Snake Oil?

[dctrpl]

Partner wants to spend £1200 on SEO services over two months to get us to "dominate" certain Google search terms. I think its a bunch of hokum, waste of money, snake oil.

Who is right?

Or at least - what conditions would make her right and me wrong or vice versa?

Is there an easy way of checking out any particular SEO company's track record?

 

[makeusvisible]

Partner wants to spend £1200 on SEO services over two months to get us to "dominate" certain Google search terms. I think its a bunch of hokum, waste of money, snake oil.

Who is right?

Or at least - what conditions would make her right and me wrong or vice versa?

Is there an easy way of checking out any particular SEO company's track record?

As the SEO company to provide a list of phrases they have worked on recently which they are ranking for.

Ask for references from their customers.

If we can help drop me a pm.

 

[RadiusBPO]

It's not for your christmas quiz game is it??

 

[nitro23456]

It's not for your christmas quiz game is it??

Well he's way too late if it is.

To answer the OP you need to consider your return on investment, what would it mean financially to you to "dominate" your phrases. If you stand to make more money from it than you spend on SEO then its worth it and your partners correct.

If you don't stand to make atleast a slightly positive ROI then your right!

You don't necessarily need to spend £600 p/m either as she suggests, in which case your both right

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Partner wants to spend £1200 on SEO services over two months to get us to "dominate" certain Google search terms. I think its a bunch of hokum, waste of money, snake oil.

In what way?

The company your partner wants to use? Or SEO in general?

Steve

 

[MASSEY]

If it's the site in your profile I would try with ppc for the terms you deem main and see what the lie of the land is before investing in seo. Your site lacks a bit of trust for me, a bit like a spammy ebook site for get rich quick schemes.

 

[maxine]

How can you ever tell though whether current performance is as a result of that particular SEO's work or someone before them?

(serious question by the way)

 

[nitro23456]

by asking the site owner or getting testimonials

 

[StokedSEO]

2 months is not really enough time to do a proper SEO campain, it's unlikely that after this you would "dominate" any terms which are particulaly useful IMHO.

Generally you'r look at 6 - 12 months minimum for SEO work

 

[fisicx]

If you have a niche Market or are chasing longtail keywords then an SEO campaign can achieve good results in a few days. Not everybody is after ranking #1 for high competition keywords. Which may also mean spending £1200 in two months might be well over the top.

 

[StokedSEO]

If you have a niche Market or are chasing longtail keywords then an SEO campaign can achieve good results in a few days. Not everybody is after ranking #1 for high competition keywords. Which may also mean spending £1200 in two months might be well over the top.

Well yes and no, because you need the volume if you are looking at longtails. It's no use going after just one or two so in my experience this can take just as long, or even longer than chasing a handful of "hollywood" phrases.

No matter tbh, 2 months isn't very long to research, adjust, get to know the market etc. I wouldn't be interested in working with somebody for such a short period, that's not how I roll

 

No matter tbh, 2 months isn't very long to research, adjust, get to know the market etc. I wouldn't be interested in working with somebody for such a short period, that's not how I roll

Have you thought of taking vitamin pills?

Earl

 

[StokedSEO]

Have you thought of taking vitamin pills?

Earl

Sorry Earl, I'm not up to speed with your humour?? :redface:

 

[nitro23456]

no-one is.

I also agree that longtails only have limited value as they are not going to pull in huge traffic unless you go for lots from a content perspective.

A bit of both perhaps.

 

[fisicx]

Consider that a site ranking #1 for a few hundred longtail phrases may well pull in more converting traffic per day than a site focused on one or two generic keywords.

If you are a local builder then you only need one converting visitor per day to make any campaign viable. No need for high volumes of traffic.

 

[nitro23456]

I do agree with you fisicx..... I have a site that gets around 200 uniques a day out of which 80 come from one single high competition phrase and the others come in 2's and 3's from longtail terms.

The longtail terms come from lots of content. Both are valid approaches, but to only target say 5 longtails terms, as hinted at above, wouldnt really work. It needs to be across the board of your entire content.

 

[StokedSEO]

Ok, so I think we are drifting off topic here.

In answer to the OP you should approach this in the normal way when hiring any service. Make sure you get some good recommendations, check around for company info on the net, speak to the company yourself and see how you feel about them. It's just like hiring anybody, plummer, machanic etc, you just wouldn't just hand over your money to anybody would you?

In terms of will it be worth the £1200, we you are best placed to answer that. It all comes down to the return you want in order to justify the spend. If you are an ecommerce site and over the course of a year your sales will have to raise by 500% in order to get the cost of just 2 months work back is that likely, probably not. On the other hand if it's only got to go up by 5% the maybe it is?

 

[nitro23456]

As already pointed out.

 

[mobyme]

Your signature is bang out if order. If you are such a great SEO and yet still need to pimp for work on this forum I would have thought the least you could have done is take full membership.

 

[JohnnyCash]

Your signature is bang out if order. If you are such a great SEO and yet still need to pimp for work on this forum I would have thought the least you could have done is take full membership.

I agree and I made that point in one of the forum feedback threads - ban advertising signatures altogether unless you pay...

 

I agree and I made that point in one of the forum feedback threads - ban advertising signatures altogether unless you pay...

Why?............

Earl

 

[JohnnyCash]

Why?............

Earl

Because :

• its an easy way to generate more money from the forum.
• if someone turns out to be a scammer at least its accountable, its linked to someones Paypal account.
• If you want to make money from the forum then its fair you should be forced to put something back in.
• It stops me having to see a million and one shitty seo offers.

 

Because :

• its an easy way to generate more money from the forum.And the problem with that is?:|
• if someone turns out to be a scammer at least its accountable, its linked to someones Paypal account.Nope not all pay using paypal.
• If you want to make money from the forum then its fair you should be forced to put something back in.Forced Indeed.
• It stops me having to see a million and one shitty seo offers.Avert your eyes,Don't read you have the power.

Interested what your real agenda is?The owners don't seem to have a problem with signatures?

Earl

 

[JohnnyCash]

Lets not be pedantic about it... even if they don't pay by Paypal its exactly the same - they paid somehow, and its accountable to a specific person/organisation rather than just a throwaway email address like the free accounts can be.

Not sure why you think I have an agenda... I use the forum so suggested a way they could increase their revenues. No more, no less.

If sigs were outright banned for free accounts it would cut down on the nonsense posts also. I guess Sift would rather have the pageviews and inflated user account numbers to sell ads off the back of though...

 

If sigs were outright banned for free accounts it would cut down on the nonsense posts also. I guess Sift would rather have the pageviews and inflated user account numbers to sell ads off the back of though...

Well I don't suppose Sift are silly.

The agenda is why you feel so aggrieved about this issue?

Earl

 

[JohnnyCash]

It just bores me reading past absolute junk posts in the middle of decent threads, that have clearly only been put there to drop a signature advert.

 

[mobyme]

Why?............

Earl

Because it's the equivalent of spam!

 

[Annoying Donkey]

I think the forum would be better if they banned whingers

 

Because it's the equivalent of spam!

Oh well lets ban all advertising.

Earl

 

[fisicx]

It just bores me reading past absolute junk posts in the middle of decent threads, that have clearly only been put there to drop a signature advert.

That's why there is the little red triangle, it allows you to report the junk posts, self promo, sig links and other detritus. I use it all the time.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Oh well lets ban all advertising.

Earl

Well, at least ban gocompare ads...

 

[mobyme]

I think the forum would be better if they banned whingers

I think they should ban all these fantastically successful SEO's who cannot afford 15p a day to advertise their business.

The forum at the end of the day is a business and earns money from advertising and membership; why would anyone pay for advertising or join the forum for the privilege of adding advertising to their signature if anyone can do it.

I know; let's all be spongers and freeloaders.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I know; let's all be spongers and freeloaders.

You don't appear to be a paid member.

Steve

 

[JohnnyCash]

He doesn't appear to be using the forum for advertising either.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

He doesn't appear to be using the forum for advertising either.

But if he's using it for anything and not paying, why isn't he one of these "spongers" or "freeloaders" he's so concerned about?

Steve

 

[JohnnyCash]

If you're using it without paying and without advertising then you're giving Sift pageviews and content. Seems a fair exchange.

If you're going to actively use it to try and recruit new clients, I'd say it was fair and reasonable that you pay for the privilege. Combine that with the fact that enforcing that change would undeniably help with the spam problem, it seems like an easy decision to make surely?

 

[Annoying Donkey]

So I guess you should stop optimising your sites on G because you're freeloading off big G...

People will rarely pay to participate in a forum. Here people pay so they can add a link to their signature in the belief it benefits them.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

If you're using it without paying and without advertising then you're giving Sift pageviews and content. Seems a fair exchange.

Surely these "spongers" and "freeloaders" are providing "pageviews and content" also?

In fact, they may well be contributing far more - and better - content than most people without sig links.

And that extra value (compared to "non-siggers") may be far in excess of the annual membership fee.

In which case, they may be far more valuable to the forum than most free members and most paid members.

So why are they "spongers" or "freeloaders"?

Why aren't they "valuable members of the forum"?

Steve

 

[JohnnyCash]

People without signatures are posting because they want to. People with signatures are sometimes (but not always of course) posting purely to drop their advert again.

I think its hard to make an argument against the opinion that the quality of the posts would increase if signatures were limited to paying members, and that the volume of spam would decrease.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

People without signatures are posting because they want to. People with signatures are sometimes (but not always of course) posting purely to drop their advert again.

As fisicx pointed out, you can report it.

I think its hard to make an argument against the opinion that the quality of the posts would increase if signatures were limited to paying members

I can think of a very easy argument to make: by giving less back to valuable contributors to the forum, we may lose some good members.

That would make the quality of the posts go down.

Frankly, I think UKBF shows far too little appreciation to the members who create the best content.

Yes, all threads/posts can bring in traffic via the search engines, but the thing that keeps people coming back is the high quality advice they receive. And it's those repeat visitors that really get the forum's page impressions up.

IMO, there are about 50 key members on UKBF, without whom, this forum would be an utter joke.

By treating these people no better than self-promoters, gossips and newbies, the forum risks losing them.

I've noticed a number of them have already ceased being paid members. Some hardly post at all these days.

And now a bunch of people are saying, "Hey, let's treat these people even worse!". And, let's show how little we appreciate their help by calling them "spongers" and "freeloaders".

NOT a smart move, IMO.

I'd suggest a better question would be, "How do we better reward these people for their contribution".

Just my 2p,

Steve