Search marketing ethics question

Conflict handling multiple clients in same market?

[geoinct]

We do web design and more and more online marketing. We just got our first prospect for a company that does exactly the same business, in the same geography, as an existing client. They need a web site redesign and marketing.

The two of us who handle marketing are trying to decide at what point a conflict of interest arises.

We decided a long time ago that there is no conflict of interest in designing and developing a web site for multiple clients in the same market. If we couldn’t do this we’d probably have to go out of business.

We’re thinking that the SEO work we do for a client, keyword research and optimizing pages is not a conflict.

We’re also thinking that most online advertising campaigns, such as pay per click ad campaigns, would be a conflict.

What about Link Building and the related area of banner ads, finding newsletters to sponsor, opt-in email lists, etc

Any thoughts?

I know advertising agents used to never take multiple clients in the same markets. Is this still the case?

Then, if there is a conflict of interest for some or most areas of online advertising should we be charging a lot more money for our work with the understanding that we will be unable to do any work for any other client in the same market?

[Damian]

>most online advertising campaigns, such as pay per click ad campaigns, would be a conflict

You could see yourself as selling traffic.
Make sure each advertiser knows there are more of them in the same niche, and those who pay most get the most attention and best spots. Usually there's more then one spot available as you already suggest when you mention optimizing pages not being a problem. As in PPC the highest bidder gets the top spot, and the second highest the second spot (you as an SEO can have multiple accounts with the PPC engines and bid on the same keyword for each client)

If customer A pays you 0.50 per click you might decide to bid on Adwords up to 0.40 for them and keep the difference.
If customer B from the same niche offers 0.40 per click you might decide to bid on Adwords up to 0.30 for them and keep the difference.

I don't see the problem if everyone involved knows how it works. I realize some companies may prefer to work with an SEO who promises exclusivity. I think in some highly competitive niches knowledge of the niche market is extremely important though and can quickly outweigh those concerns. Customer A and B in my example are both likely to profit from the data and experience gained with each individual project. They are in a way 'in this together' and competing against the rest of the world in their niche. For the customer it could just be a question of "who do I want in my corner for my budget", the experienced guys or newbies in this field.

[eWhisper]

I mostly do PPC and advertising these days, and will not take two clients in the same field. Most people know this, and it helps to generate new clients, as they know if they aren't the first one in that niche to contact me, they'll could lose out on my services (On the local level, there are very few people who do net advertising around here).

The conflict really kicks in when you suddenly find a new place for them to advertise. Say you find a website that looks like a perfect place to rotate banners.

You write the webmaster, and decide agree on a cpm deal. Do you rotate one clients' ads, or both?

If you were only advertising for one client, they would find a new revenue stream. If you advertitise for both, then they only get half of the potential.

If you do both, and in the above example, they only get 50% of the possible exposure they could have received with an exclusivity agreement, should you charge them both 100% of your normal fees or only 50% as that's all they gained from the new advertising stream?

Damian makes a good point about knowing the market better because of advertising for both companies. As a company, I'd think that your research is applying to both places, and that you shouldn't charge me 100% of your normal fees as you're really double billing, and that I'd be willing to pay 75% of your normal fees if you did both - but not 100% (except on hourly work devoted entirly to my site only - then I'd be willing to pay 100% - but you're writing the invoices - so I'd really have to trust you first).

As a company, I'd think what happens if I decide to switch ad companies, you'll know a lot about how my company works, and since you're doing my biggest competitor, you now have inside knowledge that could beat whoever I switched to. Also, I'd also be worried about how much confidential info I gave you since you could give it to my competitor.

It seems that if you were to accept this, you'd need to set a lot of privacy and ground rules with both companies before this happens.

[Damian]

> The conflict really kicks in when you suddenly find a new place for them to advertise. Say you
> find a website that looks like a perfect place to rotate banners.

One might say PPC engines like Adwords and Overture have found a way to deal with this issue, the top bidders get the best (content targeting) spots. Both companies from this example will consult on campaigns when a customer in any niche spends enough, presumably using their expertise in the niche if they have any. Again I realize it may not be ideal to some customers, but for most the concerns are not enough not to use these companies at all.

I think the bottom line for many customers is they make money when relevant traffic costs them less then x cent, and when you can deliver that traffic to them in any quantity at that price they'll want to buy it.