Barry Schwartz over at the SERoundTable points out a lively debate over at the Search Engine Watch forums regarding the nature of the SEO business. The debate was initiated in response to a DMNews article, “Troubled Times for SEO Firms” written by David Pasternack, President of SEM services firm, Did-it.com.
In the article, Pasternack suggests SEOs see themselves as Jedi-Knights offering a one-time, front loaded service. Citing a recent MarketingSherpa study that says revenues in the SEO sector have virtually flat-lined in comparison to previous years, Pasternack suggests that the decline in SEO spending shows that mainstream marketers have learned SEO is an easy game. In other words, Pasternack is suggesting, in few uncertain terms, that SEO shops are losing business because mainstream businesses have learned they don’t really need them.
Did-it’s main focus is found primarily in the pay-per-click market. The company’s management is universally respected in the SEO industry and includes names such as Kevin Lee, John Merryman and Bill Wise. David, Kevin, John and Bill have all spoken at industry conferences and have each been published as expert authors in the search marketing media. Perhaps that level of respect explains the surprise and sharp tone found in many of the responses.
Comments are ranging from cynical…
“It’s a classic PR trick which has been used for decades. Be negative towards a competitive/threatening service in order to increase demand for your own.”
to humourous …,
“You can always break something down to the ‘lowest common denominator’ and make it sound really easy peasy… I’m sure you could use this approach to describe most things: These (flying a jumbo jet) principles are publicly known, and at root are very simple: first, you take off, then you fly to the designated destination, then you land the plane back on the ground, wheels first.”
… but tend to fall somewhere in between. One thing in common between all 25 comments is an agreement Pasternack got it wrong.
An article from a PPC vendor suggesting organic search engine optimization is unnecessary is not an uncommon thing. There is any number of reasons such a piece might be penned. Indeed, writers focused on SEO often critique the PPC market in a bid to build their SEO businesses. That this piece was written by David Pasternack from Did-it.com and published in DMNews however is surprising.
Pasternack’s premise that the SEO industry is in trouble is based on results of MarketingSherpa studies from 2004, 2005 and 2006. Between 2004 and 2005, SEO revenues grew at a rate of 124% but seem to have stalled in 2006 showing a meager 6.7% rate of growth. Pasternack suggests three key points work against SEO firms. First, SEO is easy. Second, SEO is a one-time-fix. Third, SEO-Spam makes marketers nervous.
How SEO services are delivered and what SEOs do for their clients is always a conversation worth having but, since SEO is a more complicated practice than one might assume, that conversation should be fully informed.
The first and second arguments Pasternack put forward sort of merge together. SEO is neither easy or a one-time-fix. Most good SEO firms have long-term campaign plans in mind before approaching a project. There is a great deal of preliminary and ongoing research involved in optimization and, as a very good SEO project treats every document as a unique entity, a great deal of hands-on work.
His third argument, SEO Spam makes marketers nervous is, unfortunately, too true. There are several stories one can use to frighten advertisers and marketers ranging from Traffic Power’s exploits to the penalty recently assigned against BMW.de. There are, of course, infinitely more SEO success stories than there are SEO Spam stories but, like good news on TV or in print, the good work of most professional SEOs goes unreported. There is the counter argument that professional SEO firms are useful to check for and clean up incidents of spam, a task many practicing SEOs have covered several times in their careers.
The actual factors for the slowed growth reflected in the MarketSherpa report stem from at least two other factors.
First, the timing of the surveys shows triple digit growth in 2004 and 2005. Those numbers actually reflect revenues in the previous year. In other words, 2004 numbers should be labeled 2003. Similarly, numbers from 2005 actually reflect revenues from 2004. It wasn’t until 2005 that a massive number of SEO firms morphed into full-service SEM firms. In previous years, PPC was still considered a side-service offered by SEO firms and overall revenues were lumped together to make the report. By 2006, serious PPC focused SEM firms had been established and were reporting revenues from 2005, a year in which SEO revenues really did slow because of PPC.
Secondly, many larger corporations are creating their own in-house online marketing departments. Revenues reported by SEO firms are expected to decline as the largest clients effectively remove themselves from the client pool. A similar effect is expected in the PPC market in coming years.
Pasternack does close his article with a statement every SEO can agree with, “…smart marketers will continue to invest in SEO in a way that makes best sense to them, and the best SEO firms will remain in demand, because there remain thousands of commercial Web sites out there in need of basic search engine optimization.”
There is no question SEO is important for website marketing, and no question the mainstream marketing community knows it. The real question, one all advertisers should consider is this, who can best merge the demands of a well rounded PPC campaign with the steady task-work of professional SEO into a holistic marketing effort?
Jim Hedger has written a widely read search marketing column for over five years. Co-host of Webcology on WebmasterRadio.FM, Jim is a writer and SEO consultant with Metamend Search Engine Marketing in Victoria BC.
Read other articles by Jim Hedger
