Comments on: 4 Reasons Many Big Brands Downplay SEO

By: Reasons Why Big Brands are Reluctant to Invest In SEO | SEO Blog

Reasons Why Big Brands are Reluctant to Invest In SEO | SEO Blog — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:37:16 +0000

[...] If you offer SEO services and have been trying to court clients for some time now you have probably noticed that it is usually easier to convince small and medium-scale businesses to SEO their websites than it is to convince the big companies. According to Laura Callow of Search Engine Marketing Insight there are four major reasons why the attitude of big companies towards SEO is this way. [...]

By: Laura Callow

Laura Callow — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:05:08 +0000

Hi Todd, I agree. Admin red-tape does play a very big role to be sure - much of it associated with lack of understanding, requirements to provide ROI, and legal and branding issues. I like the ‘paralysis by analysis’ quote - very apt

By: Todd Mintz

Todd Mintz — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:58:38 +0000

Though all your reasons are certainly valid, IMO internal administrative red-tape would frequently trump all of them (AKA “paralysis by analysis”).

By: James

James — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:59:39 +0000

That’s great to know, it certainly goes against what i’ve read before on the subject. great article, It’s through posts like this, the SEM community continues to go from strength to strength.

By: 2ndTier

2ndTier — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:10:30 +0000

You’ve got great points here..thanks for all the information..^^

By: Shane

Shane — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:30:00 +0000

It’s a challenge to get the marketing and technology groups on the same page looking & working towards the same goal, but it can be done….it all starts at the top. The issue with big brands is there is often a split highway of reporting structure where each group is getting direction from two completely different people. What has to happen is you go further up the pecking order until you find a common director, vp, or even president that can get all of the wheels working together. If one wheel is trying to go a different direction, then you obviously aren’t going to get very far.

From my experience, it’s important to point out objectives that everyone can relate to. Don’t rush in stating you want to modify code, web configs, dns entries, etc. IT will hit the panic button and you’ll go home and bore your spouse about how they “just don’t get it”. Instead, go as high on the food chain as you can go and explain how you can take their business to the next level…..how they can increase new customers, retain current ones, get back former ones, and absolutely hammer home whatever their mission statement may be. Get them jazzed up, but don’t explain the details to make all of that happen unless you like to see glazed eyes and yawns. If you get the fire going at the top, then you’ll have the leverage to get IT, IS, and even the CEO’s grandchildren on board with you and your plans.

It’s a win-win for everyone….it just requires a shift in thinking for just about everyone…and that shift starts with you.

By: Laura Callow

Laura Callow — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:00:10 +0000

Thanks for all the great comments. James, to answer you specifically, I simply asked Vanessa Fox when she was still with Google, and that is what she told me.

By: Javaun Moradi

Javaun Moradi — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:45:47 +0000

Most practitioners of SEO are used to dealing with small, nimble companies that can turn on a dime. As mentioned, big companies have complex IT structures, cumbersome tools or CMS systems, and many stakeholders who many be in different silos (IT, Marketing, operations, etc.). Even after they agree, implementation may be a best.

The SEO practitioner would do well to adjust their approach. Go for quick wins first. Give them something they can tout. It might take you 6 months to get more ambitious (even fundamentals) implemented, and in that time, the whole landscape may have changed. Take the long view and plan for this adaptability. For example, you might have engineering build a toolset to re-tune the basics (titles, descriptions, etc.) rather than have them implement one-off changes. Or, look at people processes rather than tools.

Finally, I’ll play devil’s advocate. Of course, many big brands don’t “get” SEO. But some of them don’t need it. SEO is at the highest level a set of tactics, not a strategy. A strong trumps most other factors, you don’t build brands with SEO. In some cases, you may even commoditize them. There are many ways for a brand to reach new customers who have never heard of them. Long tail SEO is one, but viral, WOM, social media, or recommendations from friends are a few other arrows in the quiver.

By: Paul Anthony

Paul Anthony — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:55:22 +0000

I think too, that bigger brands can more easily rely on their offline presence to encourage direct “company name” type searches and direct type in traffic - due to the fact that advertising in the offline space is where the majority of marketing spend is. Spending money on SEO seems pointless when you can get a two for one hit, by releasing say a direct mail piece with a web address attached to it. Whilst marketing spend online is more easily monitored, it’s still very low down on the priority list for major marketing executives.

By: TheMcHugh

TheMcHugh — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:10:39 +0000

Great points. I work for a mid-sized multi-channel brand and not only do we rely on our brand name to win in search, we are beset on all sides by “Directors” (marketing, brand, creative, editorial– even e-commerce) who make generating new and SE friendly content painful.

Many a great idea that needed to be executed quickly has died running that gauntlet.