Why Not Just Go Direct?
Posted by tim on October 29, 2004 at 04:36 PM
Overture and the AdWords division of Google (or the PPCSE's) are reaching out directly to ad/marketing agencies. They've decided it's time to introduce the wonder and magic of PPC to traditional agencies.
I can certainly see why they want to take this approach. It makes sense to tap into such a great source of potential revenue. After all, agencies have a direct connection to big name clients. They are trusted to advise. Agencies have the ear of decision makers and budget gurus for clients.
By helping agencies understand the value of PPC, these same agencies are empowered to make another offering to their clients.
I can't help but wonder though if this is a tactic of distraction?
While we're obviously a in a niche, those of us working in SEM/SEO have, for some time, understood the value of PPC. Thing is, our approach is to use PPC in concert with natural/organic optimization. Even those firms that specialize in paid search management would likely advocate for natural optimization as a sound complimentary strategy.
I'm not going to pretend that natural optimization is a free tactic. A strong campaign can and does require an investment. The difference here is, if you work on a strong natural campaign you can achieve and maintain long term positive positions in search engines. This allows for a more flexible PPC approach. Once a client's core keyterms have set down roots, PPC can accommodate sales, seasonal cycles, new products, etc.
More importantly though, firms that have been playing this game for a while understand what it takes for PPC to be successful. Overture and Google know what it takes to build a strong, response generating campaign. That's great. That's also how they make money. The PPCSE's need searchers to click ads. That's all they need. Agency clients need searchers to convert. Buy something. Download something. Fill out a form. What they do isn't critical as long as searchers do what the clients needs them to do. (Which is more than what the engines need)
Natural Search or Pay Per Click
Posted by tim on October 29, 2004 at 04:00 PM
Both? Neither?
There's really not a good way to quantify one as being better or worse than another.
Any decision on a search marketing campaign will depend largely on goals, targets, budget, and so on.
Many times, a company will rush into a paid campaign because they think they need fast results. They spend and spend on keywords and only months later do they realize how costly it's been. If you can't show a return, is it really a great idea to start throwing your money around?
On the other hand, if you've got product to move and it has to move fast, you probably shouldn't pin all your hopes on a campaign that might take 8 weeks to pick up.
As with almost any online marketing campaign, the most successful strategies are well thought out. Plan ahead.
Pat Yourself on the Back?
Posted by tim on October 26, 2004 at 04:09 PM
Hey, congrats. Really, I mean it. Nice work. You got the client site launched. It looks great too!
Is it actually worth anything?
Will it produce?
It better.
Remember when you heard all about a cool site that you had to see, just to "check it out"?
Ever wonder why you don't here that much anymore?
It's because no one cares. The 8-year old down the street has a website. The 8-year old, dude.
You can't just have a website anymore. That's really pretty cliche. You want to impress people, have a web site that does something for them.
psst, here's a little secret: if it does something for them, chances are it does something for you to.
One word for you...CONVERSION.
Get visitors to take some kind of an action. Any kind of an action. Download a paper. Fill out a form. Buy something. It doesn't matter, just get them to interact.
Here's the deal; a web site is part of the sales team now. If you've got a salesman that produces nothing - and I don't mean they don't produce much, I mean flat busted dead in the water nothing - does he get to stay on the payroll? Didn't think so. Why is a site so different. You make an investment of time and money on the thing. If it can't produce, why let it hang around.
Just Whip Up a Plan
Posted by tim on October 20, 2004 at 03:59 PM
A Search Engine Marketing Campaign is very often set up to run for 12 months at a time.
In a world of instant gratification, this can sometimes be a bit of a surprise.
Does it really take a year for SEO?
It can.
But it doesn't normally take a year for a campaign to achieve real, measurable, results. What takes a year is maintaining positions in search results.
In order to protect search results from malicious, misleading, web sites, the powers that be adjust the ranking formulas constantly. This is good for users, and normally good for optimized sites, but it requires vigilance.
There are widely accepted "best practice" methods for optimization. Top SEO firms implement these techniques everyday. (In fact, there isn't a whole lot of difference in what the top firms are doing for their clients. It has more to do with the personalities than the methodologies)
The hitch is, anything considered "ethical" today, could be deemed a Spam technique tomorrow. The reason to have an SEO/M firm committed for a year is to anticipate and plan for these changes. And on the occasion that no firms sees the changes coming, experts already in place, with a deep understanding of the project can make updates immediately to offset the changes at the search engines.
No plan is fool-proof, and there are countless horror stories out there about what happens when a search algo changes. When you've got an experienced firm working with you though, you have an entire team committed to covering and adjusting for these unexpected hiccups.
It Must Be the Flash
Posted by tim on October 18, 2004 at 03:55 PM
Imagine if you will, running a search on Yahoo for one of your favorite brands.
There's your old favorite sitting right at the top of the list. Click the link and you see that ol' faithful is using some nice Flash effects on the site.
So wait a minute! That must mean that Flash helps get a site to the top of the list on search engines, right? After all, they're using Flash and there they are, right at number one.
Right?!
Not exactly.
If Flash is used well, it can definitely add to the user experience for a website, give it a certain cool factor, and not cause any problems for search engines. Before we all rush off to the wonders of an all Flash all the time site though, it's important to break down search a little bit more.
As much as some in the SEM industry might want to argue this point, a search engine is a somewhat intelligent beast. If you search on a brand name, especially a big one, chances are pretty good your search engine knows that brand too (after all, ad agencies have brand intelligence down to a science). Even some questionable SEM practices probably aren't going to knock the site off the top spot.
*There is even evidence to suggest there's a good chance your favorite brand isn't even optimizing content for search engines.
It's important to realize that Flash in and of itself can't help a site move up in a search engine. It can, however, keep it from moving at all if it's not used just right.
Flash is a delicate, powerful tool. With just the right touch, it can put on a dazzling show, and people will even find the site to be able to see the show.
Ethical SEO? How about just Effective
Posted by tim on October 14, 2004 at 03:19 PM
There seems to be something of a misguided argument/debate out there about how search engines can "make the world a better place" if they just do a little bit more for webmasters.
Why are people wound up about search engines doing something for them?
The search engines have already taken on a monumental task that serves to make life a little bit easier.It could probably be argued that we owe them more than we give now. To expect, even demand, more accountability, transparency, and on and on from the engines is a little bit ludicrous.
While I don't believe the cynical voices that says all SEO/SEM is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, black magic, and luck, it is most definitely an inexact art. This is due mostly to the competition though, not to anything the engines do or don't do.
The guidelines search engines readily provide are enough to design, develop, and improve sites. Not even so much for the engine, but to generally improve the site. The techniques that work, and are generally seen as "white hat" or "ethical" or "above board" (or whatever feel good term of the week you want to use), all serve to build a better site for a user.
I'm the first to tell you we're not breaking any ground with that.
Build rich, MEANINGFUL, content. Design with clean navigation that can be rendered across several OS/Browser platforms. Keep load times down. Avoid taking technology (sex appeal, as in Flash, animated GIFs, giant home page images and image maps etc.) too far. Create relevant, TOPICAL, sections and articles for the site. Essentially become, at the very least, a micro-authority on your chosen topic (keywords) and you'll be seen as such.
It's time for the SEO/SEM industry to grow up if it wants to be taken seriously. The engines don't need to, and aren't going to, give you a road map. It's about staying within guidelines, picking your spots, and providing an experience. Traditional advertisers can't turn to media outlets and say, "gee, how can I make my ads better?". All they get are guidelines - here's how long it can be, here's when it can run, here's what it will cost you, you have to make a good ad if you want anything to happen with it.
There are far more important issues to focus on. So what that you can get a client all kinds of positions, or ranks, or placements, or whatever else you want to call them. What if all your tactics (of whatever bent they might be) get great spots on what turn out to be completely irrelevant terms? Help clients convert visitors. That's why they've hired you, whether they realize it right off or not.
If all this recent 'debating' about methods comes down to having trouble getting/keeping clients, offer a worthwhile service.
Or go back to the drawing board.
