I noticed a few comments on Sphinn about my last post
(why dont peeps comment on posts here?)
and decided to respond
Hugo Guzman said;
I usually like his post's, but I think that he burned himself on this one. My two main issues are as follows:
1) He says that ranking matter, but uses keyword research as the main foundation for his assertion. There's a big difference between performing keyword research - a key SEO element - and using rankings as a basis for SEO analytics (the latter is what most people are referring to when they say that rankings don't matter)
2) He says that worrying about conversions is not a key aspect of what SEO's should be worrying about. That screams SEO circa 2001. The most successful SEOs understand that SEO is really just part of an overall marketing effort, and that most of the time, good SEO goes hand in hand with analytics, creative, development, usability, etc...
David lost big points in my book. I hope that he comes on here and clarifies his stance, in case I misinterperted (I'm still suffering from a little leftover SES jetlag).
As U may have noticed, I was decidedly taking a singular route with the post
in the hopes that it would further the discussion (until ethics and standards once more grace us
ooops.... here we go). Being a cheeky fecker, it just was the mood I was in.
Not sure you caught all of what I was on about
. But ignoring rankings might be a great idea for those SEO enthusiasts working on their own projects, but when it comes to billable activities, associating costs and values of given target terms is still important. Sure, like the dreaded little green bar it is but a metric that we dont bet the farm on, but discounting it as I have seen, is not realistic or even wise IMO.
Keep in mind that I am keenly aware of geo-targeting issues and am very well schooled in personalized search, query analysis and behavioral metrics in the search world. I understand it well, and do work within that realm. I understand ranking mechanisms ;0) that was the firs part of the rant, how little modern SEOs talk about the evolution of search engines
not many, same ol stuff most of the time.
Each and every term has a related cost in my book and I am anal about ROI (uh oh
back to the conversions thang). I am a money term guy and while secondary and long tail are nice
they often have return cycles that make them meaningless until one owns the primary. But thats just how I roll
wasnt as much the points I was making.
Think of professional SEO consulting services or in-house practitioners, valuating terms and geotargeting is still an important aspect when the time rolls around to evaluate budgets for new campaigns. I personally do consulting that affords me more power
much of that rant was about the average SEO type
To that end, conversions are also a sketchy metric for a fastidious SEO. As I mentioned, there are often many roadblocks to conversions that have nothing to do with the SEO department. I ask you to find me one SEO course that teaches the intricacies of any of the disciplines I mentioned.. hell, the theory of pricing models alone is beyond the scope.
Sure, I do have control and the training in these areas and can affect change with my campaigns, but to BS young SEOs into believing they have the inert ability to make these changes/decisions without formal training is silly. So, I wrote that as a marketer whom felt SEO peeps were out-stepping their boundaries when taking responsibility for the conversion end of things.. and addressing those in companies where they dont make such decisions
. Not the mom and pop SEO enthusiast
I am sure there are those in the conversions industry that might take offence to SEOs thinking that it is their domain ;0)
Let me ask you this
are you willing to work SEO contracts as Pay-for-performance? Because if yer putting mega weight into SEO/Conversions being bedmates
you might as well be
So while I was truly playing around, I still believe
- SEO aint dead or near dying
- Rankings do have a place, but not as much as before
- Conversions arent truly the domain of SEO peeps unless they are trained for it and have the power to affect change
And if you noticed the small print at the end of the post
I simply felt these were some of the usual suspects as far as topics go in the industry
I have been on vacation and decided to poke the community with a stick
just because its fun ;0)
seeing some type of discussion start up is a bonus
(you really should drop by the blog more often
youd know my penchant for being a cheeky fecker)
In the end
I am shocked at the seeming arrogance of SEOs that believe they have the talents to truly understand conversions
when and where did SEO training involve any of the technical/strategic aspects to the art of conversions?
These are the same group that still chases links and havent bothered to understand what new ranking signals have entered the game over the last few years
I still think the community is getting lost and need to look hard into the mirror of what exactly SEO is
Im just sayin
Now you tell me... what is SEO? Is the study of SEO synonomous with conversions? Or are some SEOs over stating things?
(Oh and I told ya SEO Ethics would be around real soon... he he...see here - and still not a word on behavioral signals...duh)