| LED Digest 2002: The Aim of SEM |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 28, 2005 Issue #2002 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Contracts and SEO / SEM ==-- ~ Don Baker "What's the real goal being sought through SEM?" --== Acceptable Marketing ROI? ==-- ~ Eva Rosenberg "I've learned not to scoff at small returns on my advertising dollar." ~ Tracy Coyle "...I dispute strongly that advertising is not subject to the metrics of cost analysis." --== Links, Links, Links ==-- ~ Shari Thurow "Google reps are on a number of panels." ~ Richard Stubbings "I have seen a lot of words written about linking here..." <Moderator Comment> "Another special issue on Friday." --== An Alternative to SEO ==-- ~ R. Neilson "I know the suggestion I am about to make may shock some on the list..." ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Donald L. Baker Subject: SEO pricing I've been following this thread with interest, and appreciate Mark Whitman's reply in LED 2000 to Bill's question: > Are there any high-minded essential SEO's who > offer a written contract to the client guaranteeing > a greater fixed return on investment, or is SEO > just another one of those "trust me" hyperboles? - Bill Davison, LED 1996 > Does Google, or any SE, guarantee results to > merchants running PPC campaigns? (No) Does > the Yellow Pages offer any ROI guarantee? (No) - Mark Whitman, LED 2000 The only guarantee my company can give SEM prospects is that if they're willing to pay the price, we *can* get #1 listings in the Yahoo/Overture, Google and other pay-per-click networks. I don't see how any honest SEMer could offer another guarantee, in light of the non-stop industry "boat-rocking," such as: upheavals in the Google algorithm, entry of spam-hunting (human) Google editors, entry of MSN Search, rise of blog-based rankings, new local-search options, and more. This industry changes literally every week, and it's impossible to guarantee you can hit a fast-moving target like this one. And, just as the SEs are not standing still, the competitive environment itself is dynamic. It's not 1998 -- a prospect can be sure that *at least* one of his prime competitors has an ongoing SEM campaign (complete with PPC and maybe multiple websites plus an affiliate program). That competitor will not sit still when he sees others' websites gaining visibility. As for "organic" SEO, we offer no guarantees but point to our real-world performance, in the form of our clients' average improvements in specific traffic statistics (YMMV caveat included). Of course, this all begs the question: what's the definition of "greater fixed return on investment"? What's the real goal being sought through SEM? If the prospect simply wants more traffic, that can be delivered by SEM methodologies alone. But most prospects, if you really take the time to ask and listen, want more traffic that *converts* into more sales or other measurable actions. If so, discussions must cover a lot more than SEM: site design and navigation, copywriting and the offer itself, order fulfillment, follow-up contact with customers *and* tire-kickers, split-testing of all important sales-oriented components. I mention this because too often, SEMers gets blamed for "wasting" a client's money by delivering traffic increases without increased conversions, when the blame actually lies with other (neglected) portions of the online marketing strategy. Our company spends far more time advising clients on these related issues than ever before, because websites are now expected not just to deliver visitors, but to convert a growing fraction of visitors into long-term customers. Don Baker NSI Partners www.nsipartners.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Eva Rosenberg Subject: ROI In LED Digest 2001: ROI & Linking, Brad Waller made the naive comment that: > 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! Being an accountant, naturally I understand that a high return on investment is not only desirable, it's efficient use of your money. However, I've been humbled, and learned not to scoff at small returns on my advertising dollar. A few times, I've run an ad, or some campaign and gotten as little as one response. And I was thrilled! Why? Because of the quality of the response. I one instance, I spent all day at women's seminar and only one woman became a new client. Of course, she referred everyone she knew - and she knew a lot of people. 25 years later, even after selling two tax practices, some of those people are still my clients. That $50, and a day's time netted me 6 figures over the last quarter century. This wasn't a unique experience. It's happened just that way three times, with one response - who generated clients or contacts who generated more clients or contacts who generated... who are still with me. So, if you're getting a low ROI from a very high quality source - look at how you can multiply the value of that return. And as long as that quality source broke even on the immediate advertising costs, why dump it? Maintain your visibility in the high-quality venue and use the returns to advertise elsewhere, in a high ROI venue as well. Just my 2 cents worth. Eva Rosenberg TaxMama.com - A daily cure for your tax blues http://www.taxmama.com/taxquips ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Tracy Coyle Subject: ROI I appreciate Micheal Linehan's and Brad Waller's responses to my question concerning ROI. The factor not specifically accounted for in attaining the high ROI on the website and direct mail is my time. Every couple of months I spend hours and hours over days and days tweaking the website and it takes a day to get out our direct mail letter when we do it. Because I have more time than money however, I spend the time. When we have suggested to other attorneys the direct mail approach and explained our process, none wanted to commit to the time necessary...time was more important to them than any additional revenue. Our goal is to have a broad marketing process by which clients can find us through a variety of different channels....which brings up... Cash flow. On average, it takes a client 45 days from the initial appointment to actually pay us for work, and an additional 70 days to pay the final bill. I try to calculate ROI over an extended period because of that. Our ROI for any given month for the website and direct mail might be 0, but the cash outlay is small, under $100 for both. The lead generator, and yellow pages and media advertising all had ROIs of 0 the first month but all had cash outlays of over $500 each month. The lead generator required $1100 before we earned any fees and the next bill was currently due when we finally got some income. With our current ROI of 1.18, it means we had to basically pay all the earnings back to the lead generator with almost nothing for our overhead in actually serving the client. I agree that focusing on the ROI exclusively is not a good idea, but I dispute STRONGLY that advertising is not subject to the metrics of cost analysis. So part of the issue with ROI is cash flow. Only in looking at the long term results did the ROIs turn positive for yellow pages and media and then barely. We may over time do ok with the leads generated but the cash flow issue was insurmountable. A good 4 or 5 ROI with good cash flow is better than a 20 ROI with bad cash flow. Both our website and directmail have strong cash flow and high ROI rates.... Tracy Coyle -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Shari Thurow Subject: Reciprocal linking Hi all- First, a congratulations to Adam and the 2000th issue of LED. I'm very happy to see this discussion list last so long. This is in response to the posts regarding reciprocal linking and other linking strategies. I respectfully agree and disagree with some of the statements made by Dirk Johnson in LED #2001. Specifically: Mr. Martinez stated: > It hasn't been for a very long time because Google has long > since adjusted its algorithms to compensate for the practice. And Mr. Johnson refuted: > Once again, as I have asked time and again in this forum, where is > the proof of this statement that you make repeatedly? Mr. Johnson, pay to attend a Search Engine Strategies conference (www.searchenginestrategies.com) and ask a software engineer. I have heard multiple Google software engineers publicly state not to link to "bad neighborhoods" -- it's on the webmasters section of their site. I certainly am not saying that all reciprocal linking is a "bad neighborhood." However, if a link is bad, it is certainly nullified. You want proof? Ask a software engineer. Better that you hear it straight from the source. Make sure you give the software engineers a URL or two that proves your point. Google reps are on a number of panels. > most established clients would smile > all the way to the bank at that statement. Search engine spammers make a lot of money exploiting the search engines. Does that make what they are doing right because they make money? I'm not naive in the least. I just choose not to run my business via exploitation and I don't make ridiculous statements like that to prove a business point. Just like Mr. Martinez, we too have been able to help clients get qualified search engine traffic with 20-40 high quality, non-reciprocal links. My basic premise about reciprocal linking is this: if someone won't link to my or a client's site without reciprocation, then that person must not have thought too highly of the site's or page's content. If reciprocation is required, the link is not an objective "vote." I turn in plenty of link farms to the search engines as spammers. And I have watched these link farms be penalized. As I said, I am not totally against reciprocal linking when it is done properly. When it's done to exploit the engines? Then it is search engine spam. Sincerely, Shari Thurow, Webmaster/Marketing Director Grantastic Designs, Inc. http://www.grantasticdesigns.com/tips.html -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Richard Stubbings Subject: Linking I have seen a lot of words written about linking here, and a lot of strident opinions. In all the long arguments they seem to be obscuring the main points. An incoming link is a way to get more traffic. A proper incoming link will bring targeted traffic with good conversion rates. To get proper incoming links you normally have to give a reciprocating link. An outgoing link can take traffic away BUT can still be useful if you open the link in a separate window and use the link to give your customer more information. To assist them in their purchase decision. Richard Stubbings Kulture Shock http://www.kultureshock.co.uk <Moderator Comment> Please stay tuned for another special issue on Friday, dedicated to the Linking argument and Michael Martinez's response to Dirk Johnson. Thanks - adam -------- new post - new topic -------- From: R. Neilson Subject: SEO alternatives > From hating Flash I've fallen in love with large-photo, > slow-motion, gradual dissolving slide shows... I think > there's no use of visitors' time that repays them with > so much useful information so enjoyably. - Shaun Johnston, LED 1998 I know the suggestion I am about to make may shock some on the list but here goes. Need some photos in the budget range, try contacting your local High School ROP classes. Most high schools now offer some high tech computer course to allow students to train for the real world. Classes include digital photography, web design, business and much more. Yes, some may not be as good as you pay big bucks for, but most of these kids have unbelievable skills that are waiting to be tapped. Plus they have fresh attitudes that can be very creative for designing websites. My oldest son took several of these classes and I was amazed at the skill he developed in web design. While this may not work for everyone, this is one way to tap into the up and coming web designers of the future and encourage them to go into the computer field. Also since these are usually ROP classes they are also open to adults, you may find taking one of these courses might help you in working on your own site and still gain insight from these internet savy youth. You might consider donating funds to your local high school based on how successful the project or projects are. R. Neilson H. L. Supply www.hansons.net hansons, succeed.net ------------------------------------------------------- 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind." - Sir Winston Churchill |
