Looking to learn SEO and Adwords

blackwave

Hi,

I am after starting a part time Digital Marketing course but I am wanting to learn how to do SEO and adwords is there any courses any of you could recommend particularly free ones for me that would teach me the basics etc.

IRE60

blackwave wrote: »

Hi,

I am after starting a part time Digital Marketing course but I am wanting to learn how to do SEO and adwords is there any courses any of you could recommend particularly free ones for me that would teach me the basics etc.

For adwords take (or follow) the Google adwords exam
Fore seo - download the google seo guide as a good starting point. Tip into the Google Webmaster forum and see the advice/suggestions there

davecomedy

Hi, if you need any help let me know as I completed a digital marketing course, and run my own websites, and have a few clients and am looking to get a few more. Would be happy to help you out. Mail me on this or see my site - socialpr.ie

Atomico

blackwave wrote: »

Hi,

I am after starting a part time Digital Marketing course but I am wanting to learn how to do SEO and adwords is there any courses any of you could recommend particularly free ones for me that would teach me the basics etc.

Are AdWords and SEO not included in the course? They should be!!

anbrutog

Adwords - Perry Marshall's book "Definitive Guide to Google Adwords" is all you need. You can grab it easily enough off Amazon.

He's been the Adwords go-to guy since the early 00's, no one knows it better than him.

Re SEO, I've not done any for a while and I suggest any sane person do the same.

Don't bother with most of the "digital marketing" courses in Dublin, most of them are crap tbh.

Atomico

anbrutog wrote: »

Adwords - Perry Marshall's book "Definitive Guide to Google Adwords" is all you need. You can grab it easily enough off Amazon.

He's been the Adwords go-to guy since the early 00's, no one knows it better than him.

Re SEO, I've not done any for a while and I suggest any sane person do the same.

Don't bother with most of the "digital marketing" courses in Dublin, most of them are crap tbh.

You might want to qualify those two statements to be fair!!

With the first, you're suggesting that any sane person should ignore the strategies that will help them capture 40% of all internet traffic?! (Google had an outage recently, and 40% of global internet traffic disappeared for a few moments!).

Search marketing is what drives the bulk of sales and traffic for online businesses - but you are saying ignore SEO?

Those kind of statements are dangerous and misleading for anyone reading, especially SMEs. I suspect you are talking about old-school SEO and outdated / unethical tactics, but you can't write off SEO in such a blanket-statement kind of way.

Re the DMI, I only hear good reports. Granted their courses appear pricey, but you get what you pay for and their lecturers are industry professionals working in and more frequently running their own established online marketing agencies!

anbrutog

Atomico wrote: »

You might want to qualify those two statements to be fair!!

With the first, you're suggesting that any sane person should ignore the strategies that will help them capture 40% of all internet traffic?! (Google had an outage recently, and 40% of global internet traffic disappeared for a few moments!).

Search marketing is what drives the bulk of sales and traffic for online businesses - but you are saying ignore SEO?

Those kind of statements are dangerous and misleading for anyone reading, especially SMEs. I suspect you are talking about old-school SEO and outdated / unethical tactics, but you can't write off SEO in such a blanket-statement kind of way.

Re the DMI, I only hear good reports. Granted their courses appear pricey, but you get what you pay for and their lecturers are industry professionals working in and more frequently running their own established online marketing agencies!

I wish people would sit down and think intelligently about not just where their traffic comes from, but also the ROI on each different type of traffic.

Trouble is, people rarely do any sort of rational and intelligent analysis about any of this.
They assume that because SEO gets them traffic, then it must be worth doing?

Wrong.

If you want to spend your time on a means of traffic that you have no intimate knowledge of ( unless you are Sergei Brin, Larry Page or one of their inner circle who know how the ranking algorithm really works), then hey, knock yourself out.

Now I can hear the SEO koolaid drinkers already.."Oh, but you don't need to know intimately how the algorithm works."

Well maybe you don't.
Yep, you can build links, write guest blog posts, work on writing engaging content and the rest and you will see a return.
There’s no doubt about it, it’s true.

But call me a weird control freak, I like to know as much as possible about how traffic arrives into my sales funnel.

I've no wish to wake up one morning to find it mauled to death by either a "Panda" or a "Penguin", as happened many respectable business owners websites with them particular updates.

Now Adwords isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s a helluva lot more predictable and scalable than organic search will ever be.

Google is becoming ever more capricious in how they rank sites organically, and yes, I've seen plenty of businesses who were NOT employing anything even remotely grey hat wiped off the map after Penguin and Panda.

Believe me, there will be more to come.

With paid traffic, I know what the return I get from it is. It's not changed that much for me in years.

Now, unless I do something stupid to piss Google off with my Adwords account (or the others for that matter), they can be all relied upon to produce steady streams of reliable traffic for me.

I don’t have to wake up one day to find my site has disappeared off the map because Google took a hissy fit.

But it’s not just about predictability. It’s also about assigning a basic € value to my marketing efforts.

It’s about knowing that if I do X, I will (usually) get Y, to within a reasonable standard deviation.

Here’s how I look at it.

I'm a small business owner.

I have 10 hours a week to devote to my marketing efforts. It’s imperative I get the maximum ROI from not only the financial investment I place in my marketing, but also my time.

Say I spend 5 hours working on my PPC account.

From analyzing my data, I can reasonably assume that by spending 5 hours on PPC I get a return of X, and it’s pretty consistent.

The other 5 hours I might spend doing SEO.

How do I assign a value to my efforts, whether it's link building, onsite SEO work like content generation or other things like guest posting?

How do I know that by writing x blog posts, it'll mean 5 extra sign ups to my list, or an increase in sales of y%?

I can’t, and I don't.

I might write 1 post one week and see a huge increase in traffic, and then write 10 the next week and see nothing.

Or build 100 links one week and see a flood of traffic, then do the same thing the following week and see nothing.

It’s throwing mud at the wall and hoping it sticks.

Yes, odds are by doing the likes of blog posting, link building etc it will have an effect, and I'll see an increase in traffic.
But it’s way too unpredictable and immeasurable for me.
That same time and effort is better spent on means of traffic generation that are eminently more predictable and scalable.

80-20 thinking.
Pareto principle applied to good effect.

And that’s even before I begin to talk about Google encrypting search results from those searching while logged into their Gmail accounts.

But hey, I guess I'm being irresponsible for telling people about any of this.

Now about them courses.

If you want to blow €1500 or so on a course where you can get all the information for free if you spend even a few hours looking on the net then who am I to argue.

( and yes, I did one of these courses when I first started out as an internet marketer so I do know what I talking about. They don’t even cover how to write copy in any of them, which is de rigeur for anyone selling anything online. )

Now don’t get me wrong. The courses do have their uses.

If you are looking to go get a job in a corporation or large company as a Digital Marketing "expert" or something similar, then yes, I'm sure some HR drone will look very favourably upon it.

If that’s your goal, its definitely a worthwhile investment.

But if your goal is to really learn how to learn online marketing, then stay well clear.

Personally, I would go read Claude Hopkins Scientific Advertising cover to cover 5 times in a row, then learn Adwords over the course of a week and spend the €1500 I would have otherwise spent using PPC to buy traffic to build my list, and to make money.

(There are other great books I would read like “Tested Advertising Methods” by John Caples, but you could leave them for another time. Paralysis by analysis, and all of that kind of pullaver...)

Even if I were to blow every cent of the money above, I’d have learned an infinitely greater amount then by wasting 12 or so weeks on one of those courses.

But hey, what the hell do I know.

Guess I'm just being irresponsible.

tricky D

There seems to be some notion taking hold lately that SEO is dead. It isn't. While the landscape has changed, especially lately wrt social media, SEO is alive and well and as relevant as ever. It's just the metrics of relevance, authority and popularity have shifted, as they should do and need to, but certainly in most instances no no where near gone away.

Notions like AdWords or whatever are all you need are in the magic wand category, hence downright dangerous and those with such notions should be given a wide berth, imho. Online presences need to take a holistic approach too all the many factors and means for making their web (and beyond) presences work and find the right mix of all the methodologies for success.

In respect to courses, some are good, plenty not so, but nothing to my mind trumps real experience(s).

Atomico

anbrutog wrote: »

I wish people would sit down and think intelligently about not just where their traffic comes from, but also the ROI on each different type of traffic.

Trouble is, people rarely do any sort of rational and intelligent analysis about any of this.
They assume that because SEO gets them traffic, then it must be worth doing?

Wrong.

If you want to spend your time on a means of traffic that you have no intimate knowledge of ( unless you are Sergei Brin, Larry Page or one of their inner circle who know how the ranking algorithm really works), then hey, knock yourself out.

Now I can hear the SEO koolaid drinkers already.."Oh, but you don't need to know intimately how the algorithm works."

Well maybe you don't.
Yep, you can build links, write guest blog posts, work on writing engaging content and the rest and you will see a return.
There’s no doubt about it, it’s true.

But call me a weird control freak, I like to know as much as possible about how traffic arrives into my sales funnel.

I've no wish to wake up one morning to find it mauled to death by either a "Panda" or a "Penguin", as happened many respectable business owners websites with them particular updates.

Now Adwords isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s a helluva lot more predictable and scalable than organic search will ever be.

Google is becoming ever more capricious in how they rank sites organically, and yes, I've seen plenty of businesses who were NOT employing anything even remotely grey hat wiped off the map after Penguin and Panda.

Believe me, there will be more to come.

With paid traffic, I know what the return I get from it is. It's not changed that much for me in years.

Now, unless I do something stupid to piss Google off with my Adwords account (or the others for that matter), they can be all relied upon to produce steady streams of reliable traffic for me.

I don’t have to wake up one day to find my site has disappeared off the map because Google took a hissy fit.

But it’s not just about predictability. It’s also about assigning a basic € value to my marketing efforts.

It’s about knowing that if I do X, I will (usually) get Y, to within a reasonable standard deviation.

Here’s how I look at it.

I'm a small business owner.

I have 10 hours a week to devote to my marketing efforts. It’s imperative I get the maximum ROI from not only the financial investment I place in my marketing, but also my time.

Say I spend 5 hours working on my PPC account.

From analyzing my data, I can reasonably assume that by spending 5 hours on PPC I get a return of X, and it’s pretty consistent.

The other 5 hours I might spend doing SEO.

How do I assign a value to my efforts, whether it's link building, onsite SEO work like content generation or other things like guest posting?

How do I know that by writing x blog posts, it'll mean 5 extra sign ups to my list, or an increase in sales of y%?

I can’t, and I don't.

I might write 1 post one week and see a huge increase in traffic, and then write 10 the next week and see nothing.

Or build 100 links one week and see a flood of traffic, then do the same thing the following week and see nothing.

It’s throwing mud at the wall and hoping it sticks.

Yes, odds are by doing the likes of blog posting, link building etc it will have an effect, and I'll see an increase in traffic.
But it’s way too unpredictable and immeasurable for me.
That same time and effort is better spent on means of traffic generation that are eminently more predictable and scalable.

80-20 thinking.
Pareto principle applied to good effect.

And that’s even before I begin to talk about Google encrypting search results from those searching while logged into their Gmail accounts.

But hey, I guess I'm being irresponsible for telling people about any of this.

Now about them courses.

If you want to blow €1500 or so on a course where you can get all the information for free if you spend even a few hours looking on the net then who am I to argue.

( and yes, I did one of these courses when I first started out as an internet marketer so I do know what I talking about. They don’t even cover how to write copy in any of them, which is de rigeur for anyone selling anything online. )

Now don’t get me wrong. The courses do have their uses.

If you are looking to go get a job in a corporation or large company as a Digital Marketing "expert" or something similar, then yes, I'm sure some HR drone will look very favourably upon it.

If that’s your goal, its definitely a worthwhile investment.

But if your goal is to really learn how to learn online marketing, then stay well clear.

Personally, I would go read Claude Hopkins Scientific Advertising cover to cover 5 times in a row, then learn Adwords over the course of a week and spend the €1500 I would have otherwise spent using PPC to buy traffic to build my list, and to make money.

(There are other great books I would read like “Tested Advertising Methods” by John Caples, but you could leave them for another time. Paralysis by analysis, and all of that kind of pullaver...)

Even if I were to blow every cent of the money above, I’d have learned an infinitely greater amount then by wasting 12 or so weeks on one of those courses.

But hey, what the hell do I know.

Guess I'm just being irresponsible.

I think you might need to rethink all of that, it's misguided imo. You don't really think that AdWords is the answer and that you should just forget SEO, do you?

If I said that people should do social media and forget search marketing, would you go along with it? Or if I said that people should completely ignore Twitter and only use LinkedIn and Facebook, would you agree?

One of the biggest upsides to digital marketing is that you can track the results you are achieving. I can publish a blog post and view how many times it was viewed, where people went on my site after they read it, whether they ended up hitting my contact page and whether they sent me an inquiry, etc.

Blog and content writing is a fundamental part of SEO, so how can you say that you can't track the results from doing SEO?

I am guessing that you are completely self-taught and that you have learned everything you know from reading other people's blogs and maybe some 'internet market-y' splash-page infused websites / blogs? I am all for teaching yourself, but you should also consider learning from more 'mainstream' sources too, e.g. reputable training courses and maybe even working with agencies.

It's also dangerous to put AdWords up on a pedestal or to suggest it is as great as you make it out to be. Yes you can track your ROI, but you can also do that across many different digital marketing strategies and campaigns - plus don't forget the 'paid' in paid search! SEO only costs what you pay someone else to do it for you, or the cost of your time / training, etc.

Digital marketing calls for a holistic, integrated approach. No one technique can be a magic bullet, because success requires the combination of different approaches (this also allows you to test what works well and not so well).

anbrutog

Atomico wrote: »

I think you might need to rethink all of that, it's misguided imo. You don't really think that AdWords is the answer and that you should just forget SEO, do you?

If I said that people should do social media and forget search marketing, would you go along with it? Or if I said that people should completely ignore Twitter and only use LinkedIn and Facebook, would you agree?

One of the biggest upsides to digital marketing is that you can track the results you are achieving. I can publish a blog post and view how many times it was viewed, where people went on my site after they read it, whether they ended up hitting my contact page and whether they sent me an inquiry, etc.

Blog and content writing is a fundamental part of SEO, so how can you say that you can't track the results from doing SEO?

I am guessing that you are completely self-taught and that you have learned everything you know from reading other people's blogs and maybe some 'internet market-y' splash-page infused websites / blogs? I am all for teaching yourself, but you should also consider learning from more 'mainstream' sources too, e.g. reputable training courses and maybe even working with agencies.

It's also dangerous to put AdWords up on a pedestal or to suggest it is as great as you make it out to be. Yes you can track your ROI, but you can also do that across many different digital marketing strategies and campaigns - plus don't forget the 'paid' in paid search! SEO only costs what you pay someone else to do it for you, or the cost of your time / training, etc.

Digital marketing calls for a holistic, integrated approach. No one technique can be a magic bullet, because success requires the combination of different approaches (this also allows you to test what works well and not so well).

Rethink it? Why on earth would I do that?

Learning from “splash page” infused websites?

Actually no. Pretty much all my learning is from books written before the Sixties.

You know, from old school ad men like Rosser Reeves, Gene Schwartz, Robert Collier, Claude Hopkins and John E Kennedy. Ne’er a splash page in sight ( but on the subject of splash pages, they are like that for a reason. They bloody work. )

The fundamentals, in other words. Something which most people in marketing have very little clue of.

I take it you glossed over what I said about SEO and why I don’t think it’s a good idea, including your point on blogging. I think I made it pretty clear. If I haven’t, let me know and I’ll do my best to spell it out for you again.

As for Adwords being the answer, if I, or anyone thinks that, they are insane.

It’s not “the answer”. It is one single way I utilize for generating traffic.
One of many as it happens, along with direct mail, Facebook advertising, banner ads, remarketing and many others.

As Dan Kennedy once said, “1” is the most dangerous number in any business.

Whether it’s one client, one supplier, one source of traffic.

Anyone that is silly enough to rely on Adwords exclusively is dumb as a bag of rocks, and deserves everything that is coming to them.

I guess what I was trying to get was in a comparison with SEO, Adwords wins every time. Why anyone would waste time with ( what is these days ) such a tempestuous and unpredictable (and quite frankly immeasurable) way of generating traffic is beyond me, when they can get superior results with Adwords.

The notion that SEO is somehow “free” or even “cheap” is also one that gives me a chuckle. I always wonder do these people who are doing this SEO work place any value on their time?

Still, each to their own I guess.

(As an aside, go into your typical ad or digital agency in Dublin and see how many have read any of the classic advertising books. I’d wager none of them have. Too busy posting crap on Twitter to take the time to learn some tried and tested fundamentals I’d imagine..)

Atomico

anbrutog wrote: »

Rethink it? Why on earth would I do that?

Learning from “splash page” infused websites?

Actually no. Pretty much all my learning is from books written before the Sixties.

You know, from old school ad men like Rosser Reeves, Gene Schwartz, Robert Collier, Claude Hopkins and John E Kennedy. Ne’er a splash page in sight ( but on the subject of splash pages, they are like that for a reason. They bloody work. )

I take it you glossed over what I said about SEO and why I don’t think it’s a good idea, including your point on blogging. I think I made it pretty clear. If I haven’t, let me know and I’ll do my best to spell it out for you again.

As for Adwords being the answer, if I, or anyone thinks that, they are insane.

It’s not “the answer”. It is one single way I utilize for generating traffic.
One of many as it happens, along with direct mail, Facebook advertising, banner ads, remarketing and many others.

As Dan Kennedy once said, “1” is the most dangerous number in any business.

Whether it’s one client, one supplier, one source of traffic.

Anyone that is silly enough to rely on Adwords exclusively is dumb as a bag of rocks, and deserves everything that is coming to them.

I guess what I was trying to get was in a comparison with SEO, Adwords wins every time. Why anyone would waste time with ( what is these days ) such a tempestuous and unpredictable (and quite frankly immeasurable) way of generating traffic is beyond me, when they can get superior results with Adwords.

The notion that SEO is somehow “free” or even “cheap” is also one that gives me a chuckle. I always wonder do these people who are doing this SEO work place any value on their time?

Still, each to their own I guess.

(As an aside, go into your typical ad or digital agency in Dublin and see how many have read any of the classic advertising books. I’d wager none of them have. Too busy posting crap on Twitter to take the time to learn some tried and tested fundamentals I’d imagine..)

Nope, don't need anything spelled out, I know what you're driving at. You were saying that you can't track the results from SEO. I was saying that blogging is part of SEO, and it can be tracked (using Analytics and other methods). Would you not agree?

You have no need to fear Panda or Penguin or any other update / algorithm change Google might come out with, if you are doing SEO the right way. You mentioned 'building 100 links in a week and seeing a flood of traffic' - this suggests that you would view this as an SEO strategy. If that's the case, then there's your problem right there!

The fact is that SEO is pretty much marketing at this stage, and marketing works - and it can be tracked.

Also, just because SEO is unpredictable, doesn't make it not worth doing. That's a fact. It is also actually fairly predictable. In fact, I would say it is very predictable, if you are doing it right and know what you are doing. You can achieve ranking and traffic increases and build overall website traffic using proven techniques such as blogging, content writing, onsite optimisation, guest-blogging and other techniques.

I also agree that AdWords can work well. It can work even better when combined with SEO (and vice versa). You can use what works well in your AdWords campaign to inform your SEO campaign. It's all interlinked.

I just wouldn't see any valid reason whatsoever for ruling out and disparaging SEO, when solid SEO techniques work so well (and I know that from working experience). It doesn't make sense to me.

It also depends on the industry. Some sectors are better suited to AdWords than others, but practically all sectors can benefit from SEO (which in effect is making your website more visible on the internet).

I might actually look into those authors. By the way, in no way am I suggesting that ad agencies around Dublin know it all - far, far from it! Some of them don't even do the online marketing work they take on themselves!

flynnlives

Adwords is useful and has its place. But it is not a silver bullet.

Creating a good strategic content marketing plan built on the solid foundation of a well optimized web presence will bring more leads and potential revenues then adwords alone. And in fact as your rankings improve your budget for adwords might drop.

Sure a paid listing gets displayed a few times but a good stream of well written content stays on the internet forever!

So there should be a balance between the two. They both have a role to play but i would encourage the ultimate goal to be, creating a good web presence and growing that out and Eventually reducing your adwords spend.

Googles business model is adwords but without organic rankings their model collapses. So in truth they need more good quality organic results because if they didnt provide a good user experience there business would suffer. So use adwords but use it wisely. Its foolish and poor business sense to use it alone.

mark8511

SEO is not dead and if you really think that only adwords can do that task you are wrong.

In today's world its not just bringing visitor to your website and making a purchase, it is more than than and it is engagement via blog, forums etc and that is part of SEO.

It will be wrong to say that conversion depend upon the method of traffic ( ppc or organic), conversion depends upon your onsite things.

I will advise to small business to do SEO as well, because it will bring you a good traffic and also conversion rate will be high.

anbrutog

mark8511 wrote: »

SEO is not dead and if you really think that only adwords can do that task you are wrong.

In today's world its not just bringing visitor to your website and making a purchase, it is more than than and it is engagement via blog, forums etc and that is part of SEO.

It will be wrong to say that conversion depend upon the method of traffic ( ppc or organic), conversion depends upon your onsite things.

I will advise to small business to do SEO as well, because it will bring you a good traffic and also conversion rate will be high.

SEO will never die. Same way you can still get the boat to Holyhead, get the train as far as Crewe, and hop on a Virgin train to Euston. That way of getting to London is still alive and well, and you can do it if you so wish.

However, personally I prefer to hop on a Ryanair flight and be in London in a couple of hours.

Each to their own. If you're happy to spend ages messing about writing content and whatnot, then knock yourself out.

Just because something is "there" (like organic search) doesn't necessarily mean its the best way, or gives you the best ROI.

This is what I keep beating people around the head with a stick with but they just don't seem to get it, or they don't want to listen.

I suspect its because most SEO bods are invested emotionally in their particular skillset, and are blind to its (quite obvious) failings.
Which is understandable, its human nature.

But personally, I'd just rather pay for my traffic and be done with it.

And, I've not even discussed the fact that all searches done when people are logged into their Google accounts are now encrypted, making keyword analysis a little tough.

But if it works for you, knock yourself out.

Atomico

anbrutog wrote: »

Each to their own. If you're happy to spend ages messing about writing content and whatnot, then knock yourself out.

Except when people who know what they are doing are doing SEO, they aren't 'messing about', and their work actually gets real, tangible, provable, trackable results?

Why does it have to be a case of 'each to their own'?! Why not embrace a wide variety of approaches?

anbrutog wrote: »

Just because something is "there" (like organic search) doesn't necessarily mean its the best way, or gives you the best ROI.

Nobody is saying that organic search gives you the best ROI or is the best way? We are saying that it cannot be ignored as part of a professional, holistic marketing strategy!

anbrutog wrote: »

This is what I keep beating people around the head with a stick with but they just don't seem to get it, or they don't want to listen.

I suspect its because most SEO bods are invested emotionally in their particular skillset, and are blind to its (quite obvious) failings.
Which is understandable, its human nature.

Or just maybe, from professional experience, they have seen that SEO actually works?!

anbrutog wrote: »

But personally, I'd just rather pay for my traffic and be done with it.

It sounds like you might be paying or have paid a fortune for traffic that vapourises as soon as the switch is turned off (while valuable, shareworthy blog content circulates forever online, and drives leads and awareness long after you've written it?!).

anbrutog wrote: »

And, I've not even discussed the fact that all searches done when people are logged into their Google accounts are now encrypted, making keyword analysis a little tough.

But if it works for you, knock yourself out.

Again, if you are working on SEO in such a way that not having keyword data is going to really impede your efforts, then you are not doing it the right way or in a way that shows a limited understanding of how it all works..

As an aside, I spoke with a client the other day who previously got a big fat zero inquiries with AdWords. We have spent the past month working on SEO for his website, and he is already seeing leads and inquires coming in the door as a result (his site is becoming visible online for searches now).

He spent the same amount on his SEO campaign as he did on Google AdWords.

anbrutog

Atomico wrote: »

Except when people who know what they are doing are doing SEO, they aren't 'messing about', and their work actually gets real, tangible, provable, trackable results?

Why does it have to be a case of 'each to their own'?! Why not embrace a wide variety of approaches?

Mate, unless you are one of the people who are in the know how the Big G's ranking algorithm really works, then you don't know what you are doing as far as I'm concerned.

You have a "fair idea" of how it works.
A "reasonable understanding". As I have myself.
That's all. Nothing more.

So unless your name is Sergei Brin, Larry Page or someone else in the inner circle, you don't know what you're talking about.
And them boys ain't telling anybody it works.

( Matt Cutt's warbling's don't count by the way )

On that basis, anyone who says they "know SEO", is full of crap.

Plenty of other people thought they knew what they doing pre Panda and Penguin.
They were wrong.

For the "wide variety of approaches", see 80-20 below.

Atomico wrote: »

Nobody is saying that organic search gives you the best ROI or is the best way? We are saying that it cannot be ignored as part of a professional, holistic marketing strategy!

Again, why waste time on anything that doesn't give you a decent ROI?
Doesn't make a blind bit of sense to me.

Go read Pareto's Principle to see why I think the way the I do.

Study it. It will change your life, not in just in business but how you view everything in life.

Concentrate on the 20% of your effort that gives you 80% of your return.

SEO most definitely falls into the 80% of effort that gives 20% of your return.

On that basis, why do it? Why not concentrate wholly on the 20% of your efforts which give you the 80% of your return, and scale them up?

Atomico wrote: »

Or just maybe, from professional experience, they have seen that SEO actually works?!

I can get from Dublin to London by wasting the guts of a day via boat and train.
It works and I get there in the end..right?

Atomico wrote: »

It sounds like you might be paying or have paid a fortune for traffic that vapourises as soon as the switch is turned off (while valuable, shareworthy blog content circulates forever online, and drives leads and awareness long after you've written it?!).

Jesus. Woolly, "brand" advertising nonsense like "engagement".

Please go learn direct response marketing where you must ruthlessly track everything in terms of time, money and its appropriate return.

If my marketing attempts don't deliver me €€€ in my bank account, then I ain't interested.

I don't want to be famous for my content.

I couldn't care less about "engagement".

I send traffic to my site, get them to opt-in to my list and then I market to them. It doesn't "evapourate". I build lists, and sell.

Real simple.

I monitor how much my clicks are costing me, and tweak it relentlessly. Scale up if appropriate.

Guerilla marketing 101.

I don't arse around with anything else.

Atomico wrote: »

Again, if you are working on SEO in such a way that not having keyword data is going to really impede your efforts, then you are not doing it the right way or in a way that shows a limited understanding of how it all works..

I want to know how people are coming to my site. I want to know what keywords are sending traffic to my site.

I want data. I crave numbers.

If you wish to work without it, go right ahead.

Atomico wrote: »

As an aside, I spoke with a client the other day who previously got a big fat zero inquiries with AdWords. We have spent the past month working on SEO for his website, and he is already seeing leads and inquires coming in the door as a result (his site is becoming visible online for searches now).

He spent the same amount on his SEO campaign as he did on Google AdWords.

I keep making this point but people either are don't care or else they ain't interested in listening.
So I shall spell it out one more time, for those in the cheap seats.

SEO as a strategy WILL deliver results.

Like it has for your client above.

In fact, I would actually recommend it for certain businesses if they are in niches that have very little competition or else a niche which they can find a foothold very easily with little work.

Typically, this would be for local businesses where its very easy to get ranked for local search terms.

Overall, just because it provides "results", doesn't mean it is the best way.

For anything even remotely competitive, I would stay the hell away from it.
Not only is it too much of a black box , based on there being no SOLID consensus ( please note the key word "SOLID" ) how sites are definitely, absolutely ranked, but determining what particular cause gives what effect is impossible.

What I mean by this is, what will happen if I go out and write 5 guest posts?
What will be the net result ( on a consistent basis ) if I write 10 blog articles?
Can I accurate define that by doing X, I will consistently get Y?

You can't.

With SEO, You will get an "effect", but quite what it is on an ongoing basis, nobody knows, and is very difficult to predict and determine.

With adwords, I can. I know what my ROI is usually going to be. Its steady, and consistent which is why I like it.
It enables me to scale up, and to plan.

This is something I've repeated ad nauseam but no one seems to any take any countenance of.

In a scenario like that, Adwords ( and paid traffic in general, of its myriad forms ) provided a far greater return.

Being honest, like my attempt to defend email marketing a while back, people will refuse to listen to reason.

Quite why I'm trying to help people I'm not sure, because the more people that adopt my approach, the less of the pie for me.

A contrarian will always come under fire, I guess...such is the world.

At the end of the day, this seems to be more about a clash of cultures.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression most of the people on this thread are from the corporate world, of marketing degrees and big companies etc...

I do things slightly differently.

tricky D

anbrutog wrote: »

Mate, unless you are one of the people who are in the know how the Big G's ranking algorithm really works, then you don't know what you are doing as far as I'm concerned.

You have a "fair idea" of how it works.
A "reasonable understanding". As I have myself.
That's all. Nothing more.

So unless your name is Sergei Brin, Larry Page or someone else in the inner circle, you don't know what you're talking about.
And them boys ain't telling anybody it works.

( Matt Cutt's warbling's don't count by the way )

On that basis, anyone who says they "know SEO", is full of crap.

Plenty of other people thought they knew what they doing pre Panda and Penguin.
They were wrong.

This is a throwing out the baby with the bath water notion.

While the reverse engineering idea is obviously rubbish as the inner workings would be protected by methods like compartmentalisation, there continues to be Best Practices employed by those who truly do know SEO. Such practices, most of which are really simple in concept, have barely changed over the years and produce consistent results despite changes. People caught out by Penguin and Panda did not employ those practices as they ultimately were seeking to manipulate in an unsustainable manner. This would have been obvious to a proper SEO operator; a rare thing.

From much of the rest of your postings, I get a feeling that you are uncomfortable with the fuzzy zones which are realities in this game, resulting in you dismissing the merits of them too quickly and easily. The result is less than complete solutions.

Some other points are inconsistent eg. you dismiss engagement out of hand then do it in the next sentence.

anbrutog

tricky D wrote: »

This is a throwing out the baby with the bath water notion.

While the reverse engineering idea is obviously rubbish as the inner workings would be protected by methods like compartmentalisation, there continues to be Best Practices employed by those who truly do know SEO. Such practices, most of which are really simple in concept, have barely changed over the years and produce consistent results despite changes. People caught out by Penguin and Panda did not employ those practices as they ultimately were seeking to manipulate in an unsustainable manner. This would have been obvious to a proper SEO operator; a rare thing.

From much of the rest of your postings, I get a feeling that you are uncomfortable with the fuzzy zones which are realities in this game, resulting in you dismissing the merits of them too quickly and easily. The result is less than complete solutions.

Some other points are inconsistent eg. you dismiss engagement out of hand then do it in the next sentence.

You see, this is thing I keep repeating.

For all the talk about "best practices" and knowing SEO, no one knows DEFINITIVELY how the ranking algorithm works.

I've not seen it. Nor have you.

I've came across plenty of people just like you claimed to know their stuff, but as it turned out, they didn't.
Guys who weren't furiously spamming high PR blogs or building dodgy web 2.0 link pyramids.

But straight up, "ethical", white-hat SEO marketers.

That's the truth.

Best practices and all are great, but unless these best practices are actually set in stone somewhere, they mean as much to me as politician's promise.

What I mean by "engagement" is the way its used as a meaningless buzzword by a lot of marketers.
I don't regard what I do as engagement. I regard it as selling.

But you're free to label it as that if you wish.

Anyways, this is going nowhere. My POV is crystal clear should anyone take the time to look through my posts.

But to summarize, I view SEO as an unpredictable, unreliable method of getting traffic to your website which has been superseded by superior methods of driving traffic, with its death knell being served by Google's move to eventually encrypt all of its search traffic.

I believe that people have an irrational attachment to it, because it's "free" and readily available, and because of the human propensity never to look a gift horse in the mouth, marketers feel "they should be using it".

All I'm suggesting is for marketers to take the time to step back and examine their efforts for a minute. Subject it to rigorous examination, and you'll find serious flaws with it as a means of traffic generation.

I've outlined some of them in my posts.

For those SEO bods hell bent on still using it, I wish y'all the best of luck.

But there is a better way.

tricky D

Your notion that you need to know the algorithm is required for best practices is incorrect. That you think knowledge of the algorithm is required just shows your limited thinking.

Then you lump me in with spamming blogs and building link pyramids, neither of which I have ever done. Then you imply that I don't use ethical and white hat methods when the exactly opposite is true. You'll find no evidence to the contrary in any of my posts, nevermind any of the work I've done. Any contention that I do is crass mud-slinging from a high horse at its worst. (Your posts are far too full of that kind of unnecessarily personal, dismissive comment and arrogant tone)

Then you again dismiss SEO as dying, which is plain nonsense given the plethora of statistics and fact that it remains the number one traffic driver by miles. AdWords and other paid traffic are way, way behind and will remain so considering the lack of user interaction in that realm. Touting it as the best solution and not as a small part of a holistic mix is dangerously absurd.

Then you assume that people just like me assume SEO is free when I never have. Time costs money; opportunity costs and all that which is obvious to some one of my experience.

While many of your argument that so many SEO operators are very poor is so very true, that this means this is reason enough to dismiss SEO holds no water.

You previously admitted to being a control freak in these matters, this implies your comfort zone is lot smaller which does not mean methods outside of your control zone are effective. Indeed, trying to get such levels of control in a fuzzy medium goes against the flow of how statistics work. You don't seem to able to handle that.

Given so many of your contradictory points I wonder how much you actually do know what you are doing. What works for your small business in no way means that it is the best solution mix for other businesses.

anbrutog

Wow.

Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick.

tricky D wrote: »

Your notion that you need to know the algorithm is required for best practices is incorrect. That you think knowledge of the algorithm is required just shows your limited thinking.

For best results and best ROI, yes you do. Ultimately, if you wish to use a method of generating traffic, caused by an algorithm of a mega-corporation which is ultimately a mystery, but only supported by a bunch of vague, wholly and non-standardized "best principles", then you do just that.

I'll stick to what I can prove, and know unequivocally works.

If you, and others, fail to see the glaring problems inherent in what I'm saying, there's very little I can do for you.

tricky D wrote: »

Then you lump me in with spamming blogs and building link pyramids, neither of which I have ever done. Then you imply that I don't use ethical and white hat methods when the exactly opposite is true. You'll find no evidence to the contrary in any of my posts, nevermind any of the work I've done. Any contention that I do is crass mud-slinging from a high horse at its worst. (Your posts are far too full of that kind of unnecessarily personal, dismissive comment and arrogant tone)

Thanks for the kind words about my arrogant tone, genuinely.

My marketing mentor Dan Kennedy always says, "If you've haven't pissed someone off by lunchtime, you're not doing a good enough job".
Clearly, I'm not doing a good enough job though, as it's taken me until nearly bedtime on this particular occasion.
Obviously, I've work to do on that part of my game but it's nice to know I'm going in the right direction.

But in this instance, I fear my detractor has an over-vivid and over-active imagination.

I never met you, nor do I know what tactics you employ to do your SEO work.
But you say you're a white hat guy, and I believe you. I've never said any different.

Here it what I said for the record..

I've came across plenty of people just like you claimed to know their stuff, but as it turned out, they didn't.
Guys who weren't furiously spamming high PR blogs or building dodgy web 2.0 link pyramids.

Note "weren't"

How that paints you as "unethical" is beyond me. It's the opposite. What it does say, loud and clear, that there were oodles of SEO guys who played it straight, people like you, who had sites of theirs vanish after the recent updates.
Guys who thought they knew what they were doing, but as it transpired, didn't.

They didn't because ultimately they were dealing with a black box, "best practices" or not.

This is a fact.

Now, you can twist that any which way you want, but that is what I meant.

tricky D wrote: »

Then you again dismiss SEO as dying, which is plain nonsense given the plethora of statistics and fact that it remains the number one traffic driver by miles. AdWords and other paid traffic are way, way behind and will remain so considering the lack of user interaction in that realm. Touting it as the best solution and not as a small part of a holistic mix is dangerously absurd.

A total non-sequitur. Of course it is the number one traffic driver. It always will be. And people will always get "results" with it.
Likewise, One Direction are ( last time I checked ) the best selling band around.
If popularity is going to the judge of something's effectiveness, we're fooked.
The world will always be full of dumb sheep who will blindly do what the herd do.

Adwords will always be way behind for the simple reason you have to pay for it. And people being people, will always have an aversion to spending if they think they don't have to.

( Oh and please don't take that as a personal ad-hominem. It isn't. Its a general observation. )

tricky D wrote: »

Then you assume that people just like me assume SEO is free when I never have. Time costs money; opportunity costs and all that which is obvious to some one of my experience.

Again, you're guilty of acute solipsism. You assume that when I talk in general terms, I'm speaking to you personally.
I ain't, I'm referring to the broader SEO community, most of whom do most certainly regard SEO to be "free".

tricky D wrote: »

While many of your argument that so many SEO operators are very poor is so very true, that this means this is reason enough to dismiss SEO holds no water.

No. I'm dismissing it 'cos it's a crap method of getting traffic, all things considered. SEO ninja or not.

tricky D wrote: »

You previously admitted to being a control freak in these matters, this implies your comfort zone is lot smaller which does not mean methods outside of your control zone are effective. Indeed, trying to get such levels of control in a fuzzy medium goes against the flow of how statistics work. You don't seem to able to handle that.

Bloody hell. Talk about reaching.

I've a small comfort zone because I've the good sense and cop on to stay away from an unsteady, unpredictable, unreliable and ultimately unknown means of generating traffic, instead opting to run with other more reliable means.

Riight...

tricky D wrote: »

Given so many of your contradictory points I wonder how much you actually do know what you are doing. What works for your small business in no way means that it is the best solution mix for other businesses.

I'm still trying to find at least one contradictory post, but given your earlier over active imagination, I'm sure you've seen plenty.

All of which must constitute me not knowing what I'm doing...

Atomico

anbrutog wrote: »

Mate, unless you are one of the people who are in the know how the Big G's ranking algorithm really works, then you don't know what you are doing as far as I'm concerned.

Heheh, come on man. That's plan silly now to be fair. So as a digital marketer I don't know what I'm doing because I'm not Larry Page? What about Rand Fishkin, does he not know what he's doing? Oh no wait, he's been doing SEO since before anyone knew what SEO was, and he's built a multi-million dollar business off helping other people learn about how it works (and how to get *proven* results from doing SEO).

I place asterisks around 'proven', because I know that you are keen on the proof.

You have a "fair idea" of how it works.
A "reasonable understanding". As I have myself.
That's all. Nothing more.

Sorry mate, but I have a *very* good idea of how it works. A very good idea. Without having a very good idea, I wouldn't be in business.

So unless your name is Sergei Brin, Larry Page or someone else in the inner circle, you don't know what you're talking about.
And them boys ain't telling anybody it works.

Nope I do. I learn, I implement, I see the results and I report on the results using the cold hard stats you are so fond of.

( Matt Cutt's warbling's don't count by the way )

Sure they don't, that's why all the millions of people who listen to him are wrong but the guy on the forum with the 'contrarian view' has got it sussed!!

Larry and Sergey must feel real foolish if they are reading this, having hired Matt donkeys years ago and giving him a nice salary and plenty of shares!

On that basis, anyone who says they "know SEO", is full of crap.

It's a good job I'm thick-skinned, as this would probably be about the point where I say something that blows up the thread, but sure, yes - all of us marketers who have gotten results for clients and for their own websites, reaping the rewards of creating content, optimising websites and building online PR are 'full of crap'.

I'm guessing all of these marketers will still be in business for many years to come. What do you think? If that turns out to be the case, will you come back here to admit you were the one who was really full of crap?

Plenty of other people thought they knew what they doing pre Panda and Penguin.
They were wrong.

They sure did. Couldn't agree more with you that they were wrong. Why was that? Could it be that like you, they didn't understand SEO and digital marketing in general? Could it be that they didn't take the time to understand it, and went for the dodgy tactics which inevitably got them burned? I'm not saying you ever did this, but you get my point.

For the "wide variety of approaches", see 80-20 below.

I kinda like the irony of how the organic / paid traffic split on Google is approx 80-20 (%)

Again, why waste time on anything that doesn't give you a decent ROI?
Doesn't make a blind bit of sense to me.

This is kinda why myself and tricky D are getting a bit unsure as to whether you even know what you are saying, or whether you know where you actually stand with all this. ROI is about getting the return from whatever activities you carry out. I did SEO, I got results (more traffic and more inquiries). I didn't do PPC. Just SEO, and it gets me results.

You DO realise that there are companies out there generating most or all of their leads and sales via organic traffic....right? That counts as 'getting a decent ROI'. Which completely shatters your entire premise that organic traffic is unpredictable and unreliable, given that real profitable businesses generate huge revenues off the back of organic traffic?!

Do major corporations operate their businesses and spend a fortune on organic search (via employees and / or agencies), because it's unreliable, unpredictable, and won't give the kind of ROI they are after?

Expedia.com anyone?! Booking.com and a multitude of other websites?!

Why do PaddyPower employ SEO specialists? Why are they advertising for SEO people right now? Why do they do PPC AND SEO?

And why do they bother with clever PR / media campaigns with a huge dependence on getting their message out via Facebook and Twitter?

Care to address that?!

I can get from Dublin to London by wasting the guts of a day via boat and train.
It works and I get there in the end..right?

Except it sounds like you'd be happy to spend a grand to get to London instead of waiting an extra day and spending 100 quid.

Jesus. Woolly, "brand" advertising nonsense like "engagement".

Please go learn direct response marketing where you must ruthlessly track everything in terms of time, money and its appropriate return.

The same "engagement" which builds brand loyalty, repeat custom and which can actually be tracked via the likes of Google Analytics?!

What has direct response marketing got to do with digital marketing? How about using direct in tandem with digital? Or are you against that since only one method can drive results?!

If my marketing attempts don't deliver me €€€ in my bank account, then I ain't interested.

I don't want to be famous for my content.

I couldn't care less about "engagement".

I send traffic to my site, get them to opt-in to my list and then I market to them. It doesn't "evapourate". I build lists, and sell.

How about when the methods you scorn actually do generate €€? Aren't you missing out?

Only today I've learned that we are approaching almost 3k on our mailing list for a client. In the past month we've gotten approx 500 new sign-ups without spending A CENT on AdWords - they have largely come via "engagement" on Facebook (i.e. real people interacting with the brand), and the blog (where you produce content!).

Read up on Neil Patel, you need to in fact. Neil is a multi-millionaire who has built his entire brand on content. He has startups which boast Fortune 500 companies as customers, along with thousands of other businesses.

He 'engages' with people on his blog, and has a hugely positive reputation.

He has even secured major traffic and conversion increases for massive websites like TechCrunch....but sure why is he bothering with that SEO lark at all at all!!

Real simple.

It really is. Who'd have thought a multi-pronged marketing strategy which takes account of a variety of viable approaches could deliver results via multiple channels and campaigns?!

I don't arse around with anything else.

For no good reason it seems at this stage...

I want to know how people are coming to my site. I want to know what keywords are sending traffic to my site.

I want data. I crave numbers.

If you wish to work without it, go right ahead.

I already do and have been doing so. Yet again, highlighting the supposed importance of keywords in SEO just goes to reinforce the fact that you don't understand it (or have a very limited, myopic view of it).

I keep making this point but people either are don't care or else they ain't interested in listening.
So I shall spell it out one more time, for those in the cheap seats.

Or could it be that you are flat out wrong but love the feeling of being the 'contrarian' sort?

SEO as a strategy WILL deliver results.

Like it has for your client above.

In fact, I would actually recommend it for certain businesses if they are in niches that have very little competition or else a niche which they can find a foothold very easily with little work.

Typically, this would be for local businesses where its very easy to get ranked for local search terms.

So how do you draw the line then, between recommending it and not recommending it?! Do you do SEO until you deem it to be 'rubbish', and then recommend that the business pump euro into AdWords??!

How can you rubbish it and 'actually recommend it' at the same time, even in limited circumstances?!

Overall, just because it provides "results", doesn't mean it is the best way.

Nobody has suggested it is! This is what we keep harping on about. It provides results, so it has to be factored in as a viable strategy.

For anything even remotely competitive, I would stay the hell away from it.

And lose your shirt on AdWords instead, is it? How does, for example, a small Dublin hotel compete on AdWords with the big boys pray tell?!

Not only is it too much of a black box , based on there being no SOLID consensus ( please note the key word "SOLID" ) how sites are definitely, absolutely ranked, but determining what particular cause gives what effect is impossible.

You seem so hung up on knowing the absolute minute details of the ranking algorithm, when anyone can see that you don't need that knowledge to understand the field and how to get results in the field.

Do I have to be an exercise scientist to have a very good idea of how to get fit in the gym? Or do I learn about how to do it?

Do I need a degree in food science to be a great cook (who gets 'results' through cooking tasty food).

Part of learning new things involves being open to the fact that you might not have all the answers. I certainly don't know it all, but it sounds like you sure think you do. Hence the 'arrogant' reference earlier in the thread, possibly.

There are so many holes in your argument and your discourse that this will probably be my last post. If it was a bit (ok, a lot) more nuanced and reasoned, that might not be the case.

flynnlives

anbrutog wrote: »

But to summarize, I view SEO as an unpredictable, unreliable method of getting traffic to your website which has been superseded by superior methods of driving traffic, with its death knell being served by Google's move to eventually encrypt all of its search traffic.
.

This makes zero sense.

The "superior method" to point to is adwords yes?

so what would happen to your silver bullet ROI should everyone stop promoting themselves and trying to rank organically?


well first off the user experience on google would suffer and quickly followed by a collapse in your ROI because adwords would be worthless, in an instance.

You fail to see the relationship between organic and paid. They are closely linked.

Sure adwords is working for you and thats great but ive come across many who paid loads and got nothing. Reading your posts tells me you are the one who has drank the koolaid and are quite happy to place all your eggs in the adwords basket and thats fine.

tbh you havent a notion what your talking about.

anbrutog

Heheh, come on man. That's plan silly now to be fair. So as a digital marketer I don't know what I'm doing because I'm not Larry Page? What about Rand Fishkin, does he not know what he's doing? Oh no wait, he's been doing SEO since before anyone knew what SEO was, and he's built a multi-million dollar business off helping other people learn about how it works (and how to get *proven* results from doing SEO).

No, it’s not.

Again, the point seems lost on you.

What I'm getting at is that you are placing in a trust in means of generating traffic known only to a select few, and they ain’t telling.

I'll repeat it for those hard of hearing and slow to grok, you are a dealing with a means of traffic that you do not unequivocally understand.

You can be reasonably sure how it works, but not definitely sure.

You simply don't, and anyone who says any different is a liar.

As it turns out, that reasonable understand is good enough to make a living with it, as if you throw enough crap at the wall, some of it is bound to stick.

Individuals like yourself, and Rand Fishkin.

If you've got the time, the patience, the energy and the dumb persistence necessary to do what’s required to *eventually* get the search engines to rank your sites, using the loosely held “best principles” that seem (note the word “seem” , as there's no standardization apart from the collective opinion of a coalition of influential gurus) then obviously you’ll see success.

But my core point is thus: that time would be far, far better used on other predictable and stable means.

Means that cause a you a lot less heartache also.

So let me repeat what I’m saying.

SEO works.

That is a fact.

But as a means of generating traffic? Is the best?

Absolutely not.

It’s fraught with problems.

Can you make it work?

Yeah of course. You do obviously, and more power to you.
I would suggest that by adopting other means, you would see a better ROI.
Based on the 80-20 rule of looking at what works the best and doing more of it, and doing less of what isn’t, SEO ain’t a smart way to get traffic.

Nope I do. I learn, I implement, I see the results and I report on the results using the cold hard stats you are so fond of.

I hate to bore you to death with the 80-20 rule but this is where it comes into its own.

Question, if you saw you were making €300 from 5 hours work via Adwords at a cost of €100, and €200 from 10 hours from SEO, and this was consistent, would you..

1. Keep doing SEO ‘cos its making you money. Make €400 from 15 work from both traffic sources.
2. Ditch your SEO efforts and scale up PPC. Make €600 from Adwords alone, from 15 hours work.

This is really what everything I talk about hinges on. It’s the main reason why I don’t like SEO. There are others which I’ve mentioned ( it’s capricious nature etc ), but this is big one.

Okay, it’s a very simplistic example and it doesn’t make good sense to throw your eggs in one basket. There are other means of traffic generation I would test, and use as well. But the principle is solid. What would you do?

Sure they don't, that's why all the millions of people who listen to him are wrong but the guy on the forum with the 'contrarian view' has got it sussed!!

Larry and Sergey must feel real foolish if they are reading this, having hired Matt donkeys years ago and giving him a nice salary and plenty of shares!

Not just me who has this view actually. If you’d only take the time to look, plenty of others who take the view of SEO.

Unless, he cares to tell me how his ranking algorithm works, then I don't care what he says.

As it stands, I'm still waiting.

I've you want to one of the herd who fall on his every word, you go ahead.
I'll spend my time more productively thanks.

It's a good job I'm thick-skinned, as this would probably be about the point where I say something that blows up the thread, but sure, yes - all of us marketers who have gotten results for clients and for their own websites, reaping the rewards of creating content, optimising websites and building online PR are 'full of crap'.

I'm guessing all of these marketers will still be in business for many years to come. What do you think? If that turns out to be the case, will you come back here to admit you were the one who was really full of crap?

I’ve not doubt you will be in business Atomico “for years to come”. I mean that sincerely, although you may not believe it.

But let me tell you a little story. I’m a member of business mastermind group where a new member one day told us about his business. It consisted of two operations, one offline and another online.
His online business ( funnily enough , driven mostly through paid traffic as it turns out ) was doing a roaring trade, accounting for 90% of his total income.

His bricks and mortar shop made up the other 10%. Now both businesses were still profitable, but one sucked up all his energy and was a pain in the arse to manage. It was killing him. So the first thing we advised him to do on joining the group was to kill it.

Now for some who had ran this bricks and mortar biz for almost 30 years, letting go was a difficult decision. He had an emotional attachment to his business, which blinded him to any rationality about his situation. What was more difficult for him to accept was the fact that it was actually still profitable, and made him money.

But it taking up all of his time, for what was a poor return.

I don’t think I have to spell out the parallels self evident here, do I ?

That because something produces “results”, does it mean it’s the best way?

On that basis, I think it’s gonna be you who will be back here to admit you’re wrong.

80-20 dear boy, please go study it.

They sure did. Couldn't agree more with you that they were wrong. Why was that? Could it be that like you, they didn't understand SEO and digital marketing in general? Could it be that they didn't take the time to understand it, and went for the dodgy tactics which inevitably got them burned? I'm not saying you ever did this, but you get my point.

No, could it be that they were dealing with a black box? Maybe that was the reason, eh? I must have said 4 or 5 times at this stage but I ain’t talking about any black hat SEO guys here. I’m talking about straight-up, legitimate SEO bods that woke up one morning to find their sites had fallen off a cliff.

There was plenty of ‘em.

This is kinda why myself and tricky D are getting a bit unsure as to whether you even know what you are saying, or whether you know where you actually stand with all this. ROI is about getting the return from whatever activities you carry out. I did SEO, I got results (more traffic and more inquiries). I didn't do PPC. Just SEO, and it gets me results.

You DO realise that there are companies out there generating most or all of their leads and sales via organic traffic....right? That counts as 'getting a decent ROI'. Which completely shatters your entire premise that organic traffic is unpredictable and unreliable, given that real profitable businesses generate huge revenues off the back of organic traffic?!

Do major corporations operate their businesses and spend a fortune on organic search (via employees and / or agencies), because it's unreliable, unpredictable, and won't give the kind of ROI they are after?

Expedia.com anyone?! Booking.com and a multitude of other websites?!

Why do PaddyPower employ SEO specialists? Why are they advertising for SEO people right now? Why do they do PPC AND SEO?

And why do they bother with clever PR / media campaigns with a huge dependence on getting their message out via Facebook and Twitter?

Care to address that?!

Yeah I know they’re are getting tons of leads and traffic from SEO. Stop the press.

Hmm, let me think about this for a second. Why does a big dumb company with money and resources to burn NOT try and get its hands on every little shred of traffic it can get its grubby little paws on?

God, let me try and figure that one out. It’s tough.

Maybe you kind of got lost somewhere along the way, but the thrust of my argument isn’t aimed at the big companies, and those who sail in them. I’m talking to small business owners, solopreneurs , start-ups or anyone with limited resources.

Read back to the first post, and my answer to the OP.

In those particular circumstances, where getting the maximum leverage from your efforts ( in terms of both time and money ) is critical, SEO isn’t a smart strategy. Just pay for your traffic, optimise it and scale it up, and be done with it.

But hey, if you have an army of Jobridge interns willing to come in and do grunt SEO work for you for nothing, in addition to the mega budgets these companies have, sure it would sense to throw the kitchen sink at it.

I might even be tempted as well, if I were one of them.

But their rules don’t apply to me, and I’d wager, not to you either.

For the last part, whatever I think about SEO which at least can somewhat effective (and I really stress somewhat), Social Media marketing is , well, just total and utter nonsense.

Go read “Social Media Is Bull****” on Amazon. An enlightening read.

Another conversation for another day.

Except it sounds like you'd be happy to spend a grand to get to London instead of waiting an extra day and spending 100 quid.

It’s possible I might be. I value my time quite highly. In that instance, it may make sense to undertake such an arrangement.
Of course, spending a grand to get to London is unlikely to happen in reality rendering your comment moot.

The same "engagement" which builds brand loyalty, repeat custom and which can actually be tracked via the likes of Google Analytics?!

What has direct response marketing got to do with digital marketing? How about using direct in tandem with digital? Or are you against that since only one method can drive results?!

You’re getting your knickers in a twist here dear boy.

Direct response is the method of advertising, Digital is the medium. Within digital there’s many media one can employ, PPC, Facebook ads, SEO etc...
But direct response is how you advertise on those media. It’s the method, not the means.

My comment was a mere flippant observation about a clash of marketing cultures. Us in the direct response world cringe at words like “brand loyalty”, “customer awareness” and other such terms beloved of the big companies and brand marketers

Let me put my cards on the table with this one. I am a hardcore DM guy alright, no bones about it, and despise the vague, nondescript Madison Avenue style brand advertising beloved of the big companies.

It’s garbage as far as I’m concerned ( and if you’re wondering why if it’s so ineffective how come they use it, well that’s a discussion for another day. But getting stuck into Mad Men might get you thinking.. )

Anyways, I’m guessing you’re from that particular school of thought, though I could be wrong. If you aren’t, I apologise.

But anyways, us DM guys have a very different approach to how we market. We don’t like to deal in vague terminology like customer sentiment, engagement and stuff like that. We’re only concerned about profits.

We just create great products, and sell ‘em.

However, this really is for another discussion and its off-topic, but it’s one which I would happy to debate if anyone feels the need. I’m holiday this week so I’ve all the time in the world.

How about when the methods you scorn actually do generate €€? Aren't you missing out?
Only today I've learned that we are approaching almost 3k on our mailing list for a client. In the past month we've gotten approx 500 new sign-ups without spending A CENT on AdWords - they have largely come via "engagement" on Facebook (i.e. real people interacting with the brand), and the blog (where you produce content!).

Read up on Neil Patel, you need to in fact. Neil is a multi-millionaire who has built his entire brand on content. He has startups which boast Fortune 500 companies as customers, along with thousands of other businesses.

He 'engages' with people on his blog, and has a hugely positive reputation.

He has even secured major traffic and conversion increases for massive websites like TechCrunch....but sure why is he bothering with that SEO lark at all at all!!

You see, again you’re missing the point.

I’ve NEVER doubted that the above works, or produces results. But, it doesn’t produce the best results. For my own website, I get opt-ins via organic traffic, quite a few of them as it happens.

Now I could scale up my organic opt-ins for free but take me a few days, or scale up my other efforts for €200 in a couple of hours. ( the figures are arbitrary btw )

I could do both, which would be your approach, but that assumes that I’ve all the time in the world to burn. I don’t. Given that little fact, it’s imperative that I use my limited time wisely.

Which I do. I’ll scale up my efforts which produce the greatest return, on concentrate on them exclusively.

Now, if I had an intern to come in and help me write content, or else some VERY cost effective way to work on organic efforts, it might make sense for me to do that.

As it happens, I don’t. My resources only permit me to concentrate on what will deliver me the biggest bang for my buck. That’s why I hold this opinion of SEO, and I’m primarily addressing those people with limited resources and time, people who really can’t do both.

It really is. Who'd have thought a multi-pronged marketing strategy which takes account of a variety of viable approaches could deliver results via multiple channels and campaigns?!

Yep, just like I do. Plenty of ‘em as it happens. Just not SEO.

For no good reason it seems at this stage...

Plenty of logical and sane reasons illustrated in crystal clear detail. Can’t do anymore really.

I already do and have been doing so. Yet again, highlighting the supposed importance of keywords in SEO just goes to reinforce the fact that you don't understand it (or have a very limited, myopic view of it).

Believe me, I know where you’re coming from. One of creating engaging content that the search engines love, in a nutshell. Not my style for reasons I’ve repeated ad naseum.

Or could it be that you are flat out wrong but love the feeling of being the 'contrarian' sort?

Nope. I was asked for my opinion ( by yourself as it happens), and I gave it. I’ll outlined in a very logical sane fashion why SEO is a bad strategy, and I can’t do a whole lot more I’m afraid. Only reason I posted was to help out the OP and give him another perspective.

So how do you draw the line then, between recommending it and not recommending it?! Do you do SEO until you deem it to be 'rubbish', and then recommend that the business pump euro into AdWords??!

How can you rubbish it and 'actually recommend it' at the same time, even in limited circumstances?!

I’ve no attachment to any traffic source. I’ve no inherent bias towards one over the other. So on that basis, if something is effective in terms of time and money, then I'll use it.

I do what works.

So if you can get your site ranked in less time and money than it takes me to the exact same thing with adwords, then I would be a fool to say stick with adwords.

A good example was a business I consulted with a while ago who had virtually no competition.

Under those circumstances, my advice was to do the basic SEO work and get ranked. Why bother spending money on PPC when you get ranked with little or no work?

But being honest, that is something that rarely happens.

Niches where you can get ranked with probably only a few hours work (and stay there easily) do exist. They’re rare, but they do exist.

So if you’re in one, and you can get ranked easily, by all means do organic search. Congratulations, you’ve hit the jackpot. It will provide you a nice ROI.

However, for 99.9% of businesses , this won’t be the case. They will have to battle tooth and nail to get ranked. Under those circumstances, rather than submit yourself to the long slog of back breaking, unpredictable SEO work, just cut a cheque to Adwords and get your traffic. Again, I’ll hammer you (metaphorically of course ) over the head with the Pareto principle to understand where I’m coming from.

Nobody has suggested it is! This is what we keep harping on about. It provides results, so it has to be factored in as a viable strategy.

But why do something at all when there are better ways to do it? 80-20.

And lose your shirt on AdWords instead, is it? How does, for example, a small Dublin hotel compete on AdWords with the big boys pray tell?!

How would they do it with search? It’s going to be just as hard, if not harder. Re small businesses competing with the big boys, there’s always a way in...if you care to look. Perry Marshall’s book which I mentioned at the start has some ingenious and cost effective strategies for doing this.

You seem so hung up on knowing the absolute minute details of the ranking algorithm, when anyone can see that you don't need that knowledge to understand the field and how to get results in the field.

Do I have to be an exercise scientist to have a very good idea of how to get fit in the gym? Or do I learn about how to do it?

Do I need a degree in food science to be a great cook (who gets 'results' through cooking tasty food).

Part of learning new things involves being open to the fact that you might not have all the answers. I certainly don't know it all, but it sounds like you sure think you do. Hence the 'arrogant' reference earlier in the thread, possibly.

There are so many holes in your argument and your discourse that this will probably be my last post. If it was a bit (ok, a lot) more nuanced and reasoned, that might not be the case.

I’m hung up on it for the simple reason plenty of supposedly “in the know” and “savvy” SEO guys have felt the full force of Google’s ire, and will continue to do so again. And it’s NOT because they were black hat, or otherwise incompetent. It was because they weren’t sure exactly what the rules were.

Overall, my arguments have been perfectly reasoned.

Let me re-iterate ‘em for you ( what follows is a simplistic example, but it illustrates my point on 80-20 thinking )

Take a business owner. He has 10 hours a week to try and get traffic to his site. That’s all he’s got. No more.

He values his time at €200 per hour. He spends that time driving traffic to his site at a cost of €500, ultimately netting his business €4000. Its quick, simple and effective. Straight to the point, no messing around.

Or he can spend it writing content, being “engaging” on his blog and hoping against hope that the Big G bumps him up the ladder. They might, they mightn’t. He’s not sure because even though he understands the commonly held principles about the ranking algorithm supposedly works, he can’t say for certain whether it’ll work or not.

There are plenty of factors beyond his understanding and control at play that all combine to determine how his cards will be dealt. In terms of time spent, it takes an age. While he was getting traffic via adwords in hours, he’s had to wait weeks to see his site ranked organically. Not to mention the opportunity cost of the time spent getting to where he is.

His efforts pay off, and gets ranked at position 3 for the same search term. He gets traffic. He’s made money. But little does he know, that he taken the time to scale up his adwords efforts, or used other media, he would have seen a greater ROI. Not just that, but it would have taken him less of his time as well. And I’d argue it would have been a hell of a lot more pleasant.

And the above, gentlemen ( and ladies ) is my point.

It all hangs off the Pareto principle of lasering in on what works, doing more of it, and cutting that which may work, but ultimately is not giving your maximum return. Its the basis of everything I do.

I highly suggest you check out the works of Richard Koch on the 80-20 rule.

anbrutog

flynnlives wrote: »

This makes zero sense.

The "superior method" to point to is adwords yes?

so what would happen to your silver bullet ROI should everyone stop promoting themselves and trying to rank organically?


well first off the user experience on google would suffer and quickly followed by a collapse in your ROI because adwords would be worthless, in an instance.

You fail to see the relationship between organic and paid. They are closely linked.

Sure adwords is working for you and thats great but ive come across many who paid loads and got nothing. Reading your posts tells me you are the one who has drank the koolaid and are quite happy to place all your eggs in the adwords basket and thats fine.

tbh you havent a notion what your talking about.

Please do me the favour of reading my posts before commenting.
I'd greatly appreciate it.

If you had read 'em, you would see that I don't advocate Adwords as a silver bullet, and I don't recommend its exclusive use.

Far from it.

But what I do say, given a head to head battle, and if someone put a gun to my head, I'd chose adwords every time over SEO. For reasons I've repeated many, many times.

Clear enough?

So on that basis, you are the one who has no notion what you're talking about, as you obviously haven't bothered to read what I've said.

I don't really understand what you're getting at with the hypothetical situation you described.

Everyone stop promoting themselves and attempting to rank organically?
You'll have to furnish me with some real examples to make me understand.

I'm dumb that way y'know..

Atomico

You're on your own track there dude, and more power to you if it works for you.

Where you are going wrong (back to my assessment of how your approach is misguided), is that you are taking one medium which works very well for you and which can be readily tracked, with one that COULD work very well and dismissing it because you can't track it as easily. That, in anyone's book, is silly.

Not everything fits inside a nice package or box. 'Spend x, make x' doesn't translate in reality.

Can you put a price on goodwill? Where does goodwill fit in your little 80/20 paradigm? What about excellent customer service? Terms like brand loyalty might seem fuzzy and nonsensical to you. That doesn't mean they don't have value.

You sound a bit like the politicians these days. Cut x, save y. Not everything is about numbers (even though you think it is), and just because something can't be tracked doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Is that not fairly obvious no?

It's obvious to everyone except you.

Just to finish, you are also misguided if you think AdWords is as trackable as you make out. What about attribution? Ever consider that your AdWords conversions might be down to your organic presence? What about when someone clicks an ad, spends time browsing and clicks on your organic links. Doesn't your organic presence then act as a way of bolstering your paid presence?

That's what we mean when we talk about joined up approaches, and that's what we mean when we talk about integrated strategies. SEO and Paid actually work in tandem. But that's not for you, even though it is probably benefiting your business!

You can ignore SEO, but SEO can't ignore you

flynnlives

anbrutog wrote: »

If you had read 'em, you would see that I don't advocate Adwords as a silver bullet, and I don't recommend its exclusive use.

but you have clearly said that you have dismissed SEO as MEANS TO GET TRAFFIC.

My point is you do not understand the relationship between organic and paid.
If one is missing the other suffers. Its quite simple really.
I think you need to go and look at googles business model again.

The main reason however, that i think you havent a notion, is because you have a system that works for you and you seem quite happy in yourself that you have some how explained everything and that everyone else is blind to your epiphany.
Your method works for you but that doesnt mean it will work for everyone.
So you are short sighted.

Atomico

flynnlives wrote: »

but you have clearly said that you have dismissed SEO as MEANS TO GET TRAFFIC.

My point is you do not understand the relationship between organic and paid.
If one is missing the other suffers. Its quite simple really.
I think you need to go and look at googles business model again.

The main reason however, that i think you havent a notion, is because you have a system that works for you and you seem quite happy in yourself that you have some how explained everything and that everyone else is blind to your epiphany.
Your method works for you but that doesnt mean it will work for everyone.
So you are short sighted.

And the funny thing is that organic and paid can work really well when used together. The other funny thing is that you can get stunning results from even a very small investment of time in SEO (I know from experience). Especially when your competitors are most likely ignoring or neglecting their SEO.

I even have a client commanding top positions on page 1 of Google, both on AdWords AND organic.

But anbrutog would rather not spend the few hours, preferring to line Google's coffers even more

Even Google themselves don't say to not do SEO!

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

The Apprentice

This post is actually comical ..

"But anyways, us DM guys have a very different approach to how we market. We don’t like to deal in vague terminology like customer sentiment, engagement and stuff like that. We’re only concerned about profits"


This particular statement made me all fuzzy inside lol..

Quick Example that i believe has been mentioned fifty times already ..

Year 1 Adwords spend $50k - ROI $200k
Year 2 Adwords Spend $50k - ROI $200k
Year 3 Adwords Spend $0 - ROI 0 TOTAL $400k

Year 1 SEO/SEM Spend $50k - ROI $100k
Year 2 SEO/SEM Spend $50k - ROI $150k
Year 3 SEO/SEM Spend $0k - ROI $180k TOTAL $430k


Im wondering, do you see a year 4 with your clients ?? EVER ??
And weve all studied paretos bollox rule in college, the points have been made and your pig stubborn enough to ignore them thats fine but you cant ignore the long term benefits of "Engagement" "Brand Awareness" "Customer Sentiment" .. Your just about trying to dismiss 200 years of marketing which your ideology on what it is and isnt..
Pro Tip - Lay off the weed man, its killing ya and quite frankly i think your giving digital marketers a bad name, im ashamed to put myself in that bracket with you with all the incorrect spiel your spouting.

dgerryd

LOL not right now cause I'm pissed to be honest but I'll add my 2cent's tomorrow on this, as I see from my screen here there is a lot of kJ;kAcp#S./Caso;SI9ZI LSm ?>,@'/.' which clearly adds up to **** all or does it ? One thing is there is no lack of knowledge here but as for the "limit" that's up for debate.