SEO is such a tough topic to describe to a client. To clear the fog of confusion, the below Forbes article (including the comments) may be helpful – it is really well written (compliments to Ken Krogue). Essentially there is internal and external SEO and then there is SEO that is legitimate and SEO that is cheating. We think it is less relevant that it may be a dying art, as it is still a current and necessary part of your kitbag of tools for social media success.
The Death Of SEO: The Rise of Social, PR, And Real Content: Ken Krogue
Ken Krogue
I had lunch back in March with Adam Torkildson, one of the top SEO consultants in Utah and one of the best in the country.
Adam Torkildson
Adam Torkildson, SEO guru, says Google is killing the SEO industry (as we know it)
He said something to me that blew me away. “Google is in the process of making the SEO industry obsolete, SEO will be dead in 2 years.”
I posted his statement on my blog and immediately received a flurry of comments; many from his colleagues in the SEO industry who wanted to:
- Weigh in on my statement that Adam is great (or crazy)
- Promote themselves
- Accuse me of writing a title for “link bait”
- Declare how absurd Adam’s assertion was
- Agree and prophecize their vision for the future
“The flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target.”
Adam’s explanation about his claim made a lot of sense. I’ll quickly summarize and add some background information.
“SEO” means Search Engine Optimization.
There is internal and external SEO. Internal makes up about 15% of the process (I’m told it may be much higher now) and it means to design your site so it follows the best practices proven to rank high on Google. External SEO used to mean to write articles, press releases, blogs, comments, and content with embedded keyword “backlinks” to your site. Now it is changing fast to include social media strategies.
SEO has been traditionally divided into “white hat” or “black hat.” Black Hat is the obvious villainous practice of gaming the system by doing things to raise rankings that Google doesn’t want, and White Hat is just more subtle.
But what does Google want? They want relevant, real content on the internet that people want to read and tell other people about. If Google doesn’t bring you the most relevant content when you search they aren’t doing their job.
So by definition even the word Search Engine Optimization (SEO) means to “game” the Google search engines (and others) to get your valuable content ranked higher than it would be if left alone to the forces of the Web.
Google proved Adam right one month later (to the day) with the “Penguin release” that is a code name for the algorithm that decreased search engine rankings of companies who were using schemes to artificially increase their rankings. Google decided to change the weight of their emphasis from “backlinks” more towards social media likes, shares, tweets, reddits, and 1+ (Googles obvious favorite.) In the world of digital media the emphasis is on follows, comments, and views as well. (Note: I have changed the wording slightly to clarify my meaning and make it more precise since I wrote it four days ago.)
What does that mean? Google used to think if you linked to someone on the Internet they must have valuable content. Now Google seems to believe that if you promote content with social media it is more indicative of relevant content and less likely to be faked. Though many point out social can be faked as well.
The bottom line is that all external SEO efforts are counterfeit other than one:
Writing, designing, recording, or videoing real and relevant content that benefits those who search.
If you generate content and place it all over the web promoting and linking to your specific content, it is obviously fake. (And that is basically a big part of the history of the SEO industry, both black and white.)
And hey, I’ve done it myself. That is how I met Adam in the first place.
It is the overly aggressive marketers that always spoil it for everyone. Mmmm, let’s see… false advertisers, telemarketing at dinner time with predictive dialers, unsolicited faxing, email spamming, now SEO.
It was Seth Godin that said “all marketers are liars,” I’m a marketer, so I can say this. I think it means that if you have to advertise a lot to change perceptions, it’s probably being “spun.” Think media, the lack of advertising on fruit and vegetables, and the current presidential race.
Adam told me that it is hardly about the links anymore, it’s about the metrics of engagement on your site.
It’s about social “shares”, and you can’t fake that (easily). Now with recent policy changes, Google knows who everyone is once they open themselves up on the social realm. They will be able to tell the fake people. Facebook already knows. Adam did a test by creating 1000 fake accounts a year ago, but today they have all been banned.
I asked him how they figured it out, he said “I’m pretty smart, but I have no idea. That’s why they hire PhD’s! That’s why Google bought Twitter’s data. They failed to get Facebook data, but they rely on Facebook’s internal API. Now social signals are a much bigger part of the Google algorithm.” He continued, “I’ve already seen them using it, I know.”
So what do we do?
Adam grinned with resignation, “It’s the Hubspot strategy of great blog content with a massive opt-in audience of social followers. It’s your InsideSales.com approach with strong industry research that people follow. And it’s old-school PR. PR has made a full-on 180 degree swing. I started in PR as a major. Now it is the ultimate, because it is about who you actually, really, know. It’s the buzz you create. And how much value you provide your community of followers in return.”
I summarized:
“So great content is king, and communities of avid followers make the king? And my friend Cheryl, of SnappConner PR will rule the world?”
“Yes, basically.” Adam went on, “Dell does a really good job. They have 1M followers on just one account in Twitter. Their team answers all direct messages from their community, and stays on top of their brand and reputation.”
I asked, “So how has this affected you?”
“We hardly do any of the old SEO stuff. It still brings results, but not like it used to. Google is pulling the rug out to provide better search for their audience. They are routing out the counterfeiters. Now it must be real, valuable, content, and lots of community value and interaction.”
So how does it affect entrepreneurs and business executives?
Simple.
Invest in real, valuable, relevant content that your audience wants. Grow your internal thought leaders to where they can add value to your audience and positioning in the market. Follow internal SEO practices to make sure it is found and sees the light of day. Take the time to make it so compelling that people talk about it and share it.
Look to real social media community support, compelling PR, and real content; for that is where true SEO practitioners are turning more and more also.
Common sense, but not common practice.
(After 300+ comments from some SEO professionals and not-so professionals, I have tightened up my thesis, but I’m still of the same opinion. Here are my final comments on this topic for a while. And here is a link toPart 2 of the Death of SEO discussion - Ken)
***
Comments
I like the idea that search engines should operate off of peoples opinions of real, valuable content. But, like most cases, don’t you think that people can still find ways to cheat the system using black hat optimization tactics? For example, if they blast their content out on social media and ask all of their “friends” to “like” or “+1″ their content without actually reviewing it, won’t this inflate their Google rankings? Or, could they just rotate through hundreds of fake social media aliases to counterfeit a valued response. Any idea what Google’s workaround’s are for avoiding situations like these?
Called-out comment
Reply
Will, I agree with you about real, valuable content. And yes, people will absolutely find ways to cheat the system using black hat. But my whole point is that even white hat SEO is still filling the internet with an incredible amounts of content that is solely based to artificially drive up rankings. It is “pulp content” that isn’t designed for readers, just Google bots. It’s counterfeit content.
And yes, you can fake it with social content spammers also. But Google is getting smarter than that. They recently consolidated all of your google products under one password and they own your data in any of their products you use. They can see your real connections. They are very smart. I don’t bet against Google.
Called-out comment
Reply
The horror of this white hat pulp “counterfeit” content … how would you compare that against something like … I don’t know … the Narrative Science algorithm generated pages published on Forbes.com?
Called-out comment
Reply
Very much in agreement with you Ken. The web is becoming a much less unruly place although at a recent talk I heard an SEO consultant lecturing on how easy it is to run a script that pops your +1 on every page load.
These guys will always find a way but thankfully google is smart enough to keep shutting them down and keep improving access to high quality content.
Called-out comment
Reply
AGREED! Well said.
Called-out comment
Reply
Aaron, that is a good question. I value good questions.
The Narrative Science algorithm seems to be best applied in writing stories that relay market information that has a following. It seems fine to be used when expectations are appropriate. I don’t see it being applied trying to replace intelligent reporting and opinion pieces. Were you sincerely asking for a response or just throwing in. Your words were dripping with… I don’t know…
Remember my audience is clear, I focus on business owners and entrepreneurs who have been funding SEO practitioners for years who have littered article directories with poorly written “pulp” content that has long been branded “white hat” but is barely readable. The problem is the backlinks point to the company sites of these same owners and entrepreneurs whose brand is now lessened because their expensive SEO consultants blasted hundreds of poorly written articles with backlinks all over the web. The same money is much better spent on real thought leadership and real content that is read, not indexed. My own experience is really good content actually does generate a sincere following of people, not bots, and those people generate REAL links, and REAL rankings.
And real thought leadership actually improves the industries in question.
Your thoughts?
And how does the large SEO audience of “gurus” following this conversation defend their stance when answering this question?
Called-out comment
Reply
If someone paid “their expensive SEO consultants blasted hundreds of poorly written articles with backlinks all over the web” the business owner either
1) did not do his homework on the agency and did not monitor the service
2) tried to hire cheaper for what they thought would be more perceived value
3) they were shafted by a bad agency or consultant that does not represent the majority of SEOS and then tell the business owner to go back to #1 or #2
or #4! they did know it was against Google TOS, they did not care, UNTIL they got penalized then blamed the agency.
I have seen all of these scenarios.
While it is very difficult for business owners to root out good from bad in the complex world of SEO services the Google Guidelines for Webmasters and Google Guidelines for SEOs – very easy documents to find in a search would have told a business owner not to purchase services from an agency that does this.
So I respectfully request you not keep associating all SEOs with this type of tactic. Also noting, many people fail to understand that in SEO YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR and if it is cheap there is a reason, and if it is too good to be true there is a reason.
Called-out comment
Reply
Article in reference to Aaron’s comment:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/can-an-algorithm-write-a-better-news-story-than-a-human-reporter/
Reply
Well said Kristine!
Reply
should a company that ranks #1 for link building service be there because they have been building links? Wouldn’t you say that the proof is in the pudding there?
Reply
Link building is not the same as link buying.. it is a very different set of practices .. while a link buyer may also be a link builder a link builder is not a link buyer… it is a definitional thing, but with large meaning (and not all SEOs would even agree on exactly what it means), but to answer you question no it does not.
Reply
I should have noted while link building also uses techniques to get links and so technically not natural as Google wants all links to be, paid links or link buying is what will most likely get you the penalty.
Link building is strategic link placement across natural sources, link buying is just a direct buy from a link seller. (While seller & buyer have to both be VERY good and VERY strategic at not getting caught it is different than the strategy a link builder uses to get links to a site (though they also have to make sure the link building looks natural))
Now this is where we get into the splitting Google fine hairs of SEO and where it is almost impossible to define (outside our industry) the hair we are splitting, but there is a difference…
Of course Greywolf (highly respected SEO – look him up if you haven’t) would say it is all paid and he would be right, but as far as what an algo can detect and the general quality of most link buys, link building is much less likely to get the penalty (unless you or your SEO are bad at it)
that might have been clear as mud..
but just trying to help define here..
Reply
I’ve put a link to my final reply to these comments. I’ve enjoyed the conversation. – Ken
http://bit.ly/ST8Lr4
Called-out comment
Reply
Ken I think I missed this comment earlier. now that you qualify the folks you are directing this advice to, I feel the whole story is much more complete. I am somewhat ashamed about the fact that there are rogues and charlatans out there that have driven such a zest for hatred of SEOs. But as you can see we are a family (not always love and kisses but we’ll stand up for each other), and hopefully you know there are many very legitimate SEOs out there that are highly qualified to speak to experienced marketers. They/we will continue to see evolution like Adam in Utah and Greg in Florida, and keep up our part in the symbiotic relationship we have with Google and Bing.
I am impressed by the conversation this has launched as well as the people that were involved. Good luck in your ongoing efforts both in business and writing!
Called-out comment
Reply
You as well Chris. – Ken
Called-out comment
Reply
I have to agree with you that there are still SEO companies that still do these freaky submissions and gives false hopes to these business owners. Entrepreneurs are hoping that this would be the start of their boom. The same old stuff we heard from the old timer marketers. Oh well, I know exactly what it feels like to be trapped in a deal that would give me another chance to work out a business, as well as being the SEO provider who gives hope to these people.
Theoretically, an “effort” (by the numbers) is more promising to most of the people, right? It only shows that the sense of being practical is always with us. Due to this mentality, the possibilities are, they would hire an “SEO Guru” or a company and do the “effort”. We all know that most of the people doesn’t know what is SEO and how it works. Due to this, unfortunately, a “cheap” and “massive” turns out to be a better option for them.
SEO I believe, has the highest competition level in the market. The packages, pricing, signals used, and their overviews are open to public. Things that I consider as an added value to one SEO company. Something that business owners can understand by just looking at it and they don’t have to give their info or ask for consultations before they know what you can offer them. Personally, I think the company’s value proposition is the most important thing to consider when hiring an SEO. A holistic approach that would work using SEO hand-in-hand with sales and marketing tactics.
SEO is not DEAD, they are evolving.. Check this out:
Do their efforts have a touch of market search? (and not just keyword research)
-We can use SEO to identify the horizontal market. Who are the people we can tap with?
What is their approach? (does it cover client prospecting?)
-We can use SEO as a leverage in applying sales and marketing tactics.
Do they have plans on how to scale the workload in the future? (is it just based on numbers or through marketing strategy?)
-We see SEO packages with email marketing, outreach, lead generation, etc..
Quality in SEO was redefined by the people who revolves in it. SEO strategies have changed immeasurably. If SEO is dead, I don’t think Google have to do these painful updates.
Called-out comment
Reply
LOL, you tell ‘em Aaron.
http://www.narrativescience.com/services/publishing-and-media/
Reply
Gary, Have you read my final post on this? I’ve put a link to my final reply to these comments. I’ve enjoyed the conversation. – Ken
http://bit.ly/ST8Lr4