| LED Digest 2001: ROI & Linking |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest post, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. July 27, 2005 Issue #2001 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Acceptable Marketing ROI? ==-- ~ Michael Linehan "...it's wise not to focus too tightly on just the highest ROI tactics." ~ Brad Waller "I've always considered anything greater than 1 a good thing." --== Links, Links, Links ==-- ~ Dirk Johnson "...let's have an actual, referential, authoritative quote from Google..." ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Michael Linehan Subject: ROI > What is an acceptable ROI for marketing? Are the ROIs > we have for the website and direct marketing so out of > line as to taint any reasonableness? - Tracy Coyle, LED 2000 I think there's no such thing as a specific, nameable, acceptable ROI. It depends completely on what you regard as a reasonable return for your time. Acceptable ROI equals hard costs plus cost of your time plus desired profit. If a tactic costs $100 plus 15 minutes and makes $200, that will be fine for a lot of people. If it costs $100 plus 5 hours, it wouldn't be - not for me anyway. One thing though: I think it's wise not to focus too tightly on just the highest ROI tactics. A diversified strategic marketing program will help you weather the ups and downs of the market where dependence on one or two methods of marketing can spell trouble. This is being very clearly seen in my area here where the bed and breakfasts that have relied on a link in the Chamber of Commerce site plus a rack card have been suffering badly the last couple of years - while those that have a proactive, diverse marketing plan are just fine. Michael Linehan www.marketing-alchemy.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Brad Waller Subject: ROI Tracy wonders what a reasonable ROI (Return On Investment) ratio is to continue with a marketing campaign / area. I've always considered anything greater than 1 a good thing. I agree with the service that an ROI of 3 to 4 is worthwhile. If you stop this because your ROI is 3 (generous by your numbers so far) because it is not 8, you are still losing business. If you are spending $1,000 a month for this service and making back $3,000 and not $8,000, why is this so bad? If you had another source where you had to choose between the two services, I could see dropping one with an ROI of 3 because the other one is higher. But to drop a service that is making you money because it is not making you enough seems really odd. While I love things that have massive ROI, I would continue to use one that returned one and a half or two times my investment, and wonder where I could get more! Brad Waller Manage and Sell your own site advertising http://adjungle.com waller, adjungle.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Linking [Responding to Michael Martinez on the discussion of Linking] Michael, I prefer to not get into tit-for-tat exchanges, but you've made so many statements that demand clarification to the other readers on this list. They also reflect poorly on my business practices, and are without merit. I have no choice but to reply stridently. > But the point that so many people who continue to advocate > this practice (referring to reciprocal linking) miss is that it is > simply no longer a necessary means of getting to the top. I have never stated that reciprocal linking is necessary to "get to the top". Links can be generated in a variety of ways, of which reciprocal linking is but one. But all methods of establishing links have a cost per link, an accessibility, a time frame to placement, and a stability / duration. Thoughtful business owners will realize this, and deploy those linking methods that fit their needs and site profile. Some methods of linking work better for certain types of sites, and don't work at all for others. One size or solution does not fit all, by any means. Secondly, we stress that reciprocal linking is, quite simply, an opportunity to establish the brand, and should be approached as a branding function, and not an SEO function. The fact that linking is used in search results is certainly important, but search results are actually derived from the branding effort, and search results also depend upon a lot of other factors. > It hasn't been for a very long time because Google has long > since adjusted its algorithms to compensate for the practice. Once again, as I have asked time and again in this forum, where is the proof of this statement that you make repeatedly? Google has had the opportunity to nullify reciprocal linking for a very long time. They simply have not done it. If they had "adjusted its algorithms to compensate for the practice", then my most established clients, many of whom rely primarily on reciprocal linking for their link popularity, would be significantly affected, and I'd have no foundation for a growing and robust business. Michael, that has just not happened. If anything, many of my oldest clients have become even more entrenched at the top of the SERPs. For anyone who wants their own proof should simply pick some keyword terms (at least ten, across variety of subjects), look at the Google results of the top listed sites, examine where the links come from to those sites, and you will see (on balance, and excepting occasional anomalies) the following as pervasive: 1) Links matter, and it is the unique domain count that seems to matter most. 2) Reciprocal links are not being nullified at all, and many sites who do extraordinarily well in Google rely on them for the core of their link popularity. Michael, there are number of very logical and legitimate arguments as to why Google would not want to nullify reciprocal linking, the primary being that, in doing so, they'd penalize a lot of very innocent sites, and secondary, they'd drive the market into the stratosphere for the outright purchase of links. Maybe they do not want to effect either of those outcomes, and maybe the Google engineers have actually spent more time studying this matter than either you or I? > The power of inbound linkage is very > misunderstood in the SEO community. I'll certainly agree with you on that statement! There are all kinds of goofy, complex linking strategies out there. Some are dangerous, and most of the rest are a waste of time, as they only achieve the goal of limiting the number of links, based on some kind of oddball gaming strategy. PR, Alexa, you name it. > A lot of so-called SEO research is conducted for the > sake of validating the inbound linkage point of view. I understand very clearly that there are myriad factors involved with SERPs, which goes directly to my argument that "site establishment" is vitally important to long term, stable results. Linking is just one factor. > So, we'll continue to disagree because > Google has left you guys in the dust. Michael, many of my long term, most established clients would smile all the way to the bank at that statement. It has no foundation in fact. Sorry. > It becomes more and more difficult to achieve top rankings > through link campaigns for two reasons: as specific categories > become more hyperoptimzed, they require more linkage... This statement needs some careful analysis. You seem to be saying that links don't work because it takes more links to get results. As I said in my previous post, if you are saying that it takes a lot of links (as well as other factors) to displace a well-established site, then we are in agreement. If you claim that there are other alternatives to this, and you have found a method to short circuit the process, then that's very valuable knowledge to have. I just don't see it happening in the SERPs that I look at, and I look at hundreds. You have your reference data, and I have mine. > ... and Google is moving in new directions. They certainly are. They also continue to reward certain practices that are legitimate and existed long before Google was established. One of those would be relevant, responsible reciprocal linking. > Hyperoptimization is the practice of over optimizing a site. > There are some keyword expressions where you MUST > build inbound links because everyone else is doing it. - [Michael Martinez replying to Steve Pronger] Michael, many of my clients are in these competitive realms, with some of them already at the top, some we've taken there over time, and others are hoping to get there. To repeat, many of those at the top have not "over optimized" their sites. In fact, many are wary of screwing up a good thing, so they leave things alone! Secondly, I am not sure what "over optimizing" is. Well-built sites do attract search traffic, but search traffic reflects real site visitors. So once a human being lands on a page that they accessed via a search, then the site must do something valuable with that real person. Goofy, keyword stuffed pages turn people off. So it's kind of a waste of time to attract traffic to pages that turn visitors off. Building pages and structuring websites specifically to attract certain terms is certainly legal and valid. Some people do it by mere coincidence. They just stumbled into some good page construction, and got lucky. That used to happen in the old days a lot more than it does today. Nowadays, many people take a more sophisticated approach, and use "best practice" SEO methods. A search engine can't read the mind of the site designer, or see innocent "good intentions". It can only deal with what is presented on the pages. Some site owners ignore all methods of optimization, due to the site owner's lack of understanding of these matters. Those sites tend to get relegated to the hinterlands of the SERPs. If there are no focused title tags, headlines, and meaty textual content to bite into, then a search engine can't really deal with it, and why should it even try to make sense of such a mess? You seem to make that same argument in other places in your post. That the optimizing of tags is important. So I am not sure what "hyper-optimized" means, short of outright deceptive practices. My clients avoid the "black hat" stuff that would risk their considerable investment. Careful page design, with an eye toward the search engines, cannot be considered to hyper-optimized. It's just smart practice. Lots of sites do very well with this. And links. Yes, it's competitive out here, as Steve Pronger rightfully points out. People will "optimize", all the way up to the point that it most benefits them. It's their right, and frankly, I don't see the harm. I see it as an advantage for those who have the keen sense to pay attention to what works and react. > Even so, the majority of the 20% commercial searches are being > run against a broad selection of business sites that don't > hyperoptimize. Hence, most sites don't need more than 20-40 > good inbound links. If the search term is not competitive, then yes, I'd agree. A handful of ordinary links will work. I've seen it happen with niche industrial or niche professional-services related terms. The famous "miserable failure" that you mentioned is of little use for SEO analysis. Nobody ever searched for or optimized for "miserable failure", until it became part of the political / SEO culture. It's just a bad example for people in competitive situations to use as a guide. These days, for popular and competitive terms, where there are already established competitors doing the right things, 20 to 40 common, easily accessible links would likely do nothing much at all. But you said "20-40 good inbound links". Maybe your links are distinctly different from mine. I'll give you that. They must be. Would you please expand upon your definition of "good"? What kind of sites provide "good" links? What does it take to get on those pages? Will this work for any and all sites, or a specific kind of site? Are these 20-40 links coming from the same sites for an automotive site as for a real estate agent? Or do you have to find the "right" 20 to 40 sites in every relevant realm? What if there aren't 20-40 "good" links in a realm? What if these so-called "good" sites won't link to your site, for some reason? Then what's Plan B? I'll certainly agree that some links are better to have than others. Once again, all methods of establishing links have a cost, an accessibility, a time frame to placement, and a stability / duration. My clients come from across the spectrum, presenting me with all kinds of sites. So I need solutions that are broadly accessible. I have no secret formulas as to my link exchanges. It's just with other relevant sites that publicly offer to exchange. Finding them and then managing the process is the challenge. The way I do this, it takes time, and volume. It's not a magic formula, and it is real work. Any site that can displace a number of well-established sites with just "20-40 good inbound links", where those links are readily accessible to all others, is exceptionably vulnerable to their competitors. Back links are public data. What's to stop a displaced competitor from also acquiring those same "20-40 good inbound links"? When they do, (and they will), everyone is back to where they were before. Where's the advantage at that point, except against the other sites that have no links at all? In fact, the site that originally had those "20-40 good inbound links" is now back to square one versus their competition, once again with less overall link popularity. Do they then need to find 20-40 more "good" inbound links? Under your approach, Michael, link volume escalation is an inevitable part of the process, just as it is with mine. That's how it is. It's an arms race. If these "20-40 good inbound links" are not willing to link to the other legitimately qualified sites, but will link only to certain sites, then that's a whole different argument. That begins to sound like a private link network, or an exclusive arrangement, put in place to help just some sites and not others who may be equally (or more) qualified. It's not a new concept, by any means. Many SEO companies have tried this kind of thing for a long time, or they sell links. Once again, are we discussing publicly-accessible links, or privately-accessible links? Privately-accessible links, or those that must meet some very narrow criteria, represent an anomaly, and they are not something that is available to most sites. Just who gets to play ball here with these 20-40 good inbound links? Which leads back to having hundreds of links, earned over a long period. That is much, much harder to duplicate. It takes real work to achieve it. It keeps competitors who are less willing make that investment at bay. Google rewards deep establishment, of which lots of links, earned over a long time, seems to matter a lot. Reciprocation seems to have little to do with it. > Contrary to popular misbelief, Google search results > are NOT determined solely by link popularity. You are preaching to the choir here.....not disagreement at all... > Google wants to see natural linkage. They don't really > describe natural linkage, but in general they indicate > that they don't want to see link exchanges. Where has this ever been stated, either on the Google site, of by a Google representative? I am not talking about someone's loose interpretation of Google's webmaster guidelines that suits their own bias, but an actual, factual reference or quote that link exchange itself is suspect. Irresponsible, non-relevant link exchange may certainly have been discussed by a Google rep at some SEO conference, but I have never, ever seen or heard of an instance where the basic concept of honest link exchange, when done properly, has been admonished by an responsible Google representative. If there were such a reference, it would be huge news. Instead, all we get are third-party interpretations from pundits, all of which have no value whatsoever, unless they are backed by definitive proof. And that just does not exist. Please, Michael, let's have an actual, referential, authoritative quote from Google to support what you have said. Your statement outright disparages all of us in the business that I am in, yet we have proven over a long period that what we do, time and again, when done properly, is not only legitimate but proven to be beneficial. I do not disparage what you do for a living. If it works for you, more power to you. Likewise, what I do works for me and my clients. You take aim at reciprocal linking at every opportunity, while your statements of "fact", as you see them, simply do not hold up. No number of people who come in here and independently back my statements can seem to get you to moderate your position. You are hardened in your belief. That's your choice, but I can make other people re-think. I find all of this very curious. Michael, you are not the only one... It gets old having to come in here and defend my business against a few vocal and widely-published critics. Their celebrity status does not make them experts, except in their own mind. To me, they are just another person with an opinion, and no facts. They all seem to have an axe to grind about this subject, for some reason, and they are not satisfied that people continue to reciprocate, against their advice and admonishments. They want it to stop. What do they find so challenging about it? If they don't need it for themselves, then why do they spend so much time disparaging it? Are they trying to smother it by using their public bully pulpit? All for their own client's benefit? Again, it's all very curious, and it has been going on for years. All this talk against reciprocal linking has certainly achieved just one, and only, one thing... Those who have decided to blindly follow the advice of these self-appointed experts and have removed reciprocal linking from their list of marketing options may be affected in ways they did not expect. It is a dual-sided decision, with external consequences. It means that they've also allowed their competitors (who are not so constrained by such bad advice) the opportunity to build a considerable link popularity that may give them an insurmountable advantage. People do need to know the full ramifications of embarking on such unilateral disarmament. As a business person whose income is tied to this argument, I do need to try to counter it, as best I can. I do appreciate that Adam allows me to have a voice here. Then people can see more clearly what's going on, with alternative voices. If I did not respond vigorously, then these pronouncements about reciprocal linking from these various "experts" would begin to be accepted as fact, which they are not, by any means. To the detractors, prove it, once and for all, with authority, to the readers of this list, that reciprocal links do not work. If it was true, I'd have no foundation for a growing, robust business. My older clients would abandon me, since what I do would not continue to work. Michael, your conclusions reflect your own experience, as do mine. If you can get extraordinary results with "20-40 good inbound links" in a highly competitive situation, that's astounding. My hat is off to you. You should be doing very well with that approach. I will readily admit that I can't match that kind of performance. But I am doing well, by doing what I do. I offer a solution that works for certain sites, in certain situations, much like you do, I suspect. > Most of you do NOT need hundreds or thousands > of links to get good search results. Agreed. I have clients who have done well with small numbers of links. But they are not in competitive situations. > Remember that recent studies have shown the rich keep > getting richer where linkage is concerned. You will eventually > hit a critical threshold where people will start linking to you naturally. > At that point, you should not need to continue your link-building > campaign. It's true. Links beget links. I've known this since about 1999....It ain't news. Yet I have clients who want us to continue to put distance between themselves and their competitors, no matter how many links they already have, because it works. Again, it's a branding function, not an SEO function. Choosing to continue a link building campaign is a choice made by the site owner, based upon their analysis of their own competitive situation. Some people do quit pursuing link exchanges, and they leave themselves vulnerable to competitors who are trying to catch up, which does happen. Others keep going. It's a private choice. When viewed as a branding function, any number of links is not enough. More is better. I don't make the search engine rules. I link as if Google did not exist, and treat it as a branding function, with other relevant-subject sites, and with people who state that they want to exchange. Some search engines reward that activity. I make no apologies, nor do I try to lead people to believe that links alone will get them where they want to be. I prefer to downplay any expected search results. There are no guarantees. I just provide a service, that being reciprocal linking, which is a legitimate web marketing practice that pre-dates every single search engine. How much of it someone does it is up to them. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Owner LinkStrategy.com http://www.linkstrategy.com djohnson, roiwebsites.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2005 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me." - Dave Barry |
