Slate.com seems to think so in this interesting article. They touch upon some of the old snake oil perspectives of SEO that need to stay in the past. Certainly there were/are people/firms that are not highly ethical, but SEO better or worse than a financial planner. Some really want to help, some just want your money.
Ross Dunn has a great write up in which he intelligently questions Google's acquisition of SEO firm Performics as part of the DoubleClick deal.
The fact of the matter is a leading search engine like Google who claims to highly value its "don't be evil" mantra will rapidly lose any remaining credibility if it continues to operate a SEO/SEM company.
Search is the most powerful way to drive traffic to sites, outshining email, banners, and other forms of online advertising. Search is also effective at driving foot traffic to brick & mortar stores. Many people conduct research online—starting at a search engine—for a product they would rather buy, or end up buying, in-store. But there is more to connecting the two beyond just providing your street address to online customers.
I developed a process that I call the Search-to-Store Experience. It is a process that enables a consumers that enters the buying funnel at a search engines to easily complete the process in a brick and mortar store. (The issue of tracking that process from start-to-finish via metrics to determine ROI is also important. Maybe I'll discuss that side in later posts.)
The focus of the Search-to-Store Experience is to connect the two channels more seamlessly and in a way that feels natural to a searcher. It is most valuable to the consumer that begins by conducting a search then switches channels to complete the sale in store. The entire process has to feel like a natural progression to the consumer.
Here are some tips in creating your own Search-to-Store Experience.
Make Usual connections between channels.
Investing in a SEM campaign to help sell blue widgets? Then have a blue widget display near the front entrance of the store. When the person that started with an online search walks in, they make the instant "there it is" connection. They'll put the blue widget right in their basket.
Contextualize messaging.
As the consumer moves along the search channel (from search, to PPC ad or organic listing, to a landing page) the messaging needs to mature with that progression. Don't repeat the same thing at each step, but rather go a level deeper. Reinforce, but open the messaging to more detail or product features. The landing page not only needs to have a picture of the product but a full description, the stores that are near them, and
a printable coupon to redeem in store.
Uniform branding.
Brand messaging can easily change as it is applied in different marketing channels. Messaging in print ads need to match messaging on a web site. But importantly, messaging carried out in a search engine, either via PPC ad copy or meta descriptions in organic listings, needs to also match your brand messaging. The continuity of brand messaging is key is the different channels feeling unified to the consumer.
Connect other business areas.
If other areas of your business are connected, regardless of channel, a consumer will use the channel most convenient for them at the time. Using different doorways to your brand will feel natural. And if the
branding is uniform, the consumer won't feel lost. Allowing online purchased to be returned in-store, loyalty programs and promotions to be redeemed in-store, online or over the phone. This makes any channel
switches your consumers make feel like a comfortable part of doing business with your brand.
Over the weekend I went to one of my favorite stores – Woodcraft. I was working on a small woodworking project and was stuck. I ran into Woodcraft, ready to buy a new tool to help me finish my task. I started talking to the manager of the store, told him my minor issue and told him I thought I could fix it by buying another tool. Instead of agreeing with me and pointing me in the direction of the tool I was eager to have the excuse to buy, the manager told me how to fix my problem with tools I already have. I ended up walking out of the store not buying a thing—and feeling empowered that I could get on with my project.
From a business perspective, I found it interesting how quickly the store manager actually steered me away from a purchase I was ready to make. While he didn't make the sale, right then, he earned my trust by arming me with the information I needed. Trust that will undoubtedly pay off in many more sales down the road.
It's important for retailers to realize that not all searchers want to buy something—or buy something now. Some searchers are looking for information, so for them, a positive search experience does not end in an immediate sale. Retailers can use search marketing to help build trust in the brand.
A brand can build this trust by creating pages on its site that provide valuable information, like showing consumers how to use their products, offer new ideas, troubleshoot, etc—and, of course, optimizing these pages so that they are accessible to searchers.
Just like I'm going to return to Woodcraft again and again, consumers who trust your brand will return. Using search to build trust eventually builds sales.
During iCitizen, Resource President Kelly Mooney provided a glimpse into Open Branding – an innovative concept about how brands can embrace and benefit from the user-generated content model the Web has become.
Beginning to open a brand does not always mean investing in a tactic that feels fringe. It can be a challenge to convince a brand to invest in a viral video where ROI can be hard to determine. Many brands are also still trying to figure out if and how YouTube and Flickr should be part of their marketing strategies. But search is now a proven marketing initiative with easily trackable ROI and it’s a very effective first step to opening a brand.
Search has grown into the first step of every Web experience, becoming the filter by which people manage their Web experiences. According to comScore, Almost 60% of Web users use a search engine every day. Consumers have become accustomed to finding and making brand introductions in search engines.
A recent Nielsen BuzzMetrics study demonstrated that more than 25 percent of search results on Google for the world's 20 largest brands are links to consumer generated content. Search marketing and open branding go hand-in-hand.
At the end of September 2006, I launched an SEM campaign for MI Homes on the Google and Yahoo networks. The main purpose of this was to increase exposure to their brand in 13 different markets. With an industry average SEM click-through-rate of 1%, the MI Homes campaign experienced double that under the guidance of my search team.
Creating this accessibility benefited their brand, not just from increased conversions, but for the ever important mind share. A 2004 Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and Nielsen/NetRatings study found that there is an effective brand lift from SEM campaigns. Consumers responded, as was evident by the high click through rate.
I've been very busy with client work, which explains my recent lack of posting.
But I just read an article that is worth pointing to:
Search Insider: Strong Natural Positions Are Not A Birthright
Click Fraud is a two-tiered problem. One is technological and the other public relations. One battlefield is the algorithms that ferret out invalid clicks and the other is dueling press releases and media outlets. Today’s news covers the later.
Independent click-fraud firms that sell click-fraud monitoring services are heightening the fear of click fraud. Or so Google says.
But while these firms may have a financial incentive to make the problem seem larger than it is, so to does Google have a financial incentive to make it seem smaller. Half the fight is over perception of the problem and not the problem itself.
I do agree with Google that the problem has been overstated in the media. It’s the hot topic of the moment which can be easily turned on its head, as I did in a previous post. [Post link: Doesn't It Mean Paid Search is 85% Effective?]
But what is most frustrating to me is that while there is much speculation regarding potential solutions for click fraud, I rarely see anyone talk about the most natural solution—optimization!
SEO is the click fraud killer. A higher natural ranking means that an advertiser can spend less on pay-per-click and get the same results.
Over the past few weeks I have been transitioning into my new job at Resource Interactive. Resource enjoys such clients as Kohler, HP, Restoration Hardware, Express, Reebok, Wendy's, Victoria's Secret, and more.
I’ll be doing all things search marketing for them, and I’m looking forward to the new challenges and opportunities it will bring.
As I’m nestling in to my new Herman Miller chair, I have been wowed by the people who work here. Resource has really invested in its hiring and taken care to find uber-smart marketers with complementing skill sets and expertise.
A few days ago I met with Bob Hale, a usability expert here. I was interested in how our roles overlap—how design changes for search purposes could potentially influence a site’s usability. He said some really interesting things regarding how (and why) people interact with web sites.
He told me that unconsciously people start making a decision about a page based on the first three words they read. They may read further than that, but by word three they have begun to make a decision about if the page will provide them what they are looking for. This has been backed up with eye-tracking tests.
I married this up to what I know: essentially, people use search terms that either define the problem or define what they think is the answer.
For example, if someone searches for the term “flat panel TV”, they have identified the problem – they want to learn more about that type of television. If they search for “Sony flat panel TV”, they have already identified part of the solution they expect.
It makes sense that a searcher would want to see the keyword, or a related keyword, right when they hit a page.
So, where are your keywords? Are they up front, at the point people are making a decision about the page? Testing keyword placement can make a large impact on your conversion rates.
Technorati Tags: keywords, resource interactive, usability, search
Last week I stopped by my local Wendy’s for a number 6. The drive-thru line was long and the wait seemed to be taking longer than normal. Random cars in front and behind me began pulling out of the line and leaving.
For those working inside Wendy’s it must have seemed like a busy day—endless cars in line and fries flying off the shelf. But what they didn’t realize was exactly how much business they were losing. And this business they were losing was from people who were in line, ready to buy, but drove away because the wait was longer than normal.
Just as I was thinking of how to turn this into an entry about the customers you don’t know you’re losing because of poor rankings, HitWise released some very interesting data.
Fifteen percent of people who search for a brand name end up going to competitor’s site because they rank higher in search engines, Hitwise learned.
Fifteen percent! I’ve seen people applaud six percent conversion rates for campaigns. Now we learn that many brands might be losing 15% of their customer—people who were looking directly for them—because their competitors rank higher in search results.
That is the direct equivalent of a customer driving out of your brand’s drive-thru line. Investigate having a competitive audit done, to see who you may be losing traffic to and what you can do about it.
Not long ago, in one of my "Searching for Truth" articles, I posted about the difference between and preference for using hyphens or underscores in a URL.
Quick recap: If a company sells Blue Widgets and they want to rank high for searches related to Blue Widgets, one of many techniques to use is to include the keywords in the URL. Which is more effective, an underscore (www.YourSite.com/Blue_Widgets) or a hyphen (www.YourSite.com/Blue-Widgets)? The question revolves around if an engine is more likely to see Blue_Widgets or Blue-Widgets as two distinct words.
I went into this topic in much more detail in this post, where I also stated my opinion.
While I posited my preference for underscores, a Google engineer named Matt Cutts clearly states that hyphens should be used.
Search engines keep their algorithms under lock and key. People like me often work like detectives to figure out the best ways to optimize sites, using all sorts of information as our guide.
One thing I rely on is simple observation of what the engines themselves do. Obviously they are going to optimize their own sites against their own algorithm.
For example: want to see if MSN Search uses meta tags? Just hop over to www.Microsoft.com and view the source code. Since the webmasters of Microsoft went to the trouble of adding meta tags, it's a safe bet that MSN Search reads them. (How they are factored into the ranking algorithm is another issue.)
So in the case of the hyphen/underscore debate, let's take a look at what Google does, which is highly revealing.
Matt Cutts says to use hyphens, yet on Google.com the underscore is in use. One needs to look no further than the home page:
The URL for the language tools is: http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en
Google's Advanced Search page: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en
If Google will use an underscore, then the algorithm must be able to determine that “language_tools” is two, distinct words. But then again, Google doesn’t worry about rankings for their own site. But they should follow their own advice, if that advice is truly important.
From my experience, I have seen no difference in results between an underscore and a hyphen. My guess is that it doesn't really matter from Google's perspective if you use hyphens or underscores, in the same manner that it rarely matters if you spell the search term correctly anymore. Google easy adjusts for our lazy spellings.
Some may prefer to do what Google says, but I would rather do what Google does. Or is this a case of do what I say, not what I do?
Technorati Tags: google, meta tags, msn search
Not so long ago, Amazon and eBay were the top trafficked sites on the Web. They would alternate at the top spot, as the web's head honcho.
Authors wanted their books listed on Amazon, and individuals and companies selling nearly anything under the sun wanted to be listed on eBay. (And they still do, they are great resources.)
According to Alexa’s traffic rankings, Amazon and eBay have been displaced by (surprise!) search engines. Yahoo, Google and MSN hold the top three spots in global traffic and US traffic.
A few years ago, companies (and individuals) wanted to list their products on Amazon and eBay because that is where the eyeballs of the world were.
Where do you want your products listed today?
Every few weeks, new statistics on relative market share are released for each of the major engines. To no one’s surprise, Google continues to lead the pack by a fair margin.
What do these market share numbers have to do with your search marketing?
Nothing.
Google’s lead continues to increase, percentage-point-by-percentage point, such that when I talk to people about Search, they typically want to hear only about Google. I take this as my cue to try and educate people that a healthy search strategy should encompass search engines as a whole and not focus solely on a single player, no matter how dominant that player may be.
Obviously you want to spend your marketing budget where you can attract the most eyeballs, but focusing on only the top few engines can be folly.
Think of it in these terms. The Honda Accord is one of the best selling cars in America. Porsche, on the other hand, has a 1% market share. But the people who like Porsches would never consider themselves (or the brand they hold dear) to be irrelevant.
Internet users who frequent Ask.com (or LookSmart, or Lycos, or or or…), likewise, do not consider themselves to be irrelevant. They are trying to do the same thing that die-hard Google users are trying to do–find you!
Each day, I receive The eMarketer Daily. Today they turned their sights on search marketing.
As part of a report they are selling, the lead article says, "Search Marketing: What’s the Problem? While the media spotlight shines brightly on Google, a new eMarketer report delves into the shadowy world of search marketing to uncover problems that may lie ahead for the industry."
One question: when did search marketing become "shadowy"? Organized crime is shadowy. Espionage is shadowy. Search marketing is, well, marketing – a legitimate way to inform customers and potential customers about products.
For some reason, the search marketing arena has been tagged with this moniker in the popular media this year.
Consider junk bond traders only want fast cash, yet no one regards the investment community as a whole as shadowy. Search marketing has a few similar characters, but no where near enough to justify a tarnished image on the industry as a whole.
I have written about the role of search marketing and its place in the greater realm of marketing as a whole, including the perception some hold about/against search marketing:
SEOs: Evil Magicians or Benevolent Interpreters?
In this article, I discussed the original and appropriate intent of a search marketer.
SEO Shady? Hardly.
I posted this in response to a Newsweek article about search marketing. Referring to us as “shady,” Newsweek must have had us confused with Enron.
Search marketing is still a young industry. As a result we will experience some growing pains. But a greater portion of this growth is general education, which eMarketer (and Newsweek) clearly still need to gain.
As a consultant, I am sometimes asked about specific optimization techniques that could cause damage to overall search rankings, or, worse, a complete delisting. Usually, these questions are from well-meaning webmasters or marketing directors just trying to honestly increase site rankings.
For example, a few weeks ago a developer asked me if he could include a headline that was in a graphic elsewhere on the page. But his idea was to match the font color to the background color, which is called, in SEO lingo, hidden text.
I refer to this as “accidental black hat.” In the search optimization industry, we reference two general types of optimization – white hat and black hat optimization. White hat optimization is the honest attempt to make a site search engine friendly in order that search engines can properly rank a site so searchers can find the content offered for the appropriate keywords.
Black hat optimization refers to those who purposely manipulate the techniques to artificially enhance site rankings, even for keywords that are not appropriate to the searchers' needs. Penalties for black hat optimization vary for each engine, but it can be a loss of rankings up to a complete ban.
Accidental black hat, then, would be those who employ a tactic in a complete well meaning fashion, yet do not realize they run a risk, sometimes greatly so, of a penalty or ban from a search engine. They make changes in their search strategy with good intentions, but end up inadvertently committing one of the “sins of search” that ultimately put their site at risk.
I try to advise clients on this topic as delicately as I can. It is often a case of having a little bit of search knowledge and trying to deploy it without knowing all the complexities. Something akin to the saying, "knowing enough to be dangerous."
If you are implementing optimization on your site, it is a great idea to have a search consultant help make sure you are getting the most of your strategy – and make sure you are not accidentally putting your site in jeopardy of an engine penalty.
In the past few weeks I have been asked by several people about the ability of search engines to index content that is inside Flash. I have also seen a new grouping of posts on popular Web forums about this very issue. It seems like every so often this issue pops back up.
I can sum it up in five words: Flash is not search friendly.
Sure, there are some technical implementations of Flash that may help spiders follow links in flash, but if search rankings are truly important, Flash is not for you.
That does not mean Flash needs to be sequestered from Web development. I have written before about how to utilize Flash in search friendly ways. [Article reference: Go Hybrid!]
But using uber-technical methods, such as changing embed methods, are simply band-aids. A full Flash site will be overwhelmed in the rankings game by sites that utilize best practices. And most search best practices cannot be implemented on a Flash site.
If search rankings are really important to you, then avoid Flash or use it in limited fashion. But don’t fret – you can still have a truly eye-catching site without Flash.
I am not anti-Flash by any means. It is a powerful tool. But Flash and high search rankings do not mix.
The most common reason I hear other search marketers site for not to use Meta tags is, "Google ignores them."
While I have expressed my support for Meta tags in the past [here and here], there is plenty of evidence that Google does indeed index tags.
I went to Amazon.com and pulled up a page for a popular book. In this case I used The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman. [Amazon link]
Amazon.com includes Meta tags for each product listing. In this case of The World is Flat, they are:
meta name="description" content="Amazon.com: The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century: Books: Thomas L. Friedman by Thomas L. Friedman"
meta name="keywords" content="The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century,Thomas L. Friedman,Farrar, Straus and Giroux,0374292884,Diffusion of innovations,Economic aspects,General,Globalization,History & Theory - General,History: World,Information society,International - Economics,International Economic Relations,International Relations - General,Politics - Current Events,Social Forecasting,Social Science,Social aspects,Sociology,Social Science / General"
Note: opening < removed to ensure proper display.
Then, I checked Google’s listing for this specific page.
[Click image for pop up with more detail]
As you can see, Google is displaying a description that was taken directly from the Meta description tag.
Since the Title tag and Meta were so similar in this example, I decided to try another site – Microsoft.com.
Microsoft.com Meta tags:
meta name="KEYWORDS" content="products; headlines; downloads; news; Web site; what's new; solutions; services; software; contests; corporate news;"
meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="The entry page to Microsoft's Web site. Find software, solutions, answers, support, and Microsoft news."
Note: opening < removed to ensure proper display.
Google’s listing for the Microsoft.com home page pulls the Meta description tag directly.
[Click image for pop up with more detail]
Does Google Ignore Meta Tags?
The issue comes down to what other search marketers mean by the word “ignore.” Clearly, Google does not ignore Meta tags, but they likely do not use Meta tags in their ranking algorithm, as they are often a target of keyword spam abuse.
As an added bonus, the Microsoft.com example also proves that MSN Search uses Meta tags. Microsoft would not have taken the time to put Meta tags on the home page if their own engine didn’t use them.
Does it help overall search rankings to use keyword in a site or page URL? For example, if a company makes blue widgets, is it helpful to have a page with the URL of yoursite.com/blue_widgets?
The answer is not a simple yes or no. File names are used in matching search queries, but not as much as the page title and quality page content.
Using the example above, if a company makes blue widgets, having a listing on the site at yoursite.com/blue_widgets/ is a good idea for a few reasons.
From a usability perspective it makes the URL easy to remember for customers, especially when the trigger action is delayed - such as when the URL is seen in a brochure, banner ad or TV commercial.
But can it help in search rankings? It can, but it's devalued in terms of effectiveness. This value has been devalued over time because of keyword stuffing. I've seen some comical versions of this all over the web - file names stuffed with keywords and many hyphens. That is ineffective and the risk of a search engine ban is high.
Here is a real life example, with the main site domain removed to erase any potential link endorsement:
www.[This-Part-Removed].com/paintball-gun-scopes-paintball-gun-scopes-jungle-paintball-jungle-paintball/
Gee, I wonder what words they want to rank well for.
Direct, easy URLs to the products you make are a good idea, though search ranking considerations should be a minor factor. Doing so can help a little, but don't be in any rush to rename files to match keywords.
Extra explainer: In my example above, notice the words are separated by an underscore: yoursite.com/blue_widgets. Doing so will ensure a search engine will regard it as two distinct words, not a single, hyphenated word.
----------------------------------
This post is part of a multi-series column called, Searching for Truth, designed to shed light on the latest trends, myths and misconceptions in search marketing. Links to other columns in this series:
February 22, 2006 - Searching for Truth: Placing Keywords in a Page URL
September 19, 2005 - Searching for Truth: Mining Site Stats
August 4, 2005 - Searching for Truth: Site Resubmissions
Last week Nielsen//NetRatings announced the search market has grown 55% in the last year.
The Kelsey Group is predicting local search will increase 30.5% over the next four years.
Today, Nielsen//NetRatings reported that Google and Yahoo sponsored link impressions have increased 16% in the last six months. In January alone, Google and Yahoo served almost 65 billion sponsored links!
Yet with all this rabid growth in the search channel, many companies are still not investing in this method of reaching customers, new or old. Likewise, there are also plenty of interactive agencies that fail to implement anything other than the simplest of search techniques for their clients.
The marketing "sweet spot" is reaching someone with your message when they want to buy products in your niche. That is exactly what search marketing does on a daily basis – presenting results (messages) to potential customers (searchers) right at the time they are looking for the information.
Search marketing has long past its tipping point. It is here and it is going to stay. It won’t be long before more people are going to experience your brand and products through a search engine results page than a TV commercial. Why not reach them at the moment they are looking for what you offer? If you are working with an interactive agency, ask them if they can deliver competent optimization as part of the project.
I will give a tip of the hat to the Ford Motor Company, though. They recently reported they have sold more than 250,000 vehicles through FordDirect internet referrals. The oldest car maker in the world is using a new channel of marketing to sell an old technology (cars) to an audience that is growing more reliant on search.
Pontiac, on the other hand, got it all wrong.
As I sat watching American Idol, a TV commercial for Pontiac aired expressing the features of their cars and ended by saying, "see for yourself, Google Pontiac."
At first, I thought, "Pontiac gets it!" Clearly, Pontiac is seizing power of the search engine. They must be aware that more and more people are relying on search. They must be aware how search engines are part of the buying funnel. Right??
So I did what the commercial suggested — I Google'd Pontiac. This is what I saw:
[Pop up image: 499 x 473 pixels]
At the top is a banner ad for Pontiac. Somewhat of a waste of money since the official Pontiac site ranks number one in the organic listings.
But I clicked on the banner ad anyway to see what page it would take me to. A page that mimics the message of the commercial? A further search tie-in??
The banner goes absolutely nowhere. Literally.
[Pop up image: 500 x 542 pixels]
Repeated tests of the banner ads continued to bring the same (lack of) response.
The third banner ad, directing users to the "Pontiac Shopping Site" does not work either. Since it is a GM banner ad, I assume it was placed in cooperation of the main banner ad.
When I did get to the home page (by clicking the first organic listing), I see that the messaging on the home page is similar to what they are trying to accomplish with the TV commercial. They are encouraging users to see what others are saying about them.
They are encouraging people to interact with the Pontiac brand through Word-of-Mouth marketing. But even the results page comes up short — no Pontiac fans extolling their love for the brand or the quality of the cars.
It makes me wonder, did Pontiac Google Pontiac? Did the ad agency that produced the commercial Google Pontiac?
So I wondered, what would happen if I Yahoo'd Pontiac?
[Pop Up Image: 501 x 506 pixels]
Same banner ad, same results.
[Pop Up Image: 497 x 506 pixels]
MSN?
[Pop Up Image: 500 x 481 pixels]
Results?
[Pop Up Image: 500 x 482 pixels]
And this took place during American Idol. Forty million eyeballs about to turn into deaf ears?
Pontiac almost got it. It’s just a shame they were undone by terrible SEM execution.
A little while ago while giving a small search presentation, I was asked by an attendee if there were some “easy” search tactics that could be implemented on a site.
I worked up a short list, of which I could write a paragraph about each one. Maybe I’ll cover each in more detail in upcoming entries.
1. Place unique title tags on every page. Include primary keywords and key phrases related to that specific page.
2. Place unique meta descriptions and meta keywords tags on every page that contain keywords/phrases relevant to that specific page.
3. Write indexable, relevant body copy that contains primary keywords and key phrases.
4. Be sure all your page links that contain descriptive anchor text (not "click here") that cross link pages on a site.
5. Use the ALT attribute in IMG tag. This is also valuable for screen readers and 508-compliance as well.
6. Place a site map text link in the footer of as many pages as possible. Be sure the site map has text links to every page on your site. It’s a quick and easy roadmap that helps get spiders (and users!) around your site.
The above list is just a start, of course. Some next steps could include keyword research, database improvements, submissions, site audits, measuring site rankings, pay-per-click ads, navigation changes and other ongoing maintenance.
Newly released data from Nielsen//NetRatings shows tremendous growth in online search. Measured across 60 search engines from December 2004 to December 2005, search traffic grew 55%. Google still holds a higher market share over other engines.
Did this growth in search engine usage also increase your brand awareness?
This double-digit growth shows greater reliance on search engines to find information and products on the Web. More than ever, brand awareness could very well begin with search. Not that highly designed print ad, or with a giant billboard - but that stark, search engine results page.
There is yet another seo contest spoiling the web. Yes, I say spoiling, because that is exactly what they do.
To quickly sum up: a company picks a made up phrase and offers a cash prize to whomever gets and holds the number one spot after a specified length of time.
I’m not going into detail about the current contest because I don’t want anyone to think I endorse it in any way. It’s just the opposite.
These contests make us (search marketers) look bad. The reason is because many of the people competing will use a variety of black hat (unethical) search marketing techniques to win. They will use keyword spam, massive and shady link building… you name it.
To those of us in the industry, we might be able to analyze the results afterwards to see what techniques were used, quickly seeing if anything interesting turned up.
But for those on the outside, they will see a massive abuse of the system in order to get quick cash.
On the heals of the Newsweek article that cast search marketers in an unfair light, those of us in the industry need to do a better job informing everyone exactly what it is we do. [More on the Newsweek article here: SEO Shady? Hardly. ]
To use an earlier analogy, SEO contests make us look like junk bond traders, when we are more like financial investors.
I want to follow up on something I touched on a few days ago. [Reference article: Google as Part of Your Shopping Cart]. For well-optimized sites, you can find two-thirds of your site traffic entering your site on a deeper-level page—not your home page.
As people search, they will type in queries that are more and more specific. General keywords often don't produce highly valuable results. For example, I could search on "wine" but if I searched on "red wines from Spain," I will be further along in getting the information I was looking for.
The further along someone is in the buying funnel, the more specific the search query. And the more specific the search query, the more likely they are to click through to a deeper level page with specific information, and not a home page that typically has general information.
In my many years in working in this industry I have been part of building many new sites. Early in the project, designers work up creative concepts that include home page concepts and a drill down page. Since search engines create multiple entry points, high volumes traffic can enter your site and never see your home page.
Home pages are becoming less important, thought we still treat them like they are the most important page on a site. Clients base creative decisions or design a navigation structure based on how it fits on the home page.
Why do we continue to give the home page a level of importance that it may no longer deserve?
Home pages are great at guiding visitors. Based on the copy and design, customers can (or should) quickly move deeper toward the information and products they want.
But if someone starts on your product page, do they know what to do next? It’s more important for the navigation structure to work and seem natural on the deep product page. The design of the product page (or other deeper level pages) needs to be more helpful and intuitive than the home page.
Who cares about your home page? It's highly likely your customers don't.
