All Things SEM
Half of the Money Spent on SEO is Wasted
Offline advertisers have a saying that half of the money they spend on advertising is wasted -- they just don't know which half. Solving that sort of problem is what search engine marketers (both paid and organic) have been able to do with the proper implementation of web analytics. The PPC folks are the best as they are able to calculate a cost per click or conversion and they're able to point to what modifications in their campaigns resulted in a change in results. The SEO side of the house used to be able to come close to the reporting accuracy of paid search, but recently connecting activities to results has become nearly impossible.
Before you go off screaming how half-baked my statement is, let me expand on it a bit. First off, SEO in this context is ANYTHING that results in improved organic search visibility and traffic. The list includes not just the usual on-site stuff, but also social bookmarking, community outreach, content distribution, digital asset optimization, and local search. The problem with having so many avenues to approach the SEO problem is that it has become next to impossible to attribute an uptick in organic search traffic to any one activity. The situation is exacerbated by the reality that multiple activities will be happening in parallel which further confounds the attribution problem.
Now I'm not saying that an experienced SEO is just going to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. Far from it. A good SEO will assess the problem, work on a strategy, and select from the set of all known SEO tactics to formulate an approach to achieve the strategy. And that SEO is undoubtedly confident that as a set of tactics, the chances of success are very good. At the same time there is the knowledge that some portion of the tactics chosen, even if executed well, will not have a noticeable impact.
A Bit of FictionHere's an example of how things might play out. In Jan 2010 I finish writing a new ebook on SEO (I cleverly call it The SEO Book). Now being an SEO Expert according to SEOmoz, I proceed with a plethora of optimization tactics. For 2 or 3 months I see improvements and I manage to get to the first page of the Google SERPs for "seo book". Some other dude has the number one spot.
In March, when the snow in NY is gone, I happen to meet up with Mike Grehan of Incisive Media for a couple of drinks (hi Mike, I owe you a pint err.. maybe a keg by now). Amongst other topics I mention my new SEO book. Mike, wanting to help me says he'll put a tweet out with a link to my site. Great!
The next day, unbeknownst to me, Mike realizes that he won't actually have time to read my book and being a man of integrity doesn't want to promote it without actually having read it. Still wanting to help, he mentions the book to a few folks at ClickZ. Nothing happens until a month later when one of the ClickZ authors has a severe case of writer's block and decides to check out this book I've written. He loves it and publishes an article about it. He uses the clever title, Marios Alexandrou Might as Well Be Called Aaron Wall 2.0 (an SEO can dream, right?). The article inspires some links and mentions for a few days and a month or two later my site is up above the fold in the SERPs. Awesome!
So, should I have bothered with SEO for the first few months or was that money wasted? Would the results from the ClickZ article have had as significant impact if I wasn't already on the first page of results? I can't say. The only thing I can say is that in such a scenario, I wouldn't have changed a thing since in the end from January to May the return on my efforts exceeded the cost of those efforts (even including the keg for Mike).
So ultimately, it may not matter that some of the tactics failed as long as the overall results produce a positive return on the SEO investment. But, that does bring me back to my point that some portion (and I wouldn't be surprised if it was half) of SEO budgets are wasted. Or to put it another way, the same results could be achieved with half the money.
OK. Now you can go off screaming.
Related Posts
This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.
Half of the Money Spent on SEO is Wasted
5 Excuses SEOs Love to Use
SEOs, especially those providing consulting services, are often confronted with situations that they need to explain. They are, after all, supposed to be experts in the way search engines work and knowing why something has happened is why they get the big bucks, right? For those that have put their trust in an SEO, you've probably heard some crazy excuses and sensed a little CYA or BS. For future encounters, I've expanded on 5 of the more common excuses.
1. The Algorithm ChangedThis is a good one. Since Google and the other search engines keep the details of their algorithms a secret, anyone can claim that there's been a change knowing that there isn't any way to disprove the statement.
Sometimes the explanation is legit especially when the word "algorithm" is used to denote any piece of data that the search engines use to determine ranking rather than the "core" algorithm that probably doesn't change all that much.
If the algorithm has changed, then there should be noticeable changes on multiple sites since a change is highly unlikely to affect just one site. For example, Aaron Wall identified an algorithm change when he reported on Google's preference for big brands.
2. It Was a Manual SERP EditWhen a decline in a site's performance in organic search results is sudden, a manual SERP edit is often blamed. While it's true that Google's web spam team will manually evaluate sites and apply a penalty / filter if they discover something that violates their terms of service, if you aren't doing anything particularly aggressive then a manual edit isn't likely. If, on the other hand, you have crossed the line that Google has drawn in the sand, then a manual edit is quite possible.
There's no foolproof way to distinguish between a manual edit and one that was algorithmic. The only advice I can provide is to assess what you've been doing, undo it, and if performance improves you were likely hit with an algorithmic penalty. If things don't improve, that's when you'll want to submit a reconsideration request since a manual edit requires a manual review to correct.
3. They're an Authority / Brand Site So They Can Do Anything They WantThe authority / brand explanation is the SEO's lament when a competitor continues to perform exceptionally well. While never admitted to by the folks at Google, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that a popular brand can get away with more TOS-violating activities than a lone site owner.
There isn't much you can do about this double-standard except to build a brand of your own. Since most of us don't have that kind of budget, the alternative is to always proceed in a defensive manner -- if you put all of your eggs in one basket you're going to be in big trouble when Google knocks that basket out of your hand.
Even when a big brand is caught red-handed, there's still a double-standard as reconsideration requests are actually attended to quickly.
4. I've Seen This With Other SitesThis explanation is sort of like social proof. If another site is doing something and is successful, then that alone is often reason enough for your SEO to suggest the tactic to you. Similarly, if another site is dinged for an activity then your SEO may be warn you against doing it. The problem with this sort of thinking is that you can't know all of the details about what someone else is doing. What is being detecting as correlation between an action and an effect may not be causal -- there could very well be 10 other activities that are responsible for the observed effect.
5. Matt Cutts Said SoThe best is when Matt Cutts apparently said something in one of his videos. Yeah, Matt Cutts probably, maybe said something sort of related, but it's next to impossible to track down the exact statement because the videos are too numerous and transcripts for all of them don't exist.
The other complication with references to Matt Cutts are that Matt is a graduate of the school of Alan Greenspan explanations. At first blush everything sounds cool, but when you listen closely every answer prompts two more questions. No offense Matt, the information you provide is great and I certainly don't expect you to give away the farm whenever an SEO asks.
By no means am I saying your SEO is lying to you when you hear one of the above excuses. Just be aware that sometimes such answers are based on a gut feeling and that asking for additional details might help both you and your SEO zero in on the real explanation.
Related Posts
This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.
5 Excuses SEOs Love to Use
The SEO Lie Factor
One of my current projects has the goal of creating a series of charts and graphs that would allow my SEO team to intelligently show progress of client projects. Sure we could, just like everyone else, show rankings and traffic, but I'm looking for creative ways to combine data to provide deeper insight. This got me to thinking about the lies often associated with SEO statistics.
The trick with graphs is displaying accurate information. That goes beyond just using accurate numbers to power the graphics. It also involves looking at the end result with a critical eye and asking, "How might someone misinterpret this?" While thinking about this I've come to the conclusion that 3D graphs, although pretty, are the most likely to result in false impressions.
Take for instance the common 3D pie chart I've shown below.
What is your first impression about the % of traffic coming from Google (blue pie piece)? You're probably inclined to say that the percentage for Google is about double that of Yahoo and MSN. That impression is a result of my use of a 3D perspective which I purposefully manipulated to inflate Google. The underlying data though has Google at 0.3% with both Yahoo and MSN at 0.35%. The data is accurate, but my portrayal of it is deceiving.
Here's another example using columns.
This time around I adjusted the perspective and put MSN up front to make it look like MSN delivers what looks like almost 3 times the traffic of Google. Using a non-zero scale also amplifies the perception of MSN's dominance. Again the underlying data has Google at 0.3% and both Yahoo and MSN at 0.35%. Anyone quickly glancing at this graph would surely be tricked in to believing that MSN is a much more important player than it actually is.
Edward R. Tufte, the author of The Visual Display of Quantitative Information calls this the Lie Factor and even provides a simple formula for calculating it:
Lie Factor = size of effect shown in graph / size of effect in data x 100
In my first chart the the lie factor is 6 and in my second chart the lie factor is 2. For reference, Tufte says that, "a lie factor greater than 1.05 or less than 0.95 indicates a substantial distortion, far beyond minor inaccuracies."
I used to favor 3D graphs in the past up until a client came right out and said to me that one I had created was confusing. I realized at that point that "confusing, but pretty" just isn't a good combination and I've been on the 2D graph bandwagon ever since. However, it's only during my most recent efforts to create new ways of visualizing SEO project performance that I've thought about the many ways that people create deceptive charts and graphs. Whether you're doing SEO in-house or using the services of an SEO agency, beware of the lie factor. That is, unless you're one of my clients in which case just nod your head and pat me on the back for a job well done!
Related Posts
This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.
The SEO Lie Factor
