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
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ONEPORTFOLIO For This Useful Post:
JustOneUK (5th March 2009), lockie (16th March 2009), Pab (6th March 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:
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
what is a good conversion rate? im assuming the larger the number the better. i.e 50% is better than 10%.
__________________ Signature Links Removed - Upgrade your account to paid membership and be able to include active links in your signature - See here for details!
[quote=fisicx;802012]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.
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.
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.
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.?
Location: Just sitting here minding my own business
Posts: 3,570
Thanked 266 Times in 233 Posts
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
?
Linear Mode
