Why You SHOULD NOT Always Take Google's 'Advice'

Colin Parker · Mar 5, 2009

Can I first of all say I have just joined this forum and I just wish I had known of it earlier. The level of knowledge that members have on subjects of great interest to me ie., SEO & PPC, will, I have no doubt, help me to continue improving and maximising my returns from my internet marketing.

My first post on another thread provoked a somewhat 'heated' response when I advised against believing the 'instant page 1' claims of SEO companies and also advising that no SEO should be done before testing on PPC.

The 'heated' responder quoted that Google themselves recommend getting an SEO involved in website design from the start.

I learnt long ago that because Google's objectives are different to mine I don't always follow their advice. I hope members find my reply of interest and I would welcome your views and opinions ... heated or otherwise!

'As far as Google recommending that you involve an SEO from the start of a website design/internet marketing campaign I DISAGREE.

Before I comment why I disagree I would state this: Google are undoubted experts at running a search engine, determining SEO algorithms, and squeezing every penny out of PPC advertisers etc.,

However, just as manufacturing footballs does not gift the company directors with the skills of Ronaldo, neither does running a search engine gift those in Google with internet MARKETING prowess. Perry Marshall for example, has infinitely more knowledge of getting the best out of Google PPC than they do themselves.

There are two words beginning with 'R' which differentiate Google's objectives from mine - they want 'relevancy' I want 'results'.

Yes, I have to follow Google's relevancy requirements to achieve high SEO rankings and a high PPC quality score, but I do not do it so slavishly that I lose sight of my real objective which is getting RESULTS ie., getting my website to convert visitors into sales which equals profit for my business.

What many SEO's and their clients forget, or perhaps never even consider, is that a 1st page ranking (even for volume potentially profitable keywords) is of little use if the website does not convert visitors into sales or subscription to a database etc.

SEO's are often so hell bent on stuffing the site with SEO criteria that by the time a 'holy grail' 1st page ranking is achieved it is only then that the website is revealed as a conversion 'duffer'. The poor old business (and by now they could be VERY poor) has spent all that money on SEO for ... ?

You do not make money from generating visitors to your website ie., SEO/PPC, you make money from CONVERTING those visits into business.

In short, give me 100 PPC visits a month that convert into 10 sales over 1,000 SEO visits that convert into 1. Of course the real 'holy grail' is a combination of volume SEO and PPC visits and volume conversion but only the elite few achieve this.

My objective is RESULTS not the cache of seeing my site on page 1 of Google SEO. If I can achieve both, fantastic, but I know without any deliberation which one puts 'food on the table'.

Which brings me back (albeit after a lot longer than I expected!) to why I disagree with getting an SEO involved at the start of a website design/campaign.
I advise doing a PPC campaign first with simple website pages which test keyword conversion and therefore help to establish which keywords you should optimise for SEO. At the same time you should test your website design, headlines, copy, pictures, colours etc., and track the results on Google's conversion optimiser to establish the 'winning' format of your site design. Then, and only then, in my opinion should you involve an SEO.

If you get an SEO involved from the start you are in grave danger, as I think I may have made clear, of inadvertently having the wrong objective ie., No1 SEO rankings instead of No1 site conversion and profits.

And, by the way, I practise what I preach. I have multiple 1st and 2nd page Google/MSN/Yahoo SEO rankings for high volume keywords with a site conversion of 35%+.

I also regulary achieve PPC CTR's of 15%+ (often 30%+) again with site conversions of 35%+.'

Your views and comments would be much appreciated.

Colin Parker
www-thewebsiteguru-co.uk

fisicx · Mar 5, 2009

You seem to be defining the aim of SEO as being to get a #1 spot for a specific set of keywords. If so then I disagree. Aaron Wall's definition is still one of the best:

Search engine optimization is the art and science of publishing information and marketing it in a manner that helps search engines understand your information is relevant to relevant search queries.

http://www.seobook.com/glossary/#s

You say you want results and google relvancy but these are two sides of the sames coin. If I search for XYZ and your webpage is the most relevant you will rank well. If the information on the page meets my needs then I will convert giving you the result. By analysing and refining the information on the page and adjusting the presentation of that information you will increase the conversions and most likley increase your SE visibility resulting in more listings for relevant searches.

I agree with much of the rest of your post to which I'd like to add Ammon Jones's comment:

It's easier to double your conversions than it is to double your visitors

Focus on the things that make you money. SEO in isolation won't convert a single visitor, but used in combination with usability, accessibility and user testing it can help.

If you have a few hours to spare then this is a fascinating read: http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45004

KidsBeeHappy · Mar 5, 2009

This is nothing new. Go back to the days of the beginings of the big department stores and retailers, the objective being to get each customer to spend 1 penny more.

I think that people tend to look at online trading in a bubble, but it's not, its part of a commerce world that has been going for 500 years plus. All the lessons learned in the past shouldn't be ignored & dismissed simply because now we're trading online instead of out of a shop.

I'm back to my grumpy old woman moan - don't ignore the past, learn from it, use it to shape the future.

It will always be more efficient, cheaper, and profitable, to get existing customers to spend/visit more than it is to attract new customers.

G. Lasagne · Mar 5, 2009

what is a good conversion rate? im assuming the larger the number the better. i.e 50% is better than 10%.

Colin Parker · Mar 5, 2009

fisicx said:
You seem to be defining the aim of SEO as being to get a #1 spot for a specific set of keywords. If so then I disagree. Aaron Wall's definition is still one of the best:

I am not defining that the aim of SEO is to get a #1 spot - my point is that this is what many companies believe will be the 'holy grail' to internet success and what many SEO's claim to be able to achieve.

Colin Parker

KidsBeeHappy · Mar 5, 2009

GasAngel said:
what is a good conversion rate? im assuming the larger the number the better. i.e 50% is better than 10%.

Depends on your website and what you do. Also, whether you "close" deals over the internet or the phone etc.

Simplyclearances converts around 60% (of the jobs we want) over the phone, the service that we offer is one where the customer wants to talk to us, not simply place an online order. The job of the website is to filter out the right from the wrong types of customer, and to get them more than 50% interested before they phone.

How that works through into a website conversion rate i don't know. But i do know that it stops us wasting time talking to people looking for us to buy 1970s teak effect wall units.

fisicx · Mar 5, 2009

ONEPORTFOLIO said:
I am not defining that the aim of SEO is to get a #1 spot - my point is that this is what many companies believe will be the 'holy grail' to internet success and what many SEO's claim to be able to achieve.

Colin Parker

Yup I agree - anyone who sells their SEO services as 'getting you on page 1' is missing the point. Which is why I suggest the SEO shouldn't be used in isolation. I don't tend to use the acronyn SEO anymore. I'd much rather sell the whole package - a usable website that converts along with some marketing to draw in those paying customers.

Mar 5, 2009

ONEPORTFOLIO said:
Can I first of all say I have just joined this forum and I just wish I had known of it earlier. The level of knowledge that members have on subjects of great interest to me ie., SEO & PPC, will, I have no doubt, help me to continue improving and maximising my returns from my internet marketing.

My first post on another thread provoked a somewhat 'heated' response when I advised against believing the 'instant page 1' claims of SEO companies and also advising that no SEO should be done before testing on PPC.

The 'heated' responder quoted that Google themselves recommend getting an SEO involved in website design from the start.

I learnt long ago that because Google's objectives are different to mine I don't always follow their advice. I hope members find my reply of interest and I would welcome your views and opinions ... heated or otherwise!

'As far as Google recommending that you involve an SEO from the start of a website design/internet marketing campaign I DISAGREE.

Before I comment why I disagree I would state this: Google are undoubted experts at running a search engine, determining SEO algorithms, and squeezing every penny out of PPC advertisers etc.,

However, just as manufacturing footballs does not gift the company directors with the skills of Ronaldo, neither does running a search engine gift those in Google with internet MARKETING prowess. Perry Marshall for example, has infinitely more knowledge of getting the best out of Google PPC than they do themselves.

There are two words beginning with 'R' which differentiate Google's objectives from mine - they want 'relevancy' I want 'results'.

Yes, I have to follow Google's relevancy requirements to achieve high SEO rankings and a high PPC quality score, but I do not do it so slavishly that I lose sight of my real objective which is getting RESULTS ie., getting my website to convert visitors into sales which equals profit for my business.

What many SEO's and their clients forget, or perhaps never even consider, is that a 1st page ranking (even for volume potentially profitable keywords) is of little use if the website does not convert visitors into sales or subscription to a database etc.

SEO's are often so hell bent on stuffing the site with SEO criteria that by the time a 'holy grail' 1st page ranking is achieved it is only then that the website is revealed as a conversion 'duffer'. The poor old business (and by now they could be VERY poor) has spent all that money on SEO for ... ?

You do not make money from generating visitors to your website ie., SEO/PPC, you make money from CONVERTING those visits into business.

In short, give me 100 PPC visits a month that convert into 10 sales over 1,000 SEO visits that convert into 1. Of course the real 'holy grail' is a combination of volume SEO and PPC visits and volume conversion but only the elite few achieve this.

My objective is RESULTS not the cache of seeing my site on page 1 of Google SEO. If I can achieve both, fantastic, but I know without any deliberation which one puts 'food on the table'.

Which brings me back (albeit after a lot longer than I expected!) to why I disagree with getting an SEO involved at the start of a website design/campaign.
I advise doing a PPC campaign first with simple website pages which test keyword conversion and therefore help to establish which keywords you should optimise for SEO. At the same time you should test your website design, headlines, copy, pictures, colours etc., and track the results on Google's conversion optimiser to establish the 'winning' format of your site design. Then, and only then, in my opinion should you involve an SEO.

If you get an SEO involved from the start you are in grave danger, as I think I may have made clear, of inadvertently having the wrong objective ie., No1 SEO rankings instead of No1 site conversion and profits.

And, by the way, I practise what I preach. I have multiple 1st and 2nd page Google/MSN/Yahoo SEO rankings for high volume keywords with a site conversion of 35%+.

I also regulary achieve PPC CTR's of 15%+ (often 30%+) again with site conversions of 35%+.'

Your views and comments would be much appreciated.

Colin Parker
www-thewebsiteguru-co.uk

great post but what about the most important part of internet selling.?:|

Earl

KidsBeeHappy · Mar 5, 2009

sirearl said:
great post but what about the most important part of internet selling.?:|

Earl

A good shopping cart that quickly takes their money before they change their mind

?

JustOneUK · Mar 5, 2009

Interesting post Colin. Most of what you have said has already been echoed in the forum before.

However let's assume you are just starting a website..

How on earth are you going to know what you should be doing right or wrong? What's a good domain name and how do you make sure that Google can read your pages - this is why you should get an SEO from the start. Otherwise you are just wasting your time. Often referred to as 'p*ssing in the wind'.

Once you are up and running, SEO advice on board, then you can start to analyse your conversions, build a better site, split test pages etc etc.

If you have a poor site it simply won't convert, if you have no traffic it won't either. Let's do the maths...

You run an adwords campaign to get traffic, you spend £1000/month on adwords and it converts well into £5000/month sales, making you a healthy £4000 month profit - which is good. Your already forgetting that you are spending £1000 every month - that's £12,000 per year!!

You could pay an SEO £5,000 and get to number 1, saving you £7,000 in the first year and £12,000 every year thereafter. Not too shabby.

These figures are only estimated...your figures could be FAR better

James.

Ali-v-8 · Mar 5, 2009

ONEPORTFOLIO said:
If you get an SEO involved from the start you are in grave danger, as I think I may have made clear, of inadvertently having the wrong objective ie., No1 SEO rankings instead of No1 site conversion and profits.

And, by the way, I practise what I preach. I have multiple 1st and 2nd page Google/MSN/Yahoo SEO rankings for high volume keywords with a site conversion of 35%+.

I also regulary achieve PPC CTR's of 15%+ (often 30%+) again with site conversions of 35%+.'

Your views and comments would be much appreciated.

Colin Parker
www-thewebsiteguru-co.uk

Throwing facts and figures around with out explanation is strange.

PPC Ctr's. Whats the achievement ( you pay for more clicks)
Ctr's to conversion (now that is relevant) but you have a 100% variation between the two figures

SEO is about more traffic more customers. (whether you agree or not)

It is difficult for me to understand how you would not advise that a website is designed and created with seo in mind.
If research is carried out and seo is put in place at the start this will save time and cost changing it at a later date.
When I price a website I include SEO which makes my pricing more expensive than other web designer, But they save on marketing in the future.

I vote for doing SEO at the start of webdesign

KidsBeeHappy · Mar 5, 2009

SEO is about more traffic more customers. (whether you agree or not)

It is difficult for me to understand how you would not advise that a website is designed and created with seo in mind.

Just to put the cat among the pigeons;

SEO is about new customers. And high ranking SEO does not directly mean new customers, only new visitors.

What if you built a website which concentrated on existing customers, and extract a higher spend per customer? You could save all that me,me,me, content that all of your existing customers simply skip over each time.

Ask yourself a question - look at your bookmarks - how many of those bookmarks are to the home page of that particular website?

Why always build websites for new customers??

Mar 5, 2009

Boxby said:
Just to put the cat among the pigeons;

SEO is about new customers. And high ranking SEO does not directly mean new customers, only new visitors.

What if you built a website which concentrated on existing customers, and extract a higher spend per customer? You could save all that me,me,me, content that all of your existing customers simply skip over each time.

Ask yourself a question - look at your bookmarks - how many of those bookmarks are to the home page of that particular website?

Why always build websites for new customers??

Meow

well if you are up the top with the correct relevancy for your product and the correct hooks in your title and description and the right prices for your products and products that the GBP desire.

How you gonna fail.?:|

Hiss

Hence why puss always comes out on top.

Earl

OldWelshGuy · Mar 5, 2009

below is a good post Colin, BUT (there is always a but), it makes assumptions about what an SEO is and what they will do for you, and that is where the whole argument falls down IMO.

I am referred to as an SEo, I am NOT an SEO, AAron wall is NOT an SEO, John Csott is NOT an SEO, Shawn Hogan is NOT an SEO (shall I go on?), these people and myself are ALL Internet marketers. So I am 100% with you when you talk about conversions and money and clients, and NOT about pure rankings.

You say google want relevancy, but part of the google algorithm is the conversion data they collect. Google know full well that if someone converts, then that site is more relevant, and because of this will score it up.

Your definition of SEo appears to be the 1999 definition of search engine positioning. You are a marketer, it is clear from your website you are, but I suggest that you are tarring many marketers as SEO's PURELY because they are FORCED to use that god awfull phrase as THAT is what people are looking for and recognise.

We as an industry are trying to get people to use the phrases 'internet marketer' and search engine marketing as more widely used phrases, as we do NOT optimse for search engines, we optimse for users with search engine algorithms in mind (which you have to do if you want to rank).

Hopefully that will make my thoughts and position a little more clear, as I t was myself that pointed you to the link about getting an SEO in early. The reason? (as google state in that piece), there are many technical restrictions on a website that can prevent you from ranking, and I get enquires from people weekly where this is the case.

How do you tell someone that their $30,000 ecommerce site built in ajax is not worth a dime when it comes to ranking on Google?

ONEPORTFOLIO said:
Can I first of all say I have just joined this forum and I just wish I had known of it earlier. The level of knowledge that members have on subjects of great interest to me ie., SEO & PPC, will, I have no doubt, help me to continue improving and maximising my returns from my internet marketing.

My first post on another thread provoked a somewhat 'heated' response when I advised against believing the 'instant page 1' claims of SEO companies and also advising that no SEO should be done before testing on PPC.

The 'heated' responder quoted that Google themselves recommend getting an SEO involved in website design from the start.

I learnt long ago that because Google's objectives are different to mine I don't always follow their advice. I hope members find my reply of interest and I would welcome your views and opinions ... heated or otherwise!

'As far as Google recommending that you involve an SEO from the start of a website design/internet marketing campaign I DISAGREE.

Before I comment why I disagree I would state this: Google are undoubted experts at running a search engine, determining SEO algorithms, and squeezing every penny out of PPC advertisers etc.,

However, just as manufacturing footballs does not gift the company directors with the skills of Ronaldo, neither does running a search engine gift those in Google with internet MARKETING prowess. Perry Marshall for example, has infinitely more knowledge of getting the best out of Google PPC than they do themselves.

There are two words beginning with 'R' which differentiate Google's objectives from mine - they want 'relevancy' I want 'results'.

Yes, I have to follow Google's relevancy requirements to achieve high SEO rankings and a high PPC quality score, but I do not do it so slavishly that I lose sight of my real objective which is getting RESULTS ie., getting my website to convert visitors into sales which equals profit for my business.

What many SEO's and their clients forget, or perhaps never even consider, is that a 1st page ranking (even for volume potentially profitable keywords) is of little use if the website does not convert visitors into sales or subscription to a database etc.

SEO's are often so hell bent on stuffing the site with SEO criteria that by the time a 'holy grail' 1st page ranking is achieved it is only then that the website is revealed as a conversion 'duffer'. The poor old business (and by now they could be VERY poor) has spent all that money on SEO for ... ?

You do not make money from generating visitors to your website ie., SEO/PPC, you make money from CONVERTING those visits into business.

In short, give me 100 PPC visits a month that convert into 10 sales over 1,000 SEO visits that convert into 1. Of course the real 'holy grail' is a combination of volume SEO and PPC visits and volume conversion but only the elite few achieve this.

My objective is RESULTS not the cache of seeing my site on page 1 of Google SEO. If I can achieve both, fantastic, but I know without any deliberation which one puts 'food on the table'.

Which brings me back (albeit after a lot longer than I expected!) to why I disagree with getting an SEO involved at the start of a website design/campaign.
I advise doing a PPC campaign first with simple website pages which test keyword conversion and therefore help to establish which keywords you should optimise for SEO. At the same time you should test your website design, headlines, copy, pictures, colours etc., and track the results on Google's conversion optimiser to establish the 'winning' format of your site design. Then, and only then, in my opinion should you involve an SEO.

If you get an SEO involved from the start you are in grave danger, as I think I may have made clear, of inadvertently having the wrong objective ie., No1 SEO rankings instead of No1 site conversion and profits.

And, by the way, I practise what I preach. I have multiple 1st and 2nd page Google/MSN/Yahoo SEO rankings for high volume keywords with a site conversion of 35%+.

I also regulary achieve PPC CTR's of 15%+ (often 30%+) again with site conversions of 35%+.'

Your views and comments would be much appreciated.

Colin Parker
www-thewebsiteguru-co.uk

Mar 5, 2009

OldWelshGuy said:
below is a good post Colin, BUT (there is always a but), it makes assumptions about what an SEO is and what they will do for you, and that is where the whole argument falls down IMO.

I am referred to as an SEo, I am NOT an SEO, AAron wall is NOT an SEO, John Csott is NOT an SEO, Shawn Hogan is NOT an SEO (shall I go on?), these people and myself are ALL Internet marketers. So I am 100% with you when you talk about conversions and money and clients, and NOT about pure rankings.

You say google want relevancy, but part of the google algorithm is the conversion data they collect. Google know full well that if someone converts, then that site is more relevant, and because of this will score it up.

Your definition of SEo appears to be the 1999 definition of search engine positioning. You are a marketer, it is clear from your website you are, but I suggest that you are tarring many marketers as SEO's PURELY because they are FORCED to use that god awfull phrase as THAT is what people are looking for and recognise.

We as an industry are trying to get people to use the phrases 'internet marketer' and search engine marketing as more widely used phrases, as we do NOT optimse for search engines, we optimse for users with search engine algorithms in mind (which you have to do if you want to rank).

Hopefully that will make my thoughts and position a little more clear, as I t was myself that pointed you to the link about getting an SEO in early. The reason? (as google state in that piece), there are many technical restrictions on a website that can prevent you from ranking, and I get enquires from people weekly where this is the case.

How do you tell someone that their $30,000 ecommerce site built in ajax is not worth a dime when it comes to ranking on Google?

well spoken leeky ,just what I was gonna say ,but me pen ran out of ink and I can't spell argumant.not that I ever would.:|

Earl

Ali-v-8 · Mar 5, 2009

sirearl said:
well spoken leeky ,just what I was gonna say ,but me pen ran out of ink and I can't spell argumant.not that I ever would.:|

Earl

So Now every body needs to sing off the revised seo hymn sheet.
SEO = making your website perform.

We should create a list of NEW terms
VCO= Visitor conversions optimisation
PPO= Page position

But I think the most important term everyone is interested in is ROI= return on investment.
With out it you ain't got no repeat business.

realmaverick · Mar 5, 2009

Your entire argument is based on false presumptions. Were these presumptions correct, then your post would be valid.

There are two words beginning with 'R' which differentiate Google's objectives from mine - they want 'relevancy' I want 'results'.

This is only a problem if you have a naff SEO who uses ridiculous methods that interferes with the websites copy, i.e keyword stuffing etc.

You say Google wants relevancy and you want results? I'd like to think you want relevancy too. If your page is irrelevant to the users search criterea then you're doomed.

A good SEO wont be stuffing your pages with crap that will interfere with conversions, they'll be ensuring you have a good internal linking structure, great navigation, linking building etc. None of which will hinder your conversions.

Colin Parker · Mar 5, 2009

WOW!!

Where do I start.

To read some of the replies you would think that I was a novice learning to suck website eggs who is spouting off '1999 SEO theories' without any understanding of what internet marketing is REALLY all about.

Some of you guys want to get right off your ivory towers.

Some of you guys want to actually READ what I have said before jumping arms up in self righteous indignation at the first thing you disagree with.

For the record I have a property investment company and I am ranked (at 6pm Thurs 6th March) on the 1st page of Google UK search for 'property investment' and 2nd page for web search, and for 'investment property' on the 2nd page of both. These are the volume keywords in my market but I have multiple 1st page rankings for a multitude of other keywords.

My sites convert exceptionally well and I have built, and continue to build, an investor database that is the envy of many in my industry.

The Group Marketing Director of one of the largest house builders in the UK took one look at my PPC results and instantly invited me to meet with him in London later this month.

So 'realmaverick' you say my 'entire argument is based on false presumptions. Were these presumptions correct, then your post would be valid.'

It is not me who has 'presumed' it is YOU.

You state 'If your page is irrelevant to the users search criterea then you're doomed.' Really?!! If you actually read my post and thought I needed to be informed of THAT you must have read it through coal black lensed spectacles.

It is your quote that is irrelevant.

One of the dangers inherent in these forums (any forum) is that a clique of 'elder statesmen' forms who believe that because of their longevity on the forum they somehow have 'special rights' to pass scathing judgement on what they deem to be 'wrong' or 'irrelevant'.

There are many posts on this thread who have disagreed with my views in a professional and considered manner ... and there are those who have not.

I thank the first group and I refer the second group to the two sentences above starting 'Some of you guys'.

Colin Parker
ONEPORTFOLIO

realmaverick · Mar 5, 2009

Colin, it's obvious you're not a novice and apologies that I upset you. I'm a bit under the weather and a wee bit grouchy.

The message in your post making people aware of building a site that converts was spot on. But it got a little lost by all the talk of not hiring an SEO while building the website. That led me to suspect that you misunderstood the role of SEO's or at least good SEO's.

All in all, having a good SEO involved in the design of a new website is an invaluable asset.

Having a bad SEO, who leads the web designer to lose focus of conversions is not a good thing. But then if the web designer lost focus of conversions, he'd not be much of a great web designer.

Apologies that my post upset you.

QVA - Emma · Mar 5, 2009

Hi to OP,

I think some of your points are relevant don't get me wrong however for some businesses it just isn't viable to spend huge amounts on PPC or even SEO.

My Clients are small businesses - mainly one man bands - who are either just starting out, or want to revamp their websites and intergrate some basic SEO so their website at least comes up for some searches.

Before speaking with them NONE of my clients had even heard of SEO and hadn't even been advised how the internet and search engines work, some of these companies have spent £500 to £1000 on a website that is actually worthless to them, and in the worst cases hasn't even been indexed after two years! This in itself is appalling and I am disgusted that there are some companies out there that do this to unsuspecting businesses just to make a quick buck.

So for my reasons stated above I have to say that is important for some business to have SEO considered from the start. Then I work with them to find out what the next viable advertising is for them whether it be internet marketing or local publications etc which may convert better than any PPC campaign could.

In the whole scheme of things for large businesses or even those that are "on the up" I agree but for small businesses, in certain industries PPC isn't always the right step. Just looking at the bigger picture.

Regards

Colin Parker · Mar 5, 2009

'realmaverick' I accept your apology unconditionally.

It takes a proper man to hold his hands up and apologise and so it's a definite 'no hard feelings' and I look forward to jousting with you further about our various views and opinions.

Colin Parker
ONEPORTFOLIO

realmaverick · Mar 5, 2009

Thanks Colin. I was looking at your website, very well thought out. Hopefully you'll share some conversion tips with us. In fact, scrap that, just share them with me

SimonCh · Mar 6, 2009

There's SEO and there's SEO.

SEO's are often so hell bent on stuffing the site with SEO criteria that by the time a 'holy grail' 1st page ranking is achieved it is only then that the website is revealed as a conversion 'duffer'. The poor old business (and by now they could be VERY poor) has spent all that money on SEO for ... ?

I agree that spending a lot of money on SEO for a brand new website is probably futile.

For starters, the ranking of a site is affected by its age -- your brand new site will absolutely not get to the top of google until it's been around for a while, no matter how much you spend on SEO.

However I do believe that every site design should pay attention to SEO basics. Your site must have good meta tags; it must have alt and title attributes on elements; it must have a sitemap.xml file.

These sorts of things are basic SEO that have zero impact on your visitors, but radically change the way Google sees you. You don't need to spend a fortune doing them, but you must pay attention to them. If you just throw a site together in Frontpage and it looks okay but doesn't have any of this stuff behind the scenes then you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

These basics won't get you a top ranking on their own -- yes, you probably will need to spend money for that, but you can do that later. For now, just make sure you've got the basics covered.

Paid ads are important in the early days of a site's life. As I said, you won't get a good ranking to begin with no matter what you try, so if you want any visitors, you'll have to pay for them. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't do the basic bits of your SEO.

unite form · Mar 6, 2009

I hear this so often by companies who have been told this sort of story by advisers, usually because their site is not 'generating' and they don't know why.

If you are an SME don't take too much notice of this silly, headline grabbing twitter, if you are not making sales through natural search (non paid) and you have paid out to have a site produced then you need to take action, similarly if you are commissioning a web site now and decide not to bother about SEO then you are helping out your competitors a lot.

The comments on 'conversion' are however absolutely correct, yes your site must convert even if it just generates phone calls, this is a separate subject though, UI (user interface) and useability are a subject to themselves.

Following the analogy above, about footballs and players, this is short sighted indeed. I'll give you another one, would you design and print 10,000 brochures with no idea who you are going to post them too and no strategy to do so, I expect not.

SEO (which is now commonly called SEM [marketing]) is a difficult area because it involves so many skills together, I am constantly appalled when I see companies that have been sold down the line by agencies who have no idea about SEO and make sites with no ability to generate sales, I would go as far as to say that 90% of advertising agencies in the UK hurt their clients's potential income more than help it because of lack of digital knowledge, and I am very well qualified to make that claim.

What to do yourself. List out your products or services then using the Google External Keyword tool, put in the phrases you believe people will search for your products using, find the ones which have the lowest competion then aim your site towards them using SEO methods and design (lots of call's to action, phone numbers, instant chat etc.) and make sure you use the Google Web Master Tools to index your site and get your tech person to make an XML site map. You will be suprised how quickly the result will come in, I mean it.

Richard Smith
Technical Director
Diablo Digital
t: +44 (0)1962 892520
m: +44 (0)7774 106535

katlane · Mar 6, 2009

Of course SEO is only valuable on a site that converts the traffic it generates.

But I have seen lots of sites that are so intrinsically SEO unfriendly that no amount of work is going to make them otherwise, the worst was a lovely site that was simply an image.

So if you are setting up a new business and have absolutely no understanding of SEO, building a test site to work with on your PPC traffic runs the risk of having to be completely rebuilt from scratch and with SEO in mind once you have decided which design and layout converts.

And that is potentially a very wasteful exercise.

OldWelshGuy · Mar 6, 2009

katlane said:
Of course SEO is only valuable on a site that converts the traffic it generates.

But I have seen lots of sites that are so intrinsically SEO unfriendly that no amount of work is going to make them otherwise, the worst was a lovely site that was simply an image.

So if you are setting up a new business and have absolutely no understanding of SEO, building a test site to work with on your PPC traffic runs the risk of having to be completely rebuilt from scratch and with SEO in mind once you have decided which design and layout converts.

And that is potentially a very wasteful exercise.

And THAT is EXACTLY why Google recommend getting an SEO onboard, as they have to deal with the billions of unworkable sites out there.

By unworkable I mean things like flash, which while they can pull content from it, they can't pass link juice through links, and treat the entire movie as a single page! (for example)

Polygon Creative · Mar 6, 2009

I have to disagree with a big chunk of what you've said. SEO is not just about the content of a website but the construction too. It's vital SEO guidelines are followed to ensure search engines can crawl and rank your site quickly and efficiently.

With regards to content and keywords it's a balancing act but even basic SEO guidelines are fairly simple for even a novice to administer. The content of a site should be keyword rich without spamming. The trick is to ensure content is clear and understandable and contains a strategic number of keywords.

I disagree with the comment of going straight for PPC over organic SEO, organic SEO takes time but it will save money in the long run and reduce the advertising expense per sale.

PPC is also dependent on site content to get low cost ads, if the ad and page are relevant the ad will be much cheaper than experimenting with random keywords that have no association with the content of the site it's pointed to.

I've had a great deal of success for my clients, they have high conversions and high rankings. The key is STRATEGY, don't just jump into SEO or PPC without first having a strategy just like you should for offline marketing.

Analise competitors, look at their sites, keywords, keyword density and content. Generate reports track your site in comparison to competitors, use analytics to see find effective keywords.

A good SEO expert is well worth the investment, however, it appears there are plenty of 'gurus' out there that may have a had a bit of luck using a few basic techniques and think they are, well, Gurus!

Real SEO is about long-term goals, strategies, competitor analysis, reports and tracking that lead to high conversion rates. It should be done in collaboration with offline marketing techniques to form an overall strategy to fully exploit sales potential.

It all sounds quite expensive but if you can find a company like ours that has experience and experts in advertising, marketing and web design and development you'll find it's the most cost effective and efficient way of creating a successful online business.

We specialise in start up companies most of whom are on a very tight budget but we've had great results whether for a one-man-band window cleaner or a large national printing companies.

My advise before doing anything either on your own or with an SEO company is research, research, research. Find out exactly what you want to do and achieve and make sure if you choose a company you ask plenty of questions and find out exactly what you get for your money, and make sure you get a report detailing the performance of your website both technically it's performance based on serach engine guidelines, keywords etc.

We offer a free initial consultation and outline specifics as well as giving real time successes. Make sure your SEO company offers the same.

PolygonCreative.co.uk

sabina · Mar 6, 2009

Many thanks.
Conversions is the new SEO, quality over quantity etc!

OldWelshGuy · Mar 6, 2009

sabina said:
Many thanks.
Conversions is the new SEO, quality over quantity etc!

nah, professional SEO's have ALWAYS talked about conversions. it is just the link and rankings whores that haven't

Diesel · Mar 6, 2009

Interesting discussion.

For me a SEO consultant is a no-brainer and I look forward to hiring one, one day - especially as my site isnt indexed (although Google knows me)...!

However I still do most work by recommendation/word of mouth and need to establish a larger turnover before I can outsource some of my web marketing time/income and get a pro onboard.

Meantime, what and why is indexing to spiders? And why is the software and protocol of my-first-website so important/destructive to this?

Well p'd off that it isnt 'indexed', but we dont all start off fuly briefed and fully 'liquidified' (or with a £700k pension

)

D

onesimpleman · Mar 6, 2009

PPC do not work for every industry.
An example is a classified advertisement website .
The website makes money when advertisers pay to put ther adverts. If you bid for classified ad keywords you end up getting lot of people who want to read adverts which does not generate any income ( you can argue, more people read advert more advertisements you get . But from a financial point of view this is not viable as each advertisement will have 100s of readers)
So the way out is a highly optimized website which is indexed each time new content goes in (pings search engines with new content , posts content to social networks, etc etc). The content should also shoot up the searches within hours it goes in. If you have not planned your website with an seo this is not going to happen.

Also when you are dealing with products with a tight markup PPC is a bit of a gamble. We always identify products which are good to run a ppc campaign and have long tailed keyword campaigns.

Conversion is a different ball game , wether it is PPC traffic or affiliate traffic or natural search engine traffic , you have to convert it . We have keywords on natural search which convert more than 15%.

ChrisTaylor · Mar 6, 2009

I think Colin is right on the money, not just in terms of SEO but also when actually carrying out an SEO campaign.

I also think Wall's definition is far from correct although it does have some merit.

Search engine optimization is the art and science of publishing information and marketing it in a manner that helps search engines understand your information is relevant to relevant search queries.

1. SEO is not an art or science, somthing the top SEO's banter about so they can get paid large unwarranted fee's.

2. SEO is about outcomes more than marketing. I can market my information well on the search engines using relevancy but if the goal is not optimized why bother?

I don't agree that it's about gaining first place rankings for thousands of pages but it is certainly about optimizing for a given goal on a web page.

3. In terms of general SEO, what a search engine tells you to do with your site may not always be in the best interest of your business.

Remember Google is a business also and like any business they are looking to optimize there own profits over and above your own.

Long gone are the days when the search engines worked in the background.

"SEO (search engine optimization) is the task of increasing search engine rankings on keywords and or phrases that will produce optimal outcomes to a specific goal at the lowest possible cost in terms of time and monetary outlay"

The above will be published in my new SEO book for small business when released in a few months time.

Mar 7, 2009

SEO is about making money .

And is definitely a science

and anyone who thinks its not, might be in the wrong occupation .

Earl

oz1982 · Mar 7, 2009

GasAngel said:
what is a good conversion rate? im assuming the larger the number the better. i.e 50% is better than 10%.

it is traffic that converts into sales

so the more the better

startclaims · Mar 7, 2009

The difficult part is getting a site listed on the first page of Google's organic search listings in the first place, you can always work on the conversion ratio.

I think it is also worth pointing out that for many companies 'brand visibility' is the driving force behind their advertising, take for instance Coca-Cola and McDonalds who both run PPC campaigns.

Onesimpleman you mention the classified ads site and it is an interesting point that you raise however it is worth remembering that every visitor to the site is a potential customer. You make the assumption that somebody who clicks on a PPC ad is looking to READ adverts rather than PLACE adverts. Some people may visit the site looking for something who then decide that because the site is good they may come back in the future and place an ad.

Type 'Classified Ads' into Google and see how many AdWords there are, clearly it works for some companies.

I prefer to take a holistic approach to internet marketing and i guess the key for most people is to strike a balance. Google does value relevancy but then so do I. I would rather be relevevant AND get results and would hope the two go hand in hand.

OldWelshGuy · Mar 7, 2009

ChrisTaylor said:
I think Colin is right on the money, not just in terms of SEO but also when actually carrying out an SEO campaign.

I also think Wall's definition is far from correct although it does have some merit.

1. SEO is not an art or science, somthing the top SEO's banter about so they can get paid large unwarranted fee's.

2. SEO is about outcomes more than marketing. I can market my information well on the search engines using relevancy but if the goal is not optimized why bother?

I don't agree that it's about gaining first place rankings for thousands of pages but it is certainly about optimizing for a given goal on a web page.

3. In terms of general SEO, what a search engine tells you to do with your site may not always be in the best interest of your business.

Remember Google is a business also and like any business they are looking to optimize there own profits over and above your own.

Long gone are the days when the search engines worked in the background.

SEO (search engine optimization) is the task of increasing search engine rankings on keywords and or phrases that will produce optimal outcomes to a specific goal at the lowest possible cost in terms of time and monetary outlay

The above will be published in my new SEO book for small business when released in a few months time.

For me your argument lost all credibility at that point.

Search engines use Algorithms, computer algorithms are a science (these are facts not opinion_), therefore surely the part of SEO that deals with understanding the Search engine Algorithms MUST be classed as a science. SEO's conduct scientific experiments with controls etc to measure cause and effect.

Chris I am not saying you are right or wrong, btu AGAIN I will state that people are stating thsi that and the other when there is NO DEFINITIVE DEFINITION of SEO! ..... and THAT is the issue here.

As has been said (and ignored) the term 'SEO' is one that is hated by most of the top guys in the indsutry, BECAUSE of the very misunderstandings that it causes.

This thread is one such example.

So let me try this... ASSUMING that for the purpose of my argument THIS is the definition of an SEO (as I see it)... will you still say that an SEO is a waste of time?

An SEO should
1. be able to fully understand the technical requirements of the search engines to ensure the site can be fully understood by the spiders.
2. Fully understand usabiulity to maximise conversions
3. fully understand sales and marketing ensuring the copy is doing its job
4. fully understand the paths and processes from landing page to final end goal (sale or contact form etc), in order to maximise conversions
5. Fully understand analytics to ensure that traffic is leaving the site at the correct place after the required action has been taken.

In short, making a website the best it can be for vistors, the site owner, and the search engines alike.

I could go on but thought I would keep it short

Mar 7, 2009

Coming right back to the original point - about google suggesting SEO involvement.

I think what was in their mind is that too many people think SEO is something you can graft on to a site in hindsight - and I see many sites where frankly - my only answer to the site owner can be ...I wouldnt start from here, if I was trying to get to there!...

ie fundamental site structure and foundation is important. - simple things like keyword rich domains, categories and pages..page headers including same keywords...specific pages targetted at specific keywords and so on. All of this is so much easier to do if you start in the right direction....ie begin with the final structure in mind.

if somebody says to you..."take this mondeo and turn it into a formula 1 racing car" or "take this 2 bedroom house and turn it into a tower block..."

it would take you longer and more money to attempt the conversion than to start from a clean sheet of paper because the foundation is wrong.

To that extent google are making a fair point...no doubt ruthlessly exploited by the lower forms of life in the SEO world to the detriment of naieve new comers to business.

Mar 7, 2009

admagic said:
Coming right back to the original point - about google suggesting SEO involvement.

I think what was in their mind is that too many people think SEO is something you can graft on to a site in hindsight - and I see many sites where frankly - my only answer to the site owner can be ...I wouldnt start from here, if I was trying to get to there!...

ie fundamental site structure and foundation is important. - simple things like keyword rich domains, categories and pages..page headers including same keywords...specific pages targetted at specific keywords and so on. All of this is so much easier to do if you start in the right direction....ie begin with the final structure in mind.

if somebody says to you..."take this mondeo and turn it into a formula 1 racing car" or "take this 2 bedroom house and turn it into a tower block..."

it would take you longer and more money to attempt the conversion than to start from a clean sheet of paper because the foundation is wrong.

To that extent google are making a fair point...no doubt ruthlessly exploited by the lower forms of life in the SEO world to the detriment of naieve new comers to business.

good analogy but I suspect I may have been libeled.?:|

Earl

JustOneUK · Mar 7, 2009

OldWelshGuy said:
An SEO should
1. be able to fully understand the technical requirements of the search engines to ensure the site can be fully understood by the spiders.
2. Fully understand usabiulity to maximise conversions
3. fully understand sales and marketing ensuring the copy is doing its job
4. fully understand the paths and processes from landing page to final end goal (sale or contact form etc), in order to maximise conversions
5. Fully understand analytics to ensure that traffic is leaving the site at the correct place after the required action has been taken.

I tend to disagree with this description of SEO. This is a description of what it would be handy for your SEO to take care of

Putting someone's website higher in the search engines for the most searched relevant terms remains the practical goal - rebuilding their whole site so they convert sales better isn't really the job of an SEO.

gogul2k · Mar 7, 2009

Following standards doesn't guarantee lots of sales, but if you focus on providing for the user while keeping standards in mind then that does get results.

I see a lot of sites that use framed layouts, poorly formed markup, lack meta info ... yet they've been around for years and the authors work hard on providing for the user, which is how they survive.

If you can best these sites with similar quality information and combine that with "good" SEO techniques, then you will find it's easy to be competitive in search engine results ... but as I'm sure you know, SEO is just one small part of converting a visit into a sale.

Cookie Consent

Essential

Analytics

Marketing

Why You SHOULD NOT Always Take Google's 'Advice'

Colin Parker

Colin Parker

JustOneUK

realmaverick

Colin Parker

realmaverick

Colin Parker

realmaverick

unite form

katlane

Polygon Creative

ChrisTaylor

JustOneUK