Seth Godin interrogates SEO Options

[peter_d]

The marketing industry has ethical guidelines. Many marketers adhere to these. It is indeed a shame that some do not.

Back on topic...will be interesting to see how Seth responds. His comments were more about the marketing benefit provided by SEO - he implies (incorrectly, IMHO) that SEO is mostly ineffective.

[bragadocchio]

If you missed it, here was Seth's response: Better living through hyperbole

[cre8pc]

FWIW, no surprises, but Doug has something to say about this, seems aimed particularly at SEO forum owners...

I saw that, and I disagree with his feeling that it's our responsibility to "out" SEO spammers and scammers. Teaching our community members what to look for, and what to avoid, is more empowering for them than setting up a tattle-tale community.

[Advisor]

Hmm...strange response from Mr. Godin! I do understand the going a bit overboard to make a point, as I've done that a bit myself, but it would have been nice if he went into a bit more detail.

Where is Doug's latest rant? (Can someone send it to me?) If it's about forum owners needing to "out" spammers, then of course, I also disagree. Nobody has a responsibility to out anyone.

[bwelford]

Hi Jill. Was it perhaps this rant by Doug on Traffic Power? I didn't see anything about Seth Godin over there.

[cre8pc]

Yep, that's the one I was referring to anyway

Hi Jill! Good to see you here. I know it's not because of our smilies (cough). :wink:

[cre8pc]

I am calling on ALL search engine forum owners to stop hiding the spammers. We are hurting the SEO industry by doing so.

The goal of all of us should be to put an end to search engine spam and those who blatantly practice search engine spam.

Doug's welcome to his opinion of course, but it's not a "goal" of this community to "put an end to search engine spam...".

I'm still not understanding what Seth's goal was. His followup is just as mysterious. I'm looking forward to Danny Sullivan's response. I'm expecting any dialog between them will be fun, frank and hopefully avoid the sensationalism and focus on facts.

[Advisor]

It is interesting how these subjects ARE tied together. Prominent people like Seth Godin think all SEO is spam, and therefore it is only natural to think that we need to clean up our own houses in order to stop that perception.

I agree that we need to do something to help the perception of SEO to the general public, but I think we all do that all the time simply by having forums like ours that tell people in easy to understand terms what's good and what's not so good.

Of course, our forums don't necessarily spread the word to regular people like Seth G. But then again, naming names in forums wouldn't get to the general public either.

I think we've all been doing a good job for many years to get the word out, and things have definitely been shifting. It's much easier to see that all SEO is NOT spam, if you do even the tiniest bit of research on the subject. You may have to use your own brain and common sense though to sort through the conflicting info. But anyone who has either of those two things can usually tell by the tone and comments of certain people, who is credible and who may not be so credible.

It's just a shame that Seth G. used his old perceptions of SEO in his article, when he obviously does know better. It made for a more dramatic article and those who don't know better would nod their heads in agreement.

[bwelford]

Perhaps he's been taking some coaching advice from Jakob Nielsen.

[peter_d]

This thread isn't related to outing spammers. As Kim says, Doug is entitled to his opinion, but that isn't the purpose of this board.

Back on topic...

Seth Godin is a marketing guy. His feeling expressed in the first article was that SEO provides negligible marketing benefit. If SEO is to be credible, it needs to show return on investment - the client needs to "get their money's worth". The credible SEOs do this. Those that don't, will never be credible, no matter what moral high ground they claim.

And he is right.

All marketing endevours must prove their worth. Just because an SEO claims "best practices" and "no spam techniques" does not therefore mean they provide value to the client.

Show me how you turned $1 into $2. That will always be credible.

[cre8pc]

I'm not inside Seth's head, and of course, someone with his background and experience can likely see around the dust in many corners a lot of us plow on past.

But I just can't help thinking he wrote to get the jolt he got. Perhaps he's seen the TrafficPower mess. And others. Maybe, like Doug, he really wanted to express some strong feelings and who cares if he's patted on the back for it?

Taking this out of context, he writes:

All other things being equal, is an optimized website better than one that's not? Sure.

Some people may wonder at what "better" is? For Peter and a lot of us, conversions, ROI, or proof of some sort of positive productive value, is the pot of gold. For others, its ripping off unsuspecting customers and who cares what the site looks like, or the ramifications of their efforts.

Seth couldn't refer anyone for SEO, he stated, in his intitial post. I thought that was sad, if true. I know many SEO's whom I respect and I know will work hard for a client, and do it honestly.

I've yet to understand why Seth had no one in mind that he could trust.

[Black_Knight]

Maybe it was all a secret ploy to get some top SEOs desperate to prove themselves and so offer him so free samples of their power? That'd be a more 'Seth-like' thing to believe in than that he's really so ignorant about good SEO, the difference between SEO and SEM, etc.

I can't help feeling really disappointed that Seth seems to have such a huge, (and given the research power of the internet, inexcusable), gap in his knowledge, which before this had seemed so extensive and well-rounded.

[dannysullivan]

I'm looking forward to Danny Sullivan's response. I'm expecting any dialog between them will be fun, frank and hopefully avoid the sensationalism and focus on facts.

There wasn't much to it. I'd fired off a quick email and posted what I said on our own forums. This is what I sent:

Saw your recent post on SEO. Let me try replacing SEO with the word PR and a few other similar changes, to see if you still have the same feeling:

PR is the purported science of getting your story into the headlines of media outlets.

The theory is that a huge number of people find what they're looking for via media outlets, that virtually all of these people only look at stories in the top outlets and that if you don't reach out via PR, you're doomed.

I just got a note from someone asking me for a recommendation, and when I said I didn't think that most PR was worth the money, he asked me why. So here goes:

Because it's a black art, it's really hard to tell who's good and who's not. I know some PR firms that are good, there are people who are less reputable... no matter what, it's hard to guarantee you'll get your money's worth.

Lucking into (and it is luck) the top headlines is not a business plan. It's superstition. It's blind faith.

PR firms are not a shortcut to success, at least not for 99% of the companies out there. You won't win by fooling major media outlets into writing stories about you. You will win once you figure out the simple mechanics of turning strangers into friends and friends into customers.

OK, enough with the illustration. There's nothing wrong with SEO per se, and I hope you'll revisit your views. It makes just as much sense to pay attention to how search engines index your web site as it does to perform basic public relations by getting a press release out. A few simple changes are often enough to bring you free, lasting traffic from search engines. Why wouldn't you want to do that. And there are indeed plenty of good, reputable firms that can help you, if you can't master the basics yourself.

The REAL problem with SEO is when people depend on it entirely. I've long written and spoken to people that SEO is like PR, and companies in the real world generally don't do just PR. You can't depend on it. That's why they also do ads and other types of marketing. The two combined -- SEO and search engine advertising, that's search engine marketing. The combination is very powerful.

But SEO alone? Yep, no one should build a business around just that. And extremely aggressive SEO, where you might go after tricks and chase any small algorithm change? Not at all what I'd recommend to someone. But don't mislead your readers into thinking all SEO is like that. It's not. Good SEO starts with having quality content, then making the important changes that even the search engines will tell you to do. There's nothing wrong with that.

He quickly replied that this was what he was trying to say but perhaps too hyperbolic, then he later blogged the same.

Overall, I found the post rather alarming with some other things I've seen recently. Anil Dash also expressed his "low opinion" of the SEO industry: http://www.dashes.com/anil/2004/06/04/nigritude_ultra. The issue with Traffic Power is another blow to it.

Personally, I'm rather tired of the entire SEM industry being tarred with the same brush. I'm giving a lot of thought to what I'll say about this in my keynote for the next SES show. My feeling is that something needs to happen to clean our image up. We can reopen the whole "ethical/white hat" debate, but I don't see that as the solution.

I see any solution as involving the search engines themselves, as I about recently: http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/art...cle.php/3344581. They need to be part of the process, and I think they've got a big stake in doing it.[/url]

[Advisor]

We can reopen the whole \"ethical/white hat\" debate, but I don't see that as the solution.

How can it not be at least part of the solution?

Let's face it, there are highly unethical companies calling themselves search engine marketers and optimizers who are stealing people's money and getting their sites banned.

How can the solution NOT involve something that has to do with standards and/or professional ethics?

I do agree that the search engines need to be involved. Afterall, it's their resources and algorithms that are getting used to cheat people and companies.

[Black_Knight]

How can it not be at least part of the solution?

Because it is part of the problem. Self-appointed and self-proclaimed 'ethicals' (where ethics is nothing to do with the difference) spouting nonsense that still isn't about proven success, but instead focuses on whether the person chooses to make SEO even more obstruse and disconnected with what matters - providing value for money and accountability to clients.

It would be hard to clearly define me as a white-hat SEO, and therefore only the term 'black-hat' could be applied to me. I regularly use doorway pages when the client has a need that they answer. I have used cloaking (and will again when the situation justifies it). Most convincing of all, I treat Google's webmaster guidelines as simply being what Google tell me is okay - not a limit on what I can do if I'm prepared to take a risk (and know how to minimise and manage risks).

So, by the way things are generally defined in these over-simplistic either-or debates, I am very much a 'black-hat' SEO. So tell me, Jill, am I an ethical professional SEO? Is every white hat SEO a better person to hire (or recommend) than I am?

[Advisor]

Oh great, try and make things confusing to me, Ammon! Don't you know that this is all black and white? Why do you have to stick your ugly gray in here where it doesn't belong!

That said, as ethical as you obviously are, I doubt the search engines would be happy with your doorway pages.

Like you, I could give a crap what the search engines say is right or wrong cuz they're not the boss of me. BUT...it makes sense that we have an obligation to show the engines what we're showing the users, or else we are "cheating" the engines.

Now, I know the arguments that who cares if we cheat the engines, they are cheaters themselves, and all that, but cheating is cheating. We're making a page appear to be relevant according to a search engine's algorithm, when it really isn't relevant according to what a user sees.

If the search engines were to be part of an organization, I would imagine they would want to exclude the companies that create pages like that. (Unless of course they are paid-for pages such as trusted feed, etc.)

At any rate, there have got to be some professional standards that can be applied to search engine marketing, just like they can be applied to any profession. Aren't there? Why is our profession so hard to pin down some simple, honest guidelines?

Now stop confusing me, Ammon. Every darn time I think I have this all figured out someone like you comes along with a good argument against it and it makes me want to scream. Instead I'm going to finish my wine and just get drunk and not think about it any more...

:celebrate:

[peter_d]

Here we go again

Agree with Danny. The search engines must come to the party and legitimate SEM. If they don't, the enivitable will happen: people will be left thinking that spending money on search marketing is a highly dubious activity, it they're not doing so already. See Seth Godin. See Anil Dash. See marketing directors the world over. The search engines should be aware that PPC is getting tarnished along with the rest.

The whitehat/blackhat definition is nonsense. Pretending that professional ethics is about literal interpretations of search engine guidelines does not make it so.

A credible seo shows they add value. The "ethical seo" appears to spend an inordinate amount of time grandstanding about morality. How does this solve anything? This merely directs attention away from what really matters when it comes to how our industry is perceived and what will make it grow:

Accountability.

[Black_Knight]

That said, as ethical as you obviously are, I doubt the search engines would be happy with your doorway pages.

I honestly think that most of the time they'd be quite happy with them, strange as that must sound.

The pages have been manufactured to gain rankings, adding new content that wasn't there before, and that the client would not have added but for the existance of search engines, but, once commited to building the pages for search ranking purposes, I ensure that they answer the question that is at the root of the search. People have a motivation in mind when they search, and my doorways expressly exist to answer it, and do so pleasingly enough to encourage and entice that searcher further into the site.

The search engines and I both share an awareness of the importance of serving the searcher with a great experience. I want the surfer to feel happy to use that search engine again, just as they do, because I know how to gain high rankings on it.

I never pollute the SERPs, because they are just as much the source of my living as they are to the SEs themselves.

[Aaron]

Excellent rational Ammon,

Wish others shared your same thinking of co-existance and cooperative measures to ensure the searcher finds exactly what they are looking for without hassle or endless frustration.

--
Aaron

[Advisor]

I never pollute the SERPs, because they are just as much the source of my living as they are to the SEs themselves.

That's great! Come over here ya big lug...I have a brand spankin' new white hat for ya!