SEO-lala-land vs SEO in the Real World (Part 1 of 2)

It’s sad but true that many folks who purport and profess to be ‘SEO professionals’ are… well…not. This goes for some ‘SEO Companies’ too.

Here’s SEMInsight’s list of ten points (predictably) which move SEO out of SEO-lala-land and into the real world of online marketing.

1. SEO is not about targeting competitor’s brand names and tag lines.
2. SEO is not about maxing out the top ten listings in the SERPs.
3. SEO is not about ranking for every possible conceivable term that even vaguely   relates to a company to ‘harness the long-tail’.
4. SEO is not about designing for the spiders.
5. SEO is not a requirement.
6. SEO is not rocket science.
7. SEO is not a short-term strategy.
8. SEO will not get a site ‘banned’ in the SERPs.
9. SEO is not about conversions.
10. SEO is not enough.

Points 1,2,3,4 and 5 are all true for a number of reasons which I’ll look at independently on a point by point basis below. There is also one simple, two-fold cord tying these five points together:

1 – the search engines are there to provide the most relevant set of results to the human searchers.
2 – a web site should be concerned with relevantly answering a search query intent to the benefit of their target market, namely flesh-and-blood type folks.

Movin’ on to a point-by-point analysis:

1. SEO is not about targeting competitor’s brand names and tag line.

Targeting competitor’s brand names or tag lines is a misrepresentation of a company and its offering online. In the offline world of print or TV, for example, the perpetrator would probably be sued. The ‘laxness’ of the legalities of the internet do not make this practice an appropriate online marketing tactic. Searchers looking for specific brand names are probably looking for that company or for information about that company. It’s a fine line on the net, but it is one that should be considered.

Embarking on a murky ‘stealth-steal’ strategy is likely to lead to retaliation. This will mess up the SERPs, and will eventually be picked up by the engines. The algorithms will be adapted.

This is already a bone of contention in the paid search realm. It’s simply unethical. Legitimate SEOs can make it work for a company without resorting to online misrepresentation.

2. SEO is not about maxing out on the top ten listings in the SERPs.

Yes it is possible to get all ten top listings for a phrase if it is carefully done, but it is not advisable for numerous reasons.

First, it is highly unlikely that this could be effectively done and maintained (the guys who develop and refine the algorithms are really smart people).

Second, it is a reprehensible practice as it destroys the point of the search results; SEO is not about SERP control.

Third, it sticks a needle in the eye of legitimate SEO which is about optimization of a page for the benefit and interest of human users. Ten results from a single company about the same product is not what most people want to see when ‘searching’ for the best option, product or service.

3. SEO is not about ranking for every possible conceivable term that even vaguely relates to a company to ‘harness the long-tail’.

I fully believe the long-tail is important. I do not believe pages and pages of irrelevant or repetitive content should be developed to ‘harness’ that long tail.

The algorithms are ‘smart’. The full extent to which LSI  (latent semantic indexing), contextual relevance and other associated terminology and phrasing adaptations are included is not known to Joe Soap SEOs like me. However, I do realize that if my page is about a specific topic, and if I’ve optimized my content well on-page and off for my main terms – terms which are relevant to the user – then this means that my copy is relevant. It’s pretty darn hard to write a decent page about a topic without utilizing various phrases, references, and word combinations, especially as they relate to a specific offering or page topic.

There are some instances where an additional page is warranted due to a significant variation in the terminology associated with a product or offering. Maintaining the core focus on usability of the site and relevance of the SERPS is a responsibility, not a requirement.

4. SEO is not about designing for the spiders.

We all know that spiders regularly log-in and purchase products and services online. So.. no.

Companies needs to define their online objective and target market. Unless they have very short term goals, they’re in it in for the long haul. Ergo, a company will want to build and manage its reputation online, it will want human folks to buy its online offering, and it will want to attract the interest of their target market in the SERPs for relevant terms which are associated with that offering.

Flesh-and-bone type folks like attractive sites. A little Flash is fine. Big images – fine. Tracking and personalization – all OK. Nice colors, pretty fonts, compelling designs are needed. The best way to go is to include SEO from the beginning in a consultative capacity from the information architecture stage through copy, design and development. The company will end up with a great site for the people who matter, and one which the spiders can navigate, crawl and index. Perfect!

5. SEO is not a requirement.

Compelling copy is not a requirement. Attractive design is not a requirement. User friendly navigation is not a requirement. TV advertising is not a requirement.

The difference is that compelling copy, attractive design, user friendly navigation and SEO combine to enhance a web site’s long-term online exposure at a comparatively lower cost when taken as a whole.  If a business is going to have a web site anyway, they might as well do it right from the outset.

TV costs a freaking bundle for a 30 second spot. Nothing wrong with TV advertising. It has its place for absolute sure (just think about the SuperBowl). I love TV advertising as it complements online efforts very nicely. But the number of people who surf the internet is heading towards the number of people who watch TV, and it is far easier to specifically answer their search query intent online at the point of query as opposed to whacking ads onto the TV just as your target market has to go pee… or that might just be me.

So focusing on point of interest (POI) display just seems to me a *smidge* more worth considering, at a tenth of the cost. How many of you have bought a pack of gum at the checkout, or a magazine you didn’t really want, or a chocolate bar you didn’t really need? I’m not saying that search POI tactics are the same as mortar-and-brick point of sale (POS) tactics, or that they have the same results, but they have certain basic similarities that make sense from a marketing perspective.

TV is a channel. Search engines are a channel. Which is more targeted? Which is more measurable in terms of ROI? My money’s on search POI display.

SEO is not a requirement. For the very big brands this is especially true as they get more than 90% of their traffic through searches on their prime brand names… but it’s a no-brainer for the future, for the associated non branded terms, and for the millions of companies who don’t have the brand name ‘BMW’.

We’ll continue with points 6 to 10 in the next post…

Please send your comments! If we like them we’ll post them. If we don’t like them, we’ll post them anyway… Apparently transparency is important….