"SEO is still a tiny portion of the total search marketing spend." So states MarketingSherpa in its recent Search Marketing
Benchmark Survey. I find it hard to understand the under-utilization of organic SEO compared to PPC (pay-per-click) advertising
when organic listings are preferred by 5 clicks to 1. The natural organic listings convert better, too. So what gives?
MarketingSherpa also states that organic results are "better noticed, read and clicked on than paid listings." The report notes
that organic listings convert as well as, or even better than, paid listings (4.2%, versus 3.6%). Study after study continue to
demonstrate the power of organic links.
Delight and Dismay
MarketingSherpa researchers were both "delighted and appalled by the year over year data on marketing search spending." Delighted
because more marketers said they would allocate larger portions of their marketing budgets to SEO to gain valuable organic
listings. But appalled at the "continuing disconnect between paid search spending and SEO investment."
The keyword is "investment." SEO is an investment in time, resources and knowledge - an investment that is accountable and yields
an excellent return. The benefits of SEO are long lasting when compared to PPC because paid clicks can start or end immediately,
depending on your budget and a variety of other factors. Conversely, organic SEO changes to a website stay with you indefinitely.
Requisite Site Changes
Organic SEO takes a lot of expertise, and it also takes cooperation by the client in executing the recommended site changes that
allow a site to rank well in the major search engines. A recent JupiterResearch study states there are numerous obstacles to
achieving necessary site changes when search marketers outsource SEO to vendors. In fact, 64 percent of the marketers and agencies
surveyed said they did not implement their SEO vendor's recommendations. This leads to the assumption that they didn't achieve
good organic SEO results.
I myself wonder just what the "SEO recommendations" were that the marketers did not implement in this study. Why? Because I've
seen and heard a lot of inappropriate and/or weak SEO recommendations over the past ten years.
While the reasons cited for not following through with site changes are reportedly varied, the most common were (1) "lack of
internal human resources to implement changes," (2) "timing/ frequency of update issues," and (3) "lack of outsourced IT budget."
In my opinion, this is by and large due to the SEO vendor failing to set proper client guidelines and expectations.
The Communication Workaround
Can any client trust the advice they receive from any given SEO vendor? It seems like a catch 22 for the politically correct --
clients pay big bucks for SEO services, but they don't get results because they can't make the site changes. I say horse feathers
to this assumption -- clients come to an SEO vendor for help. It is the vendor's responsibility to guide the client to success.
Failure occurs when the vendor fails to communicate what is required of the client prior to signing a contract.
A partial remedy for not implementing site changes would be to task the SEO vendor to FTP the site changes, but many companies
will not allow outside consultants to access their site. The best solution is for the vendor to be clear upfront in communicating
with the client, coming to mutual agreement on a procedure and schedule for making recommended site changes.
SEO vendors need to be more explicit in delineating the IT vs. marketing tasks necessary. They also need to consider the expertise
and knowledge factor. SEO experts can likely accomplish the site changes in less time than the client IT technicians; however,
there is tremendous value to in-sourcing SEO in the long run. Vendors can provide a realistic time schedule for accomplishing
changes and factor in time for unknown contingencies due to client company operations. Explicit communication between the SEO
vendor and its client's IT and Marketing departments will lead to much better SEO results - a win-win for both parties.
The SEO Mystique
The MarketingSherpa report stated that "SEO under-spending" is a trend that will continue in 2006. The researchers asked, "Why
don't more marketers invest in SEO?" The major reason given by respondents was "Don't understand SEO, overall complexity."
Despite the fact that users prefer unbiased organic links, and the conversions from organic links average higher than those from
sponsored links, some marketers won't invest in organic SEO because of its ambiguity and complexity.
That's why it is necessary to educate marketers and technical people on SEO, demystifying the process. It is really not difficult
to understand when examined step by step, but the problem lies in identifying qualified SEO vendors. SEO requires specific
knowledge of appropriate methodology and a bit of perseverance. Some of the vendors with marketing visibility lack such traits,
leaving a lot to be desired.
Another obstacle to the widespread adoption of organic SEO is that experts in the field offer conflicting advice. A lot of what
you hear on the Forums is rhetoric and hearsay. Then there is the lack of SEO standards and a code of ethics, which further erodes
the integrity of the industry.
Some SEO experts talk in very general terms, e.g., all you need to do is write your site content for both your customers and the
search engines, give each page a keyword-optimized Title and Description Meta Tag, and get as many quality inbound links as
possible. Others will say it's more a matter of technical changes, "you need maintenance." Very few know what goes on behind the
scenes, and this contributes to the SEO mystique.
SEO Made Simple
First, you need a site review. This includes establishing your business goals with respect to search engines, leading you to
measurable organic SEO results. I'm talking about Server Header Status, your IP C Block, dotting the (i) and slashing the (t)
in the basics of server-side status, site architecture, page construction, content and inbound link popularity.
Next, a competitor review tells you what you are up against. Your site is obviously lacking several criteria or you wouldn't have
such poor positioning. This will also wake you up to the reality of what is required to achieve good positioning. Hello! I think
Wake Up is the keyword here, get specifics from your vendor and don't settle for rhetoric or marketing lingo. Here's your script.
I want evidence that my IP address is not IP blocklisted, I want to know why a robots.txt file should be in my root directory, I
want to see I have a site status header 200 when you ping my server and not a 400 or 302. I want to see if my HTML is being read
properly by a spider read, a browser read and a request read. I want to know how to determine what my odds are of acquiring my
strongest competitor's best positions in Google. I want to know I will be spam free, and I want to know how my site should be
arranged so that spiders can find, crawl, index and rank all my data.
And if you need more info on demystifying SEO, drop me a line.
About The Author
Paul J. Bruemmer has provided search engine marketing expertise and consulting
services to prominent American businesses since 1995. As Principal Business Analyst for Bruce
Clay, Inc., he is responsible for strategizing and implementing business development activities. Paul is well-known in the
industry, having written articles for ClickZ, Search Engine Guide, Pandia, iMediaConnection, MarketingProfs and SitePoint. He
has also been a featured speaker at the Search Engine Strategies Conference and eComXpo.
