SEO - Sometimes You are a Bad Investment

[fathom]

SEO - Sometimes You are a Bad Investment

You will find a broad difference in SEO talent within the industry that I would mainly categorized as the following: perseverance, trustworthiness, leadership, innovation, forward thinking, and teamwork.

I stress these points because SEO ability isn't defined by tips and tricks (the use of techniques and tactics) but by the ability to manage, adapt and multi-task varying processes e.g. the search engine, the user agent (browsers and bots), and the inter-connectiveness of the Internet itself.

Perseverance – Today’s "successful" SEOs cannot just cookie-cut - the same thing for every client. Industries and markets are growing online and vastly different, so are websites (and deployed technologies) as well as individual client needs. Search engine archiving practices and changing algorithms all make it impossible to survive unless you can resolve each of these variables in favor of each client, each time it occurs. That's easy right?

Trustworthiness – In today’s climate of scandal, deception, misleading information and hype it is often difficult for business people to trust unfamiliar opportunities. This is the nature of the SEO beast and the "lack of client education". As such, the business to business relationships must come first - not the fees.

Innovative - Innovation is the conversion of knowledge, ideas and concepts to wisdom resulting in competitive advantage. Information technologies (which include SEO professionalism) are main drivers in economic growth. Not because of the "information" part but because of the rapid ability to convert wisdom. Innovation allows SEOs to empower a client to decision make faster, easier, and with greater accuracy.

Forward Thinking - The challenge in SEO is managing clients’ current needs while assisting in their appreciation of change management. Adapting to change on the Internet (with the flux of search engines, industry competitiveness, market habits, and even bad decision making) is compounded by the growing total connectiveness of this pervasive advertising/promotional medium. Your aim must be to integrate today's strategy as efficiently as possible into tomorrow strategies while attempting to predict what that strategy might be before tomorrow becomes a reality. Not an easy challenge but a necessary one.

Teamwork-Oriented – Beyond the uniqueness of markets, industries, and websites your client's team are seldom the same. It is in your best interest to collaborate with the client's human resources; developers, graphics designers, illustrators, programmers, traditional marketers, and upper management directors as the more these staffers can do to help themselves - the more time you have to manage the big picture and lead the team.

Leadership – Beyond all else the SEO must drive web development processes for the client. Your unique knowledge and skills are under-productive unless you lead. You need not know everything to lead (e.g. the client should know their own markets), or need to have the final say -- a leader in any project takes applied knowledge and skill and tempers it with solid ability to envision and plan, set goals, to motivate with resolve while accepting change, advice, and constructive feedback. You must always be accountable and ready to act decisively.

Why all this? It is the difference between being $100 SEO and a successful one. Anyone can develop links, anyone can write text, and anyone can manipulate HyperText code with but a few instructions. Few actually get paid what they are worth. Argumentatively, it's more about marketing what matters most and what the average person understands - compared to what matter less (SEO-babble) because they (potential clients) don't understand.

Deciding on who is your target client may seem simple enough - "someone looking for a SEO" but in reality most business people that have heard of SEO (or looking) have no lifelong learning skills to gauge benefits, deliverables or costs of these intangible services (SEO services) and tend to look for something understandable like "guarantees".

You can however look at business people in a slightly different perspective to gain valuable insight into who could be your most profitable clients.

There tends to be three primary groups (labeled loosely):

a. Entrepreneur

b. Traditionalist

c. Risk Manager

Entrepreneur - Tends to be the do-it-yourselfer. They value their own skills development and have an abundance of time but limited revenue. The risk of qualified SEO services is too great.

Traditionalist - Print media advertiser all the way. The Internet is a fad or because they lack the skills to determine what makes for good online investment -- shy away.

Risk Manager - These are forward thinkers -- they appreciate that marketing expenses are risk expenditures. They usually have a successful business but with limited success online. They also believe they have a business to run and need someone they trust to develop their online success.

You are a bad investment to Entrepreneurs and Traditionalists which, even if you close the deal both relationships tend to be problematic from the start.

The psyche - entrepreneurs value their revenue most, traditionalist value what they currently know to be true (regardless of whether there are better ways or complementing ways) and the Risk Manager values qualified advice and will paid a premium to get sound advice (services).

Risk Managers are the clients of choice. This doesn't necessarily mean "more revenue" as revenue is also dependent on your current knowledge/skill/wisdom level as well as the professional image you project. It is however the starting point to becoming successful in the realm of SEO.

[Mel]

You make it sound like rocket science Fathom.

I have had successful relationships and results with a variety of companies large and small, but I would be hesitant to put any of them into one of the boxes you suggest.

I will agree however that the relationship becomes more complicated as the company becomes bigger, not necessarily because of the difference in thinking of the responsible person, but becasue of the larger number of departments and individuals involved, each of whom have a slighly different set of results they want to achieve, or a different mindset.

But my chief objection is your implication that SEO is a bad investment. I can think of many cases where tens of thousands of dollars were spent on websites that produced no traffic, but an additional 10% of the original budget spent on SEO was materially helpful to achieving the desired results. That is a good invetment in my book.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Mel

You make it sound like rocket science Fathom.

I have had successful relationships and results with a variety of companies large and small, but I would be hesitant to put any of them into one of the boxes you suggest.

Existing clients were not the consideration here. you will not likely develop a "do-it-yourself" or "traditionalist" thus existing would normally be risk managers.

I will agree however that the relationship becomes more complicated as the company becomes bigger, not necessarily because of the difference in thinking of the responsible person, but becasue of the larger number of departments and individuals involved, each of whom have a slighly different set of results they want to achieve, or a different mindset.

Not necessarily because of the difference in thinking... or a different mindset -- these look vaguely similar.

Generally speaking - a person (or company) that doesn't think they need you is a hard sell -- or at least compared to a person (or company) who does think they might need you.

Aditionally a person (or company) that doesn't know anything about SEO, never heard about it, or why they need it (they advertise anyway) - you are unlikely to convince them otherwise.

You could develop both (not saying you can't) but a harder sell is just that thus making you less productive than wooing easy sales.

But my chief objection is your implication that SEO is a bad investment. I can think of many cases where tens of thousands of dollars were spent on websites that produced no traffic, but an additional 10% of the original budget spent on SEO was materially helpful to achieving the desired results. That is a good invetment in my book.

Unfortuately you have no control over a company's desire to spend money elsewhere thus the point is moot.

Try and think this way - if you can create a positive cash flow - obviously you are a good investment. If you can't you're not. I attempt to convey this to the client _before we start - as they tend not to have "hindsight in advance".

[Mel]

I guess we are just not communicating Fathom.

I have dealt with all three of the types you mention (though I might not choose to put them into the same boxes you do) and find that one of the easiest sales for me are individuals who have a website but know nothing about SEO. A brief explanation of what possibilites are open to them for a modest investment is usually engough to convince them to sign on the dotted line.

When you get to large companies however the bureaucracy and different mindset of different departments (IT, Marketing,production, management etc) and each wanting justifications done from thier own perspective turn me right off.

Not quite sure what you are saying about wanting to influence a companies spending, I don't think I mentioned that, just that almost any company (I don't analyze the characters of my clients so thats not a part of it for me) which has an investment in a website that is not producing the results it should be is an easy sell when you convince them that you can help them to get those results for a fraction of the original cost of the site.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Mel

I guess we are just not communicating Fathom.

Actually I think we are! :-)

A bad investment - a SEO cannot take every company at any level of development with any website regardless of size, content, sellable product or service in any industry or industry segment targeting any market - and give them success above the level they at now for the same modest investment and achieve the same amount of return in the same period of time.

Thus I am saying - Help the ones you can help.

The three groups - defined loosely.

[sandym]

Very insightful...and I think accurate

[Mel]

Yes I guess we are Fathom. ;-)

It is a mistake to take on SEO if you do not feel confident that you can deliver value for money for the client, or if you are not comfortable working with the client.

But when you take on a client they should never consider you a bad investment if you do your job properly.

[fathom]

Originally Posted by Mel

But when you take on a client they should never consider you a bad investment if you do your job properly.

That is the key statement! Obviously hindsight dictates how a client will preceive you as a good or bad investment... "doing your job property" may not have anything to do with it.

Your own hindsight differs from that of the client - you have past experiences to draw on - often the potential client doesn't.