Why Don't You Rank on Search Engines? - Article Options

[AbleReach]

Why Don't You Rank on Search Engines?
by Mike Grehan via Clickz:

There are two main reasons your site doesn't rank well on the search engines:

   Your business model is flawed or ill-conceived. And your Web site is garbage.

So it's quite astonishing when I discuss genuine reasons a client's pages aren't ranking, and she just doesn't get the fact the answer is not in the code. It's in the business model and the way she promotes herself online.

I ask clients to be very honest about whether they believe they have a business concern online or just a Web site. If we discover they truly have a genuine business that can differentiate itself, we look at the Web site.

Elizabeth

[phaithful]

I must agree with the article.

I frequently find myself in the awkward situation of trying to keep my client happy while having to tell her that her baby is ugly and unpopular.

Most people trying hard to read up on Search Engine Optimization to learn the "tricks" are trying to find an end all / be all way of getting traffic and ultimately sales to their website. What they don't realize is that their website is so horrific that even if they had traffic coming to their site, most people wouldn't trust them enough to pull out their credit cards.

The sad thing is that there are a few handful of small internet businesses that have a genuinely good product with a well designed site, but they can't for the life of them get listed on the search engine to expand their traffic. Either because they have been sandboxed or more likely, their competitors who have an inferior product / service has poured hundreds and maybe thousands of dollars toward black hat seo services. In addition, they have been convinced that Search Engines are the only type of marketing this is worth while, even though many successes of generating new traffic to a site has been through traditional offline marketing.

I'll get off my soap box now.

[AbleReach]

Ugly baby syndrome, or defensive doldrums? I'll bet we've all done this in our private or business lives to one extent or another.
Signs:

1. What are your goals?
Does the answer include mostly goals or mostly lists of limitations and irritations?

2. What do you want your business to do for the consumer?
Is the answer a vaguely worded mission statement?

3. How to you intend to demonstrate #2? What do you believe would demonstrate #2 to your customers?
Blank stare?


Elizabeth

[seoannie]

So how do we combat the ugliness that permeates the web? Most of these seo companies focus on the tricks. Where are the full service marketing companies that provide a multi-pronged approach towards online (and offline) advertising?

[sanity]

Another great article from Mike. A couple of other things that stood out for me:

The most important aspect of ranking at search engines is about getting good, solid links around your Web pages. You can only achieve that if your content is strong enough to induce it.

So true. Creating quality, relevant content is a really important part of a successful SEO strategy in my books. I've seen it work time and time again.

The other important part of link building relies heavily on whether other site owners know you exist in the first place. This seems like a chicken-or-the-egg thing when applied to search marketing. There's a method to get around this: advertising.

The bold bit is mine. I'm amazed at how many business's whole strategy is to get free organic listings. They're great and can definitely bring in leads but there's a whole wealth of advertising opportunities out there both on and offline.

What they don't realize is that their website is so horrific that even if they had traffic coming to their site, most people wouldn't trust them enough to pull out their credit cards.

Very true phaithful. And on this one you really have to be brutally honest with your prospect. Either they take it on board and you start again with a sound strategy or you walk away.

[Black_Knight]

It is a good article, though far too brief for someone like me who likes to hear Mike expand upon these themes. Even if he does insist on girlie drinks while doing so.

In fact, this is one of several topics that Mike and I have discussed a few times over drinks at the end of a day. We keep coming back to it, and it keeps surprising us that it is still true.

People don't get the 'Net.

They keep trying to open a local store in a global market. You know, that local store that isn't very good, but survives because it is convenient for the people who live nearby for those small purchases.

But online, all stores are equidistant - one click. I can go to 'Sam's So-So Store' in one click or I can go to 'Eve's Excellent Emporium' in one click. Unless Sam can provide me with better value, or some other [glossary]USP[/glossary] that actually matters to me I'm going to go to Eve's Excellent Emporium where I trust the quality, where she buys in enough bulk to offer better prices, and where I've always received superb service.

I've said it many times before, but it always seems to bear repeating: The Internet is the most competitve commercial environment there has ever been. Sure, there are millions of customers out there, but there is also every competitor in the entire world competing for them on equal ground. Those millions don't spread themselves out among the full competition. They all choose what they believe to be the best for their needs. Its a power-law.

If all 300 million people who want a product believe that Eve's emporium is the best place to buy it, then all 300 million go there. Sam's So-So Store isn't guaranteed any slice of the market he doesn't actively earn and compete for.

The Pareto Distribution (named after the Pareto who noted that 80% of the wealth in his country was owned by just 20% of the population) and the idea of Wealth Condensation seem to entirely elude the masses. They always assume somehow that they'll magically be in the elite 20% without needing to work their way there. Perhaps thats the Idiot in Idiocentricity at work. Its certainly saddening for those of us who hate to burst anyone's bubble, but want even less to rob a sucker.

[Ron Carnell]

Pendulums swing wide. And as so often happens when writers try to create catchy hooks, I think Mike has allowed his to perhaps swing a little too wide.

Yea, there are sites with flawed business models and web sites that are garbage. Heaven knows we've all seen them. The article, however, is about ranking on search engines, and forgive me, but there are usually more than ten or twenty or even thirty companies that don't have flawed models and garbage sites. I think you can have a fairly decent business model and a site well on the positive side of garbage and STILL come in at number thirty-one in the SERPs.

Lack of good SE ranking can't be justified in a vacuum. Often, poorly ranking sites aren't necessarily bad or flawed . . . they're just not as good as ten or twenty or thirty other sites. Sometimes, they're not as good by a nose. I'd even go so far as to say sometimes they ARE just as good, but perhaps have unaddressed technical barriers or are still in their infancy.

I will heartily agree that the very first question SEO should always ask is, "Does the site deserve to be on page one?" But it can't be the only question asked, and I think even a negative answer has to be evaluated more closely than Mike's article might suggest. A flawed business model to some can quickly become the next "big thing" to an ever-changing Internet audience. I still blushingly remember predicting the imminent demise of a new company called goto.com because I was absolutely certain their business model was built on a fairy tale. True innovation isn't always easily judged, and when goto.com became Overture.com a few years later, even I admitted I was wrong.

I know a whole lot of people who optimize web sites for the search engines. The number who are experts at SEO and usability and marketing can be counted on one hand (and still have a few fingers left over to pinch those dreaming they should be on the list). Ask the hard questions Mike recommends, by all means, walk away if you must, but never let yourself forget that SEO/SEM -- by its very nature -- is a partnership. You don't own the man's business and, frankly, I think it's the height of hubris to always assume you know more than he does about his own market. Keep an open mind and he just might be able to teach you something you only thought you knew.

I think Mike's article makes some really good points, but I also think it over-generalizes what is a small segment of the Web. That's hard not to do in maybe 500 words, of course, but I suspect we should remember it IS just 500 words or so. The real story is likely a little bigger than that.

[Black_Knight]

I will heartily agree that the very first question SEO should always ask is, \"Does the site deserve to be on page one?\" But it can't be the only question asked, and I think even a negative answer has to be evaluated more closely than Mike's article might suggest.

Great points (as ever) Ron, and while I agree entirely in the spirit, I'm going to pick on the one quote above.

I believe that every site deserves to be on page one for something. Its just that the something it deserves is too often not what the owner had in mind.

Sam's So-So Store might be a perfect #1 result for "not-so-great stores in <locality>" but the chances are he wants to be #1 for "shopping" and has somehow bought into the garbage that the internet is made up of millions of people desperately looking for ways to spend in money in any old store they can find.

There really still are people building sites based on some vague belief that the average internet user cannot differentiate between sites and will just buy from anyone. They really think people don't shop around. That's not a minority either, but a majority - at least based on my own experience of all the RFPs and approaches made to me over the years.

However, the part of the story that is hard to write, because people don't want to hear it is that success rarely goes to the best. A bad product sold well will almost always be more successful than a great product sold badly.

So by all means ask "does your company deserve to be ranked in the world top-ten?" but it is just as important to ask "or can you afford to out-market the ones that do?"

Marketing a great product well is always easier (and far less costly in resources) than marketing a bad product well. Bribery is expensive, but what else can you call buying the citations and testimonials that the product couldn't get on merit really? However, bribery is commonplace, and is effective.

In fact, after a time, there are always people that would often rather take the pay for citing a bad product than give away that 'advertising' space to a good one. That's why the good products still need to be marketed well. A good product can gain the genuine, matter of pride honest recommendations, but it may still need to buy some of the "I'll recommend whatever you pay me to" ones as well. The one advantage of the genuinely good product is that it can get both.

[randfish]

Sam's So-So Store might be a perfect #1 result for \"not-so-great stores in <locality>\"

Brilliant, Ammon.
Imagine, rather than Mike having to tell his client that the baby is ugly, he can just say, "Well, Madam. I'm afraid that the most relevant search for your site is 'dirty junk store in a Southampton alley' - Good luck."

This is why whenever I do consulting, the first part of my reports are always about what the person can do to have content "worthy" of those first few positions. If you aren't willing or able to do that, you're probably in the wrong line of work. SEO, and indeed, business success in general relies on your ability to have attributes that make you the most attractive offering to one market or another.

[bragadocchio]

So how do we combat the ugliness that permeates the web? Most of these seo companies focus on the tricks.  Where are the full service marketing companies that provide a multi-pronged approach towards online (and offline) advertising?

Hi seoannie,

Mike makes some excellent points. Having content that people want to link to can make an incredible difference.

But, I've also seen lots of sites that have great content located within content management systems that search engine spiders choke on. Or that use heavy doses of flash and java script and image text that makes it difficult for those spiders to index the excellent material on those pages, and locate other pages. There are sites with wonderful copy, that fail to use unique page titles, intelligently chosen link text, and have alt text for images that doesn't actually act as alternate text for those images.

Making sure that those aspects of a site are setup correctly, so that great content can stand a chance of being found is a good part of SEO.

It really can help if those aspects of a site are considered with the same care that the creation of great pages entails. It's really sad to see some of the best content on a site hidden in a pdf file, six or seven directory levels deep, with a single javascript link leading to it.

[seoannie]

What's the general consensus on new media content like RSS? I'm reading that this is becoming as effective as links.

[Black_Knight]

It was always effective as links where people used your RSS feed to syndicate your content into their own sites.

[esoos]

This is a great article, in that it's short, entertaining and to the point, with a catchy title. But, for the most part, it's not really telling us anything we don't already know.

The real gem here, I think, is in the nifty little link-building trick he lets slip at the end:

Since about 1999, I've been buying text ads in newsletters in just about every niche vertical you can imagine. Not only have those ads generated much needed awareness and traffic, those that are archived online still provide excellent, mature link equity.

Great thread, by the way. One for the bookmarks.