Forum Moderators: open
Here is the latest critique: www.oneupweb.com/marketing-sherpa-editorial.htm
MarketingSherpa's content on the Buyer's Guide: sherpastore.com/page.cfm/1759?a=home
Now that some time has passed since it's initial release, has anyone formed any thoughts on this Guide?
However, it is one thing to do a review of services, it is another entirely to RATE those services. That's a whole different ballgame.
A small problem I have with it, that it is a commercial endeavor. To charge for a review, isn't neccessarily a bad thing. It keeps the affiliates off the site, and puts the cost burden on those seeking seo, not on those providing seo.
I would have much rather seen an independent ORGainization do it. Additionally, the fact that it is delivered as a downloadable file instead of a booklet format, means the thing is going to get pirated to death.
As for the content - I'm glad I'm not in the report, and I've heard other seo's are glad they are not in it too.
Lastly, please becareful with any followups here. Given the recent history of this topic, it is a contentious issue to some, and we aren't the place to carry causes or vendettas.
I think that point might be the straw that broke this camel's back.
The rating of a company's service becomes a pretty subjective goal. That's why there are things like the Better Business Bureau. The client is the final judge.
You can't really have a competing carpenter critique another carpenter. There is always another way to build a better deck.
Obviously, these folks are just trying to help clear up an otherwise confusing industry. I have to admit, while the grading system gives me bad dreams(especially because it's the test that never ends), I don't know how else one would create closure for the reader.
Maybe letting the buyer be the grader would be a better alternative.
What are your thoughts?
Overall, we were pretty disappointed with the whole experience. After initial contact with MSherpa, it took months to get back in touch with them, and then we had to wait for a long time for the interview to occur.
In my opinion, the interview was not conducted professionally and was not reported accurately.
I am not sure how they calculate their grading, but from looking at some of the scores, it seems that it is a bit off. Some of the most rescpectable SEO companies, companies with Fortune 500 companies and huge client lists, were given very low grades.
(edited by: agerhart at 4:49 pm (utc) on Mar. 20, 2002)
I do feel that the "idea" of organizing a report like this must have been a daunting task at hand knowing that there would be many (and I mean MANY) issues surrounding this report. This is a cottage industry. There are so many SEM "vendors" out there running around saying that their services are better than the next. Then there's price. What to charge? $10,000 or $100,000? Then there's the "ethical" issues at hand; cloaking, no cloaking, doorway pages, no doorway pages. What's considered spam? It can be very confusing for a company trying to pick an SEM vendor.
To me this guide carries as much credibility as the "ethics" guidelines that were published by a certain anti-cloaking firm that's currently blacklisted on google for operating a huge link farm...
That being said, if I do start hearing a buzz about it from folks other than fellow SEO's, I might start taking it more seriously.
That's the major problem, the report seems to encourage clients to presume that they have knowledge, a little knowledge is a very_very_dangerous_thing.
We have potential clients fill in our questionnaire to see if they measure up to our requirements.
It occurred to me that it wouldn't be hard to recreate this report online with an interactive database. I think pageoneresults is creating this very thing.
Attach this with a good questionnaire people can ask their potential seo company and you've got a more inclusive, free solution that would make everyone happy - or maybe happier :)
All seo companies can participate and interested prospects can then query this database anyway they want.
Additionaly, you could include a review page where existing clients could talk about their experiences with that particular seo.
Maybe that would be a better solution.
Apparently it is explained in the Marketingsherpa Report how the firms are graded and assessed, and it is in fact unbiased and impartial. I think this maybe true of the UK review, but the US...
I have witnessed at first hand 3 UK companies with major clients who have used dubious techniques to gain good positioning.
I used to consult for a client who was paying tremendous amounts of money to a SEM company who shall remain unmentioned, who just added "cr*p*y" looking doorway pages stuffed with keywords and no content. I call this bad SEO!
People are reading this guide and making decisions based on what they read, when they have no idea what they are reading.
The new copy sent in her newsletters has been modified to read:
"Which of 64 rated firms are best in the US and the UK?" as opposed to "Which 64 firms are best in the US and the UK?"
A definite step in the right direction but still a long way to go.
I think this goes to show that public pressure can affect change... even small ones.
I'm nopt clear on why you're glad NOT to be included in the guide. Could you elaborate?
And how would I go about getting listed if I decided it were a good thing?
TIA
Because the Guide is not accurate, and is based on guidelines that are not industry standards. Who are these people to say what is ethical, what is a good strategy, what works, etc?
I saw numerous established, high standing, SEO companies that were given a C-. I don't think so.
We were in the first edition of the Guide, and I tell you, it was not a good experience. The interview was conducted very unprofessionally, our statements were not recorded accurately, and as a result we asked to be taken out of the updated version.
