqueness of content, depth of content, link density, link relevancy and weight accordingly.

Paid links aren’t bad - over-reliance on paid links is bad, however my concern with the approach of such radical action is it merely serves to focus hardcore OVER-SEO activity elsewhere, like recipricol linkage before it. I personally understand what both John and Andrew say about content, however the mere fact Google have said Content is good will no doubt result in millions of pages of so-called unique content being produced thus diluting both the value and quality of content, and I would suggest we may find ourselves in a similar situation regarding content generation in the future.

I will however end this post echoing some of John’s thoughts. Whilst I personally may not agree with some of the factors of Googles recent approach to paid links, we have to live with them, and I will end with a quote from Johns post

“Is Google “right” in it’s approach to the web? Is Google “just” in it’s delivery of the carrot and the stick? Is Google “fair” in the way it operates? None of that matters to the search marketer/SEO. …You need to get to know Google, and listen to what Google says. You don’t need to agree” - John Andrews - johnon.com

2 comments August 28th, 2007

Paid Links - Good or bad - a UK SEO perspective

There is a lot of debate going on within the industry as regards whether paid links are good or bad following Google’s recent decision to ‘clamp down’ on sites using paid linkage for SEO purposes. Opinions vary greatly in the industry, from Andrew Girdwood (of Bigmouthmedia fame) in the ‘Paid Links are bad‘ corner (note - link is not nofollow - and thus will pass pagerank - as I think both sides of the campaign need to be aired), and Michael Gray in the ‘Paid Links are good‘ corner who it might be said is not in favour of the nofollow tag (again nofollow not included - as I would like to remain impartial - at this stage).

Impartiality over and I’ll now get of the fence. I have discussed this at length with one of my SEO pals in particular (Will Graham). I personally have to say I agree with Michael’s viewpoint (to a certain degree). In my opinion, Paid linkage merely affects those with sufficient budget to exploit such an opportunity, and I would suggest isn’t likely to affect smaller operations.

Whilst I can see the theory behind this, in practise it doesn’t work in my opinion. If I want to advertise on the Superbowl/FA Cup Final - I have to pay the applicable going rate - same applies for pitch sponsorship/press advertising etc). At the end of the day money talks - always has, and probably always will, and whilst that isnt a good counter argument, it is unfortunately true.

Now, I hear the argument for paid search being countered to the above, however Google is clamping down on such activity because of the attempted exploitation of its algorithm. Why does it have to do this - because people are constantly looking for new ways to get to number one, and in fear of alienating myself in the community, I would suggest it is many smaller SEO’s that are responsible for much of the clamping down. Let me explain that comment further.

• Have you ever seen a multinational organisation exploit open blogs/websites via scripting for extra linkage - in all likelihood - no
• Have you seen a lot of big organisations relying heavily on link farms etc - in all likelihood no.
• Have you seen many big organisations write an automated script merely replace keywords on an ongoing basis to target niche localised terms - in all likelihood no
• How many large organisations have you seen employing large scale cloaking techniques - ok there are some - but not many in my opinion

Whilst many of these have been clamped down on - surely there is still a lot of work here to do, and making a big song and dance about paid linkage merely moves the problem on to another area that search marketeers will try to exploit.

At the end of the day (and this is my esteemed friend Will’s main point which we both agree on) - it comes down to Intent. Surely relevant paid linkage is not bad - it is merely exploiting the fact that search engines like Google, have created a commodity (ie something of value). This isn’t the fault of the advertisers, or the SEO’s and thus what is the point of penalising them for it?

At the end of the day, what is the difference between a paid linkage and a paid directory link - nothing at the end of the day, however it should be suggested they are both treated differently. It is a SEO’s job to build links - surely in aroundabout way thats paid linkage (albeit a stretch of the imagination) - however the point is - its a very grey area)

Using a recent example (and this is based on heresay - rather than fact), a major supermarket chain was rumoured to have bought their way to number 2 for the term ‘car insurance’ via a hardcore link building campaign. This is rumoured to have cost a fair amount of money and was successful in its objectives (albeit short term). However upon picking on the pattern, the result appears to have been ‘dropped’ in the index, and thus the effectiveness of those links dramatically reduced.Now ask yourself. Was this result relevant - yes it was. Was it on topic - Yes. Did it deserve to be there - IMO yes - a lot of work went in to generating that linkage - albeit reliant on paid linkage and personally I would rather such sites were found, than irrelevant sites that place merely based on automated scripting and link development

Wouldn’t providing more interaction with the search marketing community, and accepting that people are always going to try and get to number one and thus use people like SEO’s, be a better way for Google to react to such activity. By accepting it goes on and focussing on relevancy, surely Google can only enhance the relevancy of its results.
I personally would like to see some middle ground in the argument, as surely there is some place for paid linkage in the optimisation mix (PS Google check the site - I’m clean - no paid linkage here or client sites - just my own humble personal opinion)

5 comments August 24th, 2007

Personalisation - The Future of Web Search

The Search Engine Strategies (SES) conferences always throw up a number of interesting talking points and this years San Jose conference is no different. The SES conferences was co-organised and hosted by Searchwise president Chris Sherman and Search Engine Land maestro Danny Sullivan
Marissa Mayer, speaking at this years Search Engine Strategies (SES) Conference and Expo in San Jose - which a number of prominent search engine optimisation specialists attend - was quoted as saying that personalisation was a integral part of the future plans, by saying that search sites would have a better understanding of their searchers, such as where their users are based, and what it is that they like. Using examples such as Facebook she highlighted the benefits such information could provide from a search perspective. According to CNet News, Ms Mayer was quoted as follows: the type of information [Facebook is] building about the social graph between people is something that is intelligent and will be particularly useful in the future.

Ms Mayer also indicated that Google plans to let users know when their results are personalised (and not). and offer ways in which users can toggle between these results.

Whilst personalised search has long been mentioned within the SEO community, the presentation highlighted a number of new features Google have in the offing..

Add comment August 23rd, 2007

SEO is corrupt - changing perceptions

Whilst we all know the above not to be the case, it still amazes me how many times such comments still come out, however it is that coupled with a lack of ‘value’ that has really prompted this post.

I have lost count of the amount of times upon first meeting a client, I have a comment along the lines of ‘I only paid a fraction of that with my previous agency’ (and having ended up working on these sites/campaigns - it becomes all to apparent why they paid a fraction). However, it was a recent post on the UK Business Forums that really has got me thinking more about this.

In it one of the posters stated the following:

SEO is a corrupt industry - and I feel sorry for the honest SEO’s who are trying their best (RayB - Alocalprinter.com on the UKBusinessForums).

This statement, whilst grossly unfair, does however display the perception search engine optimisation in particular has, and whilst this statement is to a certain extent the personal opinion (although very misguided), it does serve as a benchmark of the mindset we as an industry need to change, particularly here in the UK.

If I went to an advertising agency, and told them I wanted 1000 signups in a month at a CPA of £50, I would be charged a GDP of a small country, however because the web is the web, that same model doesnt appear to translate to online marketing, with comments such as ‘ I also think the SEO industry is the new “Gold Rush” - lots of Cowboys and wild prices.’ (apologies our friend RayB yet again) commonplace.

So where does the issue lie?

Pricing

One has to therefore ask ourselves why is this? This particular scenario was in regard to a price quoted for an SEO project (I have my guesses which one - as initial poster mentions top 10 for SEO), where a price of 65K was mentioned. OK that sort of price whether a fair reflection of work or not (and in my opinion NOT), does not do any good for the reputation of the industry as a whole, as a shady bunch, rather than the Search Marketing professionals we are, and only serves to re-inforce the ‘SEO is a black art/SEO is overpriced brigade’. I would add however I would suggest such pricing was stated in order to disuade the client, rather than a true reflection of project value.
However pricing as a whole is still an issue. It varies widely across the industry, from niche regional boutique agency ad-ons to major search marketing only organisations such as Bigmouth and Latitude. However it is against the lowest common denominator that many of these prices are judged rather than against the larger organisations, which I would suggest isa more common practise across other related marketing sectors. Yes your web design/development agency can do SEO and Paid Search - but is it there bread and butter - Can they advise on long-term strategy - Integration of Online PR - Do they use up-to-date SEO techniques rather than Meta/On page optimisation only - Do they know what Panama is - the list goes on. I would suggest many of these ad-on type agencies don’t.

Selling Techniques

OK, I admit this is a bit generalised, however there are a number of Search Marketing agencies out there that do the Baffle, that is they blind the client with science, many of which are either factually incorrect or are hardly ever or never actually ever implemented on a SEO campaign.

This creates a feeling of ‘mystery’ about the industry to a certain extent, and to a certain degree a phobia. That coupled with the scaremonger Internet stories out there only serve to disuade potential advertisers of the power of the internet as a marketing tool.

The Internet is and will continue to be a powerful marketing tool, not just in terms of Search Engine Marketing but also in terms of other areas of Online Marketing such as Behavioural targeting and the like. However I would suggest until this stigma is broken their will continue to be a degree of reluctance by some advertisers to leverage the potential of the Internet.

Perception

Yes, Joe Blogs can optimise his site for ‘ant collection expert Oxford’. However and this is a BIG however, SEO is more than just optimising for a particular term, it is the aim of optimising for terms that will drive traffic, from enhanced visibility (not just in terms of search engines themselves) and encompasses far more than just visibility on one very localised term.

These days search engine optimisation comprises far more than just it used to. SEO has and probably always will do, had a foundation of creating new entry points into websites (ie linkage), and this means leveraging opportunities that are not just about mere PR passing, but also about traffic/lead generation. However in common day SEO, other facets of Search marketing are part of the SEO mix, such as Online PR, Social media Optimisation and Linkbaiting.

Paid Search is another part of the Search Marketing mix that suffers from a mixed public perception. According to a recent presentation I had from a Marketing Consultant, Paid search is perceived as expensive. I would in certain areas agree with this perception, particularly within the sub-prime finance sector, however there are still a lot of areas where a very good ROI can be achieved. For example I recently worked on a stairlift project where the ROI from the Online Marketing activity (in particular the PPC Management) was over four times lower than the offline activity, both in terms of the number of conversions and the actual cost per figures being reported.

Lack of regulation

This is one area where things are changing, particularly with the introduction of the Search Marketing Charter from the IAB. Such activity can only serve to enhance the perception of Search and Online Marketing as a whole.

Search Engine Marketing has come along way in short period of time, and no doubt will continue to evolve. However there is still some education required in order to show people just how Search Marketing and Online marketing can benefit an organisations marketing strategy

Add comment August 22nd, 2007

Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) launch Search Marketing charter

Taken a bit longer than expected to get this story up however probably an important one for nearly all us UK search engine marketers. The Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) and the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) have colloborated to launch the first search marketing charter in an attempt to establish best practice within the industry. This is the first time the two industry bodies have collaborated on search standards and together they reach more than 1,250 industry members.

Search marketing is still one of the fastest growing advertising/marketing sectors around, and currently equates to around 58 per cent of all online ad spend in the UK, a figure which is expected to continue growing. The IAB charter is aimed solely at search engine marketing companies and identifies four key criteria (however more are expected before the end of the year):

• For companies to become IAB compliant they must have at least two dedicated search marketing employees and have search engine accreditation (such as Google Adwords Professional). Companies wishing to be compliant must also offer official search engine optimisation (SEO) training.
• Organisations should have been trading for at least six months.
• Companies must also be a member of either IAB UK, IAB Europe, DMA, Search Engine Marketing Professionals Organisation (SEMPO) or the Association of Business to Business Agencies (ABBA) in order to qualify. It should be noted that all IAB and DMA members are being encouraged to comply with the current criteria over the next few months, with the aim being to achieving maximum industry coverage before the end of the year.

I would add we feel this is an important step within the sector in order to give the industry more credibility as a whole (as despite the fact that such a large % of spend is spent on search marketing in the UK - there is still widespread ‘ignorance’ of the industry as a fundamental part of a marketing mix - particularly within organisations where no previous online activity has taken place, and the focus of much activity has been offline focussed ( I can reel off a list as long as my arm on this one ).

Whilst this still stops short of ticking all boxes - it is definitely a move in the right direction, a sentiment shared by
Robert Dirskovski, head of Interactive Media, DMA, added: “As the digital element of direct marketing continues its fast paced growth, it is vital that we embrace all facets of digital marketing – including search – to promote and maintain high standards.

“Together with the IAB, we hope to create a rigorous set of best practice principles that will set the standard for search marketing while being adaptable to change within the industry.”

1 comment August 21st, 2007