Forum Moderators: open
What sparked this off was an incident a few weeks ago - picture this: after presenting a strategy, I heard the client's senior manager saying: "how does this fit into the whole white hat/black hat debate"?
What really gets me about this is how silly that sounded spoken out loud. I didn't mention hats - but somehow the terminology has permeated into everyday online marketing speech. I know it's only a bit of fun (well, for some it's fairly serious, but I won't even start on that) but it's not a positive thing for the image of our industry IMO.
Here's how I deal with the issue:
I present the client with the best possible options, explain the upsides, downsides, risks and benefits of all of them, recommend one and let them choose. That's how easy it is. Not once do I mention hats. Hats don't even enter into the conversation. I shouldn't have to deal with hats - I am comfortable with business ethics - but hats; no thanks.
The whole search engine marketing industry is growing exceptionally quickly and at the same time it is desperately clawing for legitimacy. The hats aren't doing us any favours. It's asinine terminology and it reflects badly on the whole industy.
So, my new year's resolution is to not mention hats (not that I ever have). No more hats. Happy new year everyone.
Oh yeah- and annihilate/obliterate your competition in the serps too.
:o)
dvduval - I'm not talking about the methods (I'll leave each to their own - it's not a debate I think we need to reawaken). I'm talking about the terminology.
I know ... I guess I'm just making the point that if it smells like schlitz, it probably tastes like schlizt too.
I think one thing that is becoming increasingly different is the varience in what is acceptable by industry. For example, link farms are used much more in travel than in banking, and blog spam is used way more in pharmaceuticals and gambling than in charities.
I think there are certain industries that tend to lead the way in black hat techniques, and it is often wise to watch them with a keen eye.
So in a sense, you will see Black Hat used especially in industries like gambling and pharmaceuticals.
Its all marketing. Online marketing is only different from "conventional" marketing, because someone else (the search engines) are in control of just how far you are able to go with your marketing methods while remaining within the parameters as set forth by those same search engines for free inclusion.
We may choose to call them rules or guidelines or what have you ... but we all know "parameters" exist. To go outside these parameters is to push your luck and risk being temporaily or permanently banned from any given search engine.
There are parameters in all media. But because the internet and "search" is still relatively new, the parameters are always changing and evolving. Its still the "wild west" so to speak ... if you'll forgive the simile. So I guess white hat/black hat has its place ... sort of.
"Marketers" who engage in what some refer to as "black hat SEO techniques" are (IMHO) not dissimilar to the hucksters selling fake Rolex watches on the street. They will stoop to anything to make a sale.
They don't care if they damage the entire timepiece industry or harm Rolex or a competitor in any way. They are only out to make a quick buck. Should they be caught, they will quickly move on to the next scam. And the next time, they will find new ways and means to refine their craft without getting caught.
Though I know I will take heat for this reference, I don't much care. These people denigrate the online marketing industry and the term for "black hat SEO" should be something less "cutsie" ... IMHO. Something like "scam artist" or "crook" would suit me fine.
Marketing is the ability to get your product in front of your target audience, create a demand and sell it. Its a concept as old as bartering. Unfortunately, within the marketing and sales industry you will always find used car salesmen, scam artists and crooks.
The only thing separating any of us involved in online marketing are the parameters of acceptability we each define for ourselves and use to get ahead of the competition.
Some thieves believe they aren't really bad guys because they never use violence in the process of robbing someone. Of course, we all know they are bad guys and we have laws which also state they are bad guys ... but somehow, they never really believe it themselves.
So whether anyone wants to call themselves white hat, black hat, gray hat or cat in the hat ...who cares. Each of us is able to read the "guidelines" set forth by the search engines. If we choose to go outside those guidelines, then it is damaging to the entire online marketing industry.
I would think more people would be concerned about cleaning up the reputation of the entire online marketing community rather than worrying too much about nomenclature.
Sorry edit-g. I started out agreeing with you, but I think the root of the problem is more important than identifying why such silly names exist. Unfortunately, for the industry and these fora ... I doubt the term "crook" or "scam artist" will catch on here! :)
Its all marketing.
This is true, but different techniques suit different brand values. In the real world, for example, you are unlikely to see IBM advertising in the "Free ads" in your local paper, even though if they advertised in every free ad paper in the world they would probably raise their profile. In doing so they may damage their brand, however. Small ads are "Dark Grey" for IBM in the real world, and it is this kind of comparison the marketers are now trying to equate online. Whilst they are right to do so, they are very wrong to try to take the labels that we as SEOs have used as face value. The Marketers will now take our terminology and use it and abuse it and probably not understand it for a few years yet.
Small ads - IBM wouldn't do that in print. Does that make Adwords Grey hat?
Does it make a directory listing in the ODP Black hat?
What happens when IBM.com starts appearing in unprotected logfile pages?
It is certainly not easy times for the brand managers - they may need to get off their ar$%£s and do some thinking or employ someone to do some prper strategic thinking for them.
(Sorry for using IBM as an example Bill - Just popped into my mind)
Though I know I will take heat for this reference, I don't much care. These people denigrate the online marketing industry and the term for "black hat SEO" should be something less "cutsie" ... IMHO. Something like "scam artist" or "crook" would suit me fine.
Very strong words for people who are simply doing a job. Crook and scam artist refer to someone who is stealing money from someone.
Now who is the scam artist. The white hat company that follows all the guidelines and ends up on page 45, but did it legitimately. Or the guy who took advantage of weaknesses in the search engines and produced results. I'd consider the "crook", the person who told me they would do something that they couldn't do.
Each of us is able to read the "guidelines" set forth by the search engines. If we choose to go outside those guidelines, then it is damaging to the entire online marketing industry.
One of the most popular quotes on these forums when people complain about rankings is "Google doesn't owe you anything". They are correct. But in the same light, we don't owe Google anything. If Google decides that the spammy website is more releavant than the clean one, that is Google's problem. Google doesn't pay me a dime, and I was never asked to be in their index, so I owe nothing to them.
SEO is the manipulation of search engine results to benefit a website. Who is to say that placing an H1 tag on your site with some keywords is any different than stuffing the bottom of your page with keywords in invisible text? Are they both not trying to influence the search engines? Why is one considered "scam artist" and the other "legit"?
Why is the guy who goes out and pays for links in a directory considered legit but the guy who places his website in the comments of blogs not? Are they both not trying to artificially enhance their ranking by gaining link popularity?
I guess I'm trying to say that there is no governing body that can tell anyone what is right and wrong. As long as you are upfront and honest about your services, no one is being "scammed". Both sides are trying to manipulate the SERPs. It is up to Google to display the results they feel is correct.
"Scam artists" are those individuals who claim they will help you rank and can't, regardless of hat.
I guess I'm trying to say that there is no governing body that can tell anyone what is right and wrong.
sure there is, its called your conscience.
