Interesting article...

what do you think?

[joshie76]

I'm not, by trade, an SEO person (whatever they do), though I do dabble on occasion and try to keep up with the field.

I received the following article (as part of the sitepoint newsletter) and I was surprised and interested by its content... I'm even more interested to hear what WebmasterWorld's SEO specials think on the matter:

Search Engines - Are They Worth it? [promotionbase.com]

[4eyes]

There are some good points but it sounds awfully like someone who tried SEO and failed.

No mention of Google's reach and potential.

Most of us here are well aware of the advantages(or otherwise) of 'paid' solutions, and all of us who use these solutions do so AFTER we have run the 'free' solutions to the point of diminishing returns.

Sure, 'horses for courses' applies but for most businesses, SEO is still goo dvalue for money.

[bufferzone]

I thikn She has some good points. It's all down to proper advising of the client and the courage to say NO when no is the right answer

[heini]

Don´t know, the only interesting point I found was about SEO being passive marketing, which in a way is true. But then, bringing a website in front of the people looking for what that site offers IMO is rather basic than passive marketing.
But where it says:

Search Engines: Why Not?....
1. You have to be really careful when you choose your keywords

he is loosing it totally. You have to be careful - yes, so what?
No real reason given why targeting searchengines shouldn´t be a prominent part of marketing, let alone that being the most cost-effective strategy

[IanTurner]

Nice, brief and to the point. Most of what is said there is true.

Now in my opinion SEO is part of a long term marketing strategy, you are unlikely to get immediate returns on your investments but the prominence that the good placements give you is such that it will get your name known (potentially as a leading player in your field) this is an absolute must for developing a business, especially if you are a bits and bricks business.

Paid placements are good for short term campaigns but will not provide the longer term value for money that overall good positions will.

also you are never going to be #1 on all the engines (different algorithms mean different placements).

[paynt]

I utilize paid for placement as a part of a SEO campaign. I know many designers who use it specifically. There are certainly benefits that in good SEO shouldn't be excluded just as you wouldn't want to put all your eggs in one basket.

Balance is good.

[agerhart]

It is funny that this article was posted. I have articles that are published on sitepoint, and when I saw this article I wrote a steamed letter to the editor.

I think that she makes some valid points, but the tone and topic of the article was awful and un-educated in my opinion.

Sitepoint is a site that educates and promotes SEO, and then this article is posted that discredits SEO as a valuable online marketing tool.......

and I do occasionally encourage an in-depth search engine optimization strategy -- but usually I’ll advise clients to spend their Website's promotional budget in other ways.

What does she base this on? What does she advise?.....banner ads??

I can see doing some offline print marketing, but when it comes to online promotion and marketing, SEO is the most cost-effective and efficient way.

[Hope]

I have been doing SEO and Internet Marketing for 4 years now. I have seen the changes in the search engines. I have seen search engines come and go. If I was to listen to this article, I would hang up my hat and find a new career.

There are some valid points. You do need to choose your keywords carefullly. If your client wants to use the keyword "cars" to sell his 1965 mustang online, then you need to tell him that his is going about it wrong. That is the job you are hired to do.

We are dealing with people who do not know what they are doing, that is why they contact an SEO. They need to be taught what an SEO can and cannot achieve.

[click watcher]

i would like all my competitors to take this article onboard
and leave me a free run at the search engines...

most of my traffic is search engine based,

i would add that we sell a lot of stuff on ebay too,
and the hits our ebay ads recieve are high and the sales we make are great...

but the click through rate from ebay ads to website is minimal
(and these are absolutely targeted buyers, if they look at an ad or bid on it, then we sell exactly what they are looking for)

so her strategy of

>>>I much prefer to aggressively seek out sites where your target markets are likely to be reading, or searching for information

is not sound (in our case)

[agerhart]

By the way, I was told by a co-worker who reads the Site Point forums, that the author of the article has been getting attacked for how horrible the article was.

[john316]

"Internet marketing expert"

hehehe

I'm working with a plastic surgeon now, and I'm glad the competition got a load of that ladies nonsense. I hope they all remain "passive".

[Robert Charlton]

>>What does she advise?.....banner ads??<<

Maybe ball-point pens with the url on them... ;)

[Brett_Tabke]

There are some good points in that article.

- generic keywords.
I still see it and hear about it. Just monday I had a 'car guy' ask what it would cost to be #1 under "kelly blue book". I ask what his best car on the lot was. He said a town car - I said that wouldn't cover it.

[mona]

It's poorly written. What is her main focus?

Is she against hiring someone to do SEO, or spending the time and money on doing it yourself?

The title reads "Search Engines - Are They Worth it?"
But then after the opening paragraphs it reads "here are the main reasons why I’m not generally enthusiastic about free search engines"

So, PPC is worth your time, but Google isn't?

<scratching head> I'm confused, and I do this for a living. <scratching head>