SEMPO & The SEM Reputation Problem

[dannysullivan]

NOTE: THERE ARE CURRENTLY SEVERAL SEMPO THREADS GOING. PLEASE CLICK HERE (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17) TO SEE THEM AND PLEASE CHOOSE THE RIGHT ONE FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

One of the biggest criticisms SEMPO faced before the current upset for stipends, board elections and lack of communication was that some people thought SEMPO should screen members. Only white hats should be allowed in! No, only firms that get good results should be allowed in, regardless of hat! SEMPO sidestepped the entire issue by not getting into certification or standards to begin with. However, they have formed a committee recently to look again at the issue. Are there common guidelines or "best business practices" that SEMPO can promote that in turn may help the entire industry.

For some background on these issues, see the Mike Grehan Stirs Up SEMPO Controversy (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=775) and SEMPO Meeting at SES San Jose 2004 (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=894) threads. Also see An SEM Code Of Conduct? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=596), Improving The Reputation Of The SEM Industry (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=566).

In this thread, what specifically do you think SEMPO should do in this area?

[Marcia]

Just to be clear, I assume this is referrring to SEMPO setting up "best practices" for the reputation of the industry - and it's not referring to SEMPO's reputation amongst those in the industry. Do I have that right?

Are there common guidelines or "best business practices" that SEMPO can promote that in turn may help the entire industry.
That can involve a lot of subjective judgment calls, and some things go beyond the published search engine guidelines. There are some things that are not technically spam, but they do involve ethical business practices, just plain old-fashioned common decency and a sense of fair play. Unfortunately, this can be a very nasty business.

They'd have to make pretty sure there weren't any of them living in a glass house or there could end up being a lot of stones thrown.

[ihelpyou]

With the type of organization sempo says it wants to have, NO WAY can there be any best practices at all.

It's a non-starter.

[Elisabeth]

That can involve a lot of subjective judgment calls, and some things go beyond the published search engine guidelines. There are some things that are not technically spam, but they do involve ethical business practices, just plain old-fashioned common decency and a sense of fair play. Unfortunately, this can be a very nasty business.



Sure it can. but the talk in San Jose steered away from tactics, and leaned more towards some biz ethics at the very least - full disclosure - making clients aware of the risks they may be taking with a certain route, and I would also assume not claiming to have a 'special relationship' with google, overture, etc - beyond a good ad rep.

[ihelpyou]

making clients aware of the risks they may be taking with a certain route, and I would also assume not claiming to have a 'special relationship' with google, overture, etc - beyond a good ad rep.
What good could that possibly do? How would that help the industry at all? Does anyone think a SEMPO member is going to tell others that they "do not" disclose "all" to their clients? Who would do the "enforcing" as to if this type of "best practice" is adhered to? And even if we all agreed to this; you would be assuming your client completely understands the risks involved when you explain them to your client. How can this possibly be? All you would be doing is giving your client FULL and complete responsibility without taking on any responsibility for yourself. How is this a good thing either?

Don't we think it's much better to educate the client as to the search engine guidelines, and much better to abide by those guidelines? Don't you think a true Professional would tell the client who does not wish to abide by the se guidelines that "I cannot help you then"? That is being a Professional. Saying you are Professional because you told the client of the risks, and then proceeded to spam the engines of behalf of your client is not being Professional at all. This type of outlook is the actual "Why" our industry has the bad reputation that it truly does have.

Further: What difference would it possibly make to this industry that this SEM firm completely tells the client of the risks, and they both agree to the risks? How does that help anyone? You would essentially be saying;

"It's okay to spam as long as your client knows the risks".

How would that be a good thing for the industry? I fail to see any good at all, and only see something as being more harmful than having NO ethics statement at all.

[dannysullivan]

Don't we think it's much better to educate the client as to the search engine guidelines, and much better to abide by those guidelines?
Doug, search engine guidelines don't cover all the things they do not like. In addition, there are indeed times when something may technically violate their guidelines but where they aren't actually bothered by it. There's lots and lots of gray.

That's one reason I've suggested that the search engines themselves get involved in making it easier to tell if someone has actually spammed them -- they make the rules, they should provide the courts. Leaving it to third parties to interpret the enforce their rules makes no sense. My Spam Rules Require Effective Spam Police (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3344581) goes into detail about this.

But by all means, lay out exactly what you think the guidelines should be that SEMPO ought to require all members to follow, or perhaps encourage them to follow as a way to distinguish themselves. This thread said that things are being considered and is asking for ideas. So you don't need to argue against what they aren't doing -- just lay out what you want them to do.

[ihelpyou]

I have posted what I think they should do with any ethics or standards statement.

Don't have one.

That's pretty clear to me. They are not in the business of dictating any standards and could not possibly have standards. They are suppose to be "promoting" the sem industry, and not promoting their members or any standards the members have.

Standards are left up to other orgs who vet members and who's goals are to promote the members with those same standards. It would be hypocritical for sempo to lay out standards when most of us could not possibly be a part of those standards.

Again, Don't have any standards. I posted this many times in these forums already.

btw, the search engine guidelines are not vague. They are very clear as to basic guidelines. There is nothing technical about them. Cloaking is spam. Other forms of content delivery are not spam. It's all very clear to many of us.

[dannysullivan]

Standards are left up to other orgs who vet members and who's goals are to promote the members with those same standards.
Doug, I thought this was long what you said you wanted SEMPO to do. My understanding was that you thought for the group to be successful in any way, it should be vetting members. If that's the case, that's relevant to this discussion. By what standards do you want them to vet members? Just ensure that no member violates any search engine guidelines that you believe are clear enough? Or is there more?

Or alternatively, are you happy with them just being a promotional body? Because again, I'm pretty sure you were upset in the past that people might come to SEMPO, see the members listed, then feel that the members were considered somehow vetted.

[Marcia]

There are a lot of things that aren't all that clear-cut - and they've got little do with with cloaking, which isn't always spam, and doesn't always get a site the thumbs down even if it is looked at.

There's no way engines could let on to specifics without seriously jeopardizing the integrity of their search - they'd be foolish to. And there are a lot of subtleties that aren't covered by the printed guidelines that search engines have, and technically aren't "spam" by the letter of the guidelines, and yet really are.

I seldom file a report; I collect spam - to study. I keep a bookmarks folder called "quality black hat sites" - for real. It takes a lot of constant digging and rooting around, but it's the best SEO education available. A lot is a matter of degree, and they'll never let on what the limits are.

It would be impossible to set standards for an organization. too much is subjective and too much is a matter of quantity and degree. Besides, even for a lot of us white hats there's a code of honor among thieves.

*Anyone* who does things on a site to exert influence for better rankings is technically manipulating and working the engines. No exceptions.

[ihelpyou]

Because of the way sempo is set up 'right now', there should be vetting involved with members because it's obvious sempo's mission is to promote it's members.

I envision a completely different sempo with a completely different website and everything else. I detailed what I thought the org should do. I will post it again in this thread:

I will also try to be very polite with this post. I'm sorry if I sometimes come off as c ocky or arrogant. It's hard to sit back and watch when this industry means everything to me personally and business-wise. My personality can be hard to take sometimes. I know this.

From day one of knowing about this new org, there have been a great amount of questions asked. Motives of board members and of the Director have been questioned. Emails have been sent. Vague responses have been given in forums all over the internet. Now it's been one year since inception, and "all" the concerns about SEMPO have been realized.

Many of us all have the same concerns. Many of us are not represented in the current form of SEMPO. There are very important reasons for that.

1. No vetting process of new members.
Many see the list of members as a yellow page thing. The problem is that there are 'levels' of membership.

2. Circle members have to give $5000 to be in the Circle.
That leaves out the majority of SEM's and small type other businesses completely.

3. Those in the Circle are given a front page listing.
SEMPO did very good at the start, as one original concern was the lack of disclaimers on the website. They corrected that quickly. If we sit back and think about it, the perception of a website owner coming to that front page is that of thinking that those listings are something special. I know the disclaimer is on that page, but do we really believe a visitor is going to read all of that content first, before clicking on a Circle listing? I don't think so. At the top of those listings is just... "SEMPO Circle Members"

Full disclosure would be something like:

SEMPO Circle Member Sponsorships

4. It turns out that I have directly seen emails from a variety of people and things where a Circle Member claimed something like this:

"But I'm a SEMPO Circle Member"

SEMPO has stated countless times that NO members should be using the membership status to gain some kind of "credibility". This is not happening at all as members are constantly touting their membership to gain an advantage. Right now, there are Circle members using SEMPO to say they must be better than everyone else since they are a Circle Member of SEMPO. This is stated on some Circle member websites. Not good.

5. See all of orion's posts and other real good posts about all the other concerns about SEMPO. They are facts. They are not silly or speculative.

Now: How does SEMPO improve to get the most members to join?

1. The Executive Director must resign, but be given the opportunity to be a regular member. A new director should be looked for in a democratic way that has experience in running a non-profit org. SEMPO could pay this person a good salary for "full" time work.

2. An Assistant to the director should be hired as well. Both these positions should Not be of people or firms "in the SEM industry. See the BBB and how they set things up. Also look at other non-profits to see.

3. All board members should step down, and new board members "voted" in by the existing members. There needs to be checks and balances from top to bottom. Danny's suggestion of "half" now, half later was a good one. The same board members could actually be 'voted' back in, but they would have to step down first imo. The top two positions have final say on all activities of the organization.

4. There should be a level playing field. There should not be different levels of membership at all. The mission is to tell the world about SEM and how it can help every online business. There should be no way that members can capitalize on the fact they are a member. A fee in the range of $100 to $200 US per year is sufficient. This would enable "many" more businesses to become members and not be strapped financially. After-all, the orgs mission is suppose to tell the world about the benefits of SEM, so the org should be all-encompassing. It should not be for the few firms that have $5000 to invest. Notice I used the word "invest". SEMPO has stated it wants the whole world to join, not just the select few. I feel this type of fee structure would entice everyone in the world to join.

5. Some type of education should be developed into the SEMPO website. Articles are fine, etc, more things should be done.

6. A new website should be designed. The current one is confusing. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I feel that some great and Professional Designer out there could build a top-notch site, complete with database management, and completely search engine friendly as well. It's not a tough thing to do. The industry wants the org to be "the" thing, so it should conduct itself that way right from the start.

7. RFP's should only be received "if" there is some kind of vetting process. Otherwise, the org could get into big trouble down the line. I don't have to explain this as it's pretty clear to most everyone in this forum.

8. Links leading out to other business websites should Not be allowed. Period. You should have a "resource" type page as the only place on the whole site where different resources can be listed.

9. Same as orion about the 'hats' things. Official email addresses should be used only.

10. If there 'is' a vetting process of some type, RFP's should be listed on the website itself where any member can log-in to view the RFP's submitted. This form should never go directly to any one person, or go directly to the board members or to anyone else. It should be posted immediately in the "password" protected area where "every" member has access to the email address and anything else you all have in the form. This could be set up "very" easily by a capable developer.

11. The actual member listings should be by category, and then by alpha order. Again, fairly easy to do.

Well, I'm tired now. I have many more ideas as well. I certainly hope you all take this post in the spirit it was intended. I do want to help, and I do feel like I could join SEMPO at some point, just not now. I know the meeting is this evening so maybe things will get straightened out some. If so, great! I just wanted to share my feelings about all of this. These concerns and suggested remedies are shared by a great many I would think.

Sorry that this was so long, but thank you for reading and giving me the opportunity to express my opinions.

Doug Heil
That's my complete post. If the org was set up this way, NO need at all to have any standards, as the mission of the org is to "promote the sem industry", and not to promote it's members.

I have very clear ideas about this type of organization and how it should be structured. I'd even "donate" the complete redesign and database management and all else involved with it if I was asked to do so. I know what's in my head about this. It "could" work if done the right way.

#7 above is not quite correct though now. I feel there can be no vetting process at all. I also think that not just sem firms should be members. ANY site on the planet could be a member. I also think RFP's could be submitted if they were in a members area. "Only" firms who are members can submit an RFP. If you become a member, you can submit an RFP to other members. This would be done completely online and behind a private member area.

The ideas are numerous. I have lots of them. I think they are good ideas.

[dannysullivan]

OK, that's a laundry list of remedies, most of which aren't applicable to this particular topic. So keeping things on track, I'll pull out the one that is:

1. No vetting process of new members.
Many see the list of members as a yellow page thing. The problem is that there are 'levels' of membership
And I ask you again, what vetting process do you envision? What exactly do you want checked and verified before someone would be admitted into SEMPO? That's the theme of this particular thread.

[ihelpyou]

MODERATOR NOTE: PORTION ON CLOAKING DEFINITION DELETED -- THIS IS GETTING THE THREAD OFF TOPIC.

And I ask you again, what vetting process do you envision? What exactly do you want checked and verified before someone would be admitted into SEMPO? That's the theme of this particular thread.
Again, under the current way sempo is set up, there cannot be any vetting process. I go on to say that there cannot be a vetting process period if you want to promote the sem industry and you don't promote it's members.

Not sure how much clearer I can make this point? :)

[dannysullivan]

Look, this thread isn't mean to define what is or isn't spam. So you've seen my deletions to keep it on track. Some people believe it is clear; others disagree. That's all that really needs to be covered on that ground here.

[dannysullivan]

Again, under the current way sempo is set up, there cannot be any vetting process. I go on to say that there cannot be a vetting process period if you want to promote the sem industry and you don't promote it's members.
Yes, Doug -- I understand you don't like how SEMPO is setup. Assuming it was setup in all perfectness in the way you like, what would be the vetting criteria?

In other words, you seem to think there's some value in an industry/trade group. You also seem to think there's a reason individuals and/or companies would join. I'm assuming you'd want them vetted. What's that criteria?

[ihelpyou]

Yes, Doug -- I understand you don't like how SEMPO is setup. Assuming it was setup in all perfectness in the way you like, what would be the vetting criteria?
No Danny. Let's say I actually built the site from scratch using all my ideas. If that is the case, I still feel that there could not possibly be a vetting process as that is not the mission of the organization.

[dannysullivan]

OK, then I don't see that you've anything else to say here. You want the entire site rebuilt according to your vision. Frankly, I find your vision confusing. That's because it addresses the current setup and things you want changed to it. Instead, you need the entire thing really ripped down and started from afresh. Go for it -- you don't need to reform SEMPO. Just start something new.

[NFFC]

In an attempt to stop this thred becoming a ihelpyou v DS tennis match [I'm biased, one is on ignore, hard to follow a tennis match that way] let me state my opinion on this whole "code of conduct" + "best practices" area.

I believe you either manipulate the search engines for a living or you don't. The moment, the very second, you look at a title tag and think "I wonder if I put my keyword in there" you have crossed the line. You_are_a_spammer.

I just read these type of threads and all I see in my mind is a bunch of school kids shouting "your a bigger spammer than me!". It is no wonder that SEO is held in such comtempt by the search engines, if I were them I'd be laughing at us too, I really don't like people laughing at my friends.

Why on earth any business would need a "code of conduct" is beyond me, why not call it "stating the obvious", just simple common business sense. Let the law deal with that stuff.

As for best practices that makes me shudder, there seems almost an inverse factor at work, those who scream best practices loudest are the ones that seem happy to ride rough shod over what I consider *wise* practices.
When I think of those people I always think of this "joke":

A guy stops to talk to a beautiful woman.

"Hello, I must say, you are about the most beautiful women I have ever met."

"Thank you very much."

"I was wondering if you'd sleep with me for a million dollars?"

"A million dollars!" She thinks for a moment and answers, "Yes, I would sleep with you for a million dollars."

"How about five bucks?"

"Five bucks! What kind of woman do you think I am?"

"We've already determined that. Now we are just haggling over money."

I don't know how we can move forward when there seems to be a few very vocal people who won't accept what_they_are.

I hate seeing that picture of school kids in my mind I would much rather, when reading a thread about SEO, picture a bunch of hyenas bring a wildebeest down.

[ihelpyou]

That's not a good answer Danny.

I've given really good and constructive suggestions for change. To simply brush things off is not a good thing. I've received "many" compliments from PM in here and from email from people that are 'not' members of my place. They all say the suggestions are very good and actionable.

[ihelpyou]

I believe you either manipulate the search engines for a living or you don't. The moment, the very second, you look at a title tag and think "I wonder if I put my keyword in there" you have crossed the line. You_are_a_spammer.
No other comment from me is necessary about that statement. That pretty much says it all, and the reason that the search engine guidelines are abused by some out there. It's also the reason why SEMPO could not possibly have any vetting process or any standards. Further: It's why the industry has the reputation that it has.

[qwerty]

I believe you either manipulate the search engines for a living or you don't. The moment, the very second, you look at a title tag and think "I wonder if I put my keyword in there" you have crossed the line. You_are_a_spammer.
I believe that depends on one's defintion of both "spammer" and "manipulate." Those of us who disagree with the above statement don't view it as manipulation to help people and search engines to find the subject-matter of a given page, and thus to find a page that matches the subject-matter they seek.

Is it manipulation for a city to put up a sign on a road that says "Hospital - Next Exit"? I'd say it's manipulation if there isn't a hospital at the next exit, and they put up the sign to increase traffic to a diner at that location. If there is a hospital, it's assistance.

[dannysullivan]

Why on earth any business would need a "code of conduct" is beyond me, why not call it "stating the obvious", just simple common business sense. Let the law deal with that stuff.
That's in part what SEMPO thought when they started -- leave these type of issues to other authorities.

The problem was, a number of people starting getting upset that they weren't vetting members in someway. Anyone could be a member of SEMPO -- and since some people have strong views on what's "right" and "wrong" with SEO, it was seen that SEMPO simply was worthless without some type of code for members. It was this big huge thing hanging over the group.

Sure, they could ignore that. But it would still be embarrassing if one of your members ending up getting dinged by the law, as with this case that came out today: SEO Firm Ordered to Refund Fees, Pay Fine (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?threadid=1071). So there is some incentive for them to think about this.

Now, an easy code could be that you can't be a member (or lose membership) if you are convicted of a crime by some local law enforcement agency. Fits in nicely with what your saying and helps protect the organization a bit, as well.

That's an easy code. But it may not satisfy all the critics of SEMPO in the past, who have said they want some type of code. That's all I'm trying to explore here, to get some measure of what it is people think the group should have members adhere to. And you've provided one good solution -- SEMPO could decide there are existing bodies that enforce codes of conduct, and they'll deal with members based on how those other bodies enforce.

[dannysullivan]

To simply brush things off is not a good thing.
If I were bushing you off, I wouldn't have spent all this time trying to elicit what type of vetting procedure you have in mind.

You seem to some type of new SEMPO (or really, it could be any organization) with the goal of promoting SEM itself (ironically, that's SEMPO's supposed mission as well).

In this new or reformed group, you still seem to have people joining. It will still have members. So you've got no problem with someone you'd consider a spammer or scammer joining? Because that's been in the past a big problem you've seemed to have with the group. A year ago you said (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=11014&perpage=10&pagenumber=1):

From what I understand, the group will not have any "Professional Standards" to adhere to, so it will be a bunch of people promoting themselves and the industry.

And (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=11014&perpage=10&pagenumber=2)...

Most orgs I know of have some kind of standards involved in order to become a member. With no standards, how is this going to help the general public? Sure, you can promote the industry real easy, but again, how is that going to help joe website owner? Is he going to think that simply because a firm bought a link in this org that this firm is on the up and up?....Nope. I'll wait until there are best practice standards in place before buying a link.

And...

I understand the need to promote our industry. What I don't understand, is the need to promote the scammers and spammers as well. Now that is something I will Never agree to no matter what the benefits are. I don't appreciate the fact that Joe web owner can go to the front page of sempo and see a list of "SEM Circle Members" and think this list is "The Bomb" of the SEM Industry. Don't you see a problem with this? I sure do. Besides, I can certainly benefit from "your" promotions of our industry by not doing anything. I'll never bow down to "peer" pressure no matter who you are. I have ethics.

And earlier this year (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=11014&perpage=10&pagenumber=10):

I just don't like ANY organization who claims to be 'selling' the industry to the consumer, that has spammers as members. If it was not for that fact, I'd join as well.

Doug, you've probably been the loudest voice screaming that this group needs to have some type of standards. Now all of a sudden, you've got a plan for a membership group that doesn't need standards or vetting. I'm unclear on how your new proposal will keep out the spammers you were so upset with earlier.

[Jeff Martin]

I believe you either manipulate the search engines for a living or you don't. The moment, the very second, you look at a title tag and think "I wonder if I put my keyword in there" you have crossed the line. You_are_a_spammer.

I share this mentality. Why? Google themselves, in their own IPO filing (paraphrasing here) declare us a threat to their business.

Folks, you can't argue with that. If you do then you are disagreeing with what Google has publicly stated and you should go read it in black and white. (Side note: Dont you think its strange that our industry is publicly labeled as a threat yet Google has their hands financially into our main events and organization?)

This is where SEMPO steps up to the plate and shouts to the world why we are a necessity for doing business over the web and why we should be looked at as legitimate business partners and not the guys in black trench coats who you have to meet in dark places. With journalists printing unfounded reputation bashing garbage and with Google themselves calling us a threat, we need that voice for EVERY SEM professional. Notice I didnt say SEMPO members. SEMPO is for all of us, members or not, and SEMPO is that way by default being, currently, the only quasi-organized group of SEM professionals who are getting press.

I know SEMPO can be a tremendous voice for our industry, they just need to get their house in order, and keep their eye on the ball.

[ihelpyou]

Doug, you've probably been the loudest voice screaming that this group needs to have some type of standards. Now all of a sudden, you've got a plan for a membership group that doesn't need standards or vetting. I'm unclear on how your new proposal will keep out the spammers you were so upset with earlier.
My plan will not keep out the spammers nor should it keep them out. The org I envision and how it's setup has NO need for vetting as NO members will be promoted.

The way sempo is right now, there "is" a need for vetting as they are clearly promoting their members and especially their board members.

My plan does NOT promote it's members. The mission should be to "promote the sem industry", not promote the sempo members. It can be done. Once you get into the realm of vetting, etc, you know longer are a group that is promoting the industry, but are simply promoting the members within the group. You cannot do that with the current setup of SEMPO.

[Marcia]

Side note: Dont you think its strange that our industry is publicly labeled as a threat yet Google has their hands financially into our main events and organization?

I don't find it strange at all, not one bit. SEO for organic search and SEM for PPC are somewhat related, but IMHO not quite the same industry. There are people who don't know the slightest bit about SEO but are brilliant with PPC marketing and charge enormous fees to manage campagns.

It's not about them supporting SEO as such, SEO causes them problems and costs them a lot of money. It's about what brings them revenue, which is PPC. It's no different than manufacturers attending meetings to make contact with sales reps to carry their line of products. The SEMs are the sales reps, the agents for client spends on PPC.

It isn't love, it's good business on their part.

[dannysullivan]

My plan will not keep out the spammers nor should it keep them out. The org I envision and how it's setup has NO need for vetting as NO members will be promoted.
Here's where I'm confused. The list of things you put into this thread above seemed related to fixing the existing SEMPO. You've got things like calling the Circle Member links "sponsored," which certainly sounds like members would be promoted/listed/seen. You've still got a list of members actually being shown on the site. So it seems like individual members are still pretty visible.

I would love for you to start up a new thread -- I know, ugh -- but a new thread laying out how you would see the new/rebuilt group starting from scratch. Don't worry about the fixes you'd apply to the existing SEMPO. Just start fresh. Then it would be easier to examine this new proposal.

[ihelpyou]

Okay Danny. I will do that. There is another post I made on this issue in here so I will combine the two into something that is step by step. Give it a couple of days though. :)

[Jeff Martin]

SEO for organic search and SEM for PPC are somewhat related, but IMHO not quite the same industry.

The SEMPO site doesnt support that philosophy. SEMPO is for promotion and reputation management of all forms of search engine marketing whether it be through advertising or optimization. Of course SEO plays a part in our conferences and events. So my point still stands, Google has financial ties to our organisations and events that educate and promote SEO, which, as stated publicly by Google, is a threat to their business.

I couldnt imagine many of us getting behind and suporting SEMPO if SEMPO didnt promote and create a positive reputation for SEO and SEO professionals.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmm..."

[ihelpyou]

Jeff Martin wrote:
I share this mentality. Why? Google themselves, in their own IPO filing (paraphrasing here) declare us a threat to their business.

Folks, you can't argue with that. If you do then you are disagreeing with what Google has publicly stated and you should go read it in black and white. (Side note: Dont you think its strange that our industry is publicly labeled as a threat yet Google has their hands financially into our main events and organization?)
I have yet to see where Google has Ever said all SEO is bad for them. Please point it out to me exactly where it is. Here is what I have found so far on the subject:
Google specifically calls out "index spammers" and link bombing as an "ongoing and increasing effort" that could harm its results. "If our efforts to combat these and other types of index spamming are unsuccessful, our reputation for delivering relevant information could be diminished. This could result in a decline in user traffic, which would damage our business," the filing says.
That can be found here:
http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3347471

Google also comments here:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html

snippet:
SEO is an abbreviation for "search engine optimizer." Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted. However, there are a few unethical SEOs who have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results.
So please show me where they say "all" SEO's. I only find where they comment on Spammers and Unethical firms.

[Jeff Martin]

So please show me where they say "all" SEO's. I only find where they comment on Spammers and Unethical firms.

I think this is starting to get off topic and back into the "Im not a spamer", this is spam thats spam, etc. and away from SEMPO and our reputation. If you would like to dicuss further please send me a PM.

[ihelpyou]

Well Jeff; You are claiming that Google is stating something which I am asking you where that statement is. You brought up the Google thing. I simply posted the facts that I have found on various websites.

If Google is in fact stating they dislike all SEO's, then I want to know about it as then they are also Contributing to the bad reputation the industry has. That indeed 'does' pertain to this thread.

btw, if what you are saying is that all SEO's spam, then we have nothing else to discuss. Google specifically states that some SEO's do real good and others are Unethical and spam. If you are lumping all of us together, then no need to show me anything as you have a different view of what spam is and is not from I.

[Marcia]

I hope this stops it. :(

From the Stanford Document Server

Taxonomy of Web Spam (http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/aux/index-en.html)
Gyongyi, Zoltan; Garcia-Molina, Hector

[Alan Perkins]

Here's where I'm confused
Having known Doug for a few years, let me try to interpret for you :)

Either SEMPO does not promote its members:


No explicit or implicit endorsement of members on the home page, the member Directory, or anywhere else on the site
No RFP procedure
Ads must be clearly labelled as ads
etc.


Or SEMPO polices its members:


Lays down standards
Verifies members against standards
Boots out members who don't meet standards
etc.


Given SEMPO's stated goals and core function - AFAIK, to be all-inclusive, non-policing and to promote the SEM industry outside of the SEM industry - the former approach seems the more logical.

I agree with Doug on this point.

IMO the problem with SEMPO is that the board is stuffed full of people who are naturals at self-promotion but who have little idea about running an industry org. Is it any wonder that the result is a mess of an industry org with accusations of self promotion? The board have simply done what they're good at and failed to do what they have no experience of.

If SEMPO can get away from this idea of promoting the membership and the board members, and simply promote the industry, then it becomes an org that anyone can join. At the moment I don't believe it is, yet that was an original core objective. The board stopped it by dint of their natural strengths and weaknesses.

It's a straight choice for SEMPO, IMO:


Promote best practices and promote & police the membership, or
Don't promote best practices and don't promote & police the membership


SEMPO can still have various levels of membership, but these should not equate to levels of promotion. Instead, they should relate to the benefits received by the members - discounts on conferences, research reports, etc.

If SEMPO wants to detach itself from the industry reputation issue, it must stop promoting its members.

BTW, IMO Search Engines should be members and sponsors of an industry org. Why? Because they're part of the industry. It would be a bit strange if the Search Engine Marketing industry didn't include search engines.

[NFFC]

>It would be a bit strange if the Search Engine Marketing industry didn't include search engines.

I think it would be even stranger if they were.

Strange.

Either one of us is thinking too much or one of us not enough.

[Nacho]

In this thread, what specifically do you think SEMPO should do in this area?
If SEMPO wants to go in into the “common guidelines” or "best business practices" and keep it’s core values of:
SEMPO exists to fill the gaps in awareness and understanding of SEM, including educating marketing managers worldwide about what SEM is and how properly implemented SEM programs can provide some of the highest returns on investment possible in the marketing world today.
Then I suggest to SEMPO should hire two outstanding SEO Research Analysts that will do the following:

1) One analyst will research for those companies that have been banned and demonstrate what are “bad business practices”.

2) The other analyst will research on all the newest SEO techniques being used and demonstrate what are “best business practices”.

Both should be posted in the Members Only section with clear case study examples, including interviews with company representatives. Whether they provide the company’s name or not, it should point out clearly what they did to make the SEs take them out or what they have done to get a good result.

Can SEMPO afford two analysts? I think so, if this organization does not want to make a profit. Will this help educate both SEM professionals and new “marketing managers worldwide about what SEM is and how properly implemented SEM programs can provide some of the highest ROIs possible”?

YES!

My two cents, Danny.

[dannysullivan]

So Alan, in terms of why they may NOT need to police members or have standards, this is the key issue from what you posted:

No explicit or implicit endorsement of members on the home page, the member Directory, or anywhere else on the site

No RFP procedure

OK, so if they drop all members listed on the home page, that's one positive view toward not needing standards. And it sounds like you'd probably feel some type of alphabetical listing of members would also be "non-promotional," since it wouldn't imply that one member is better than another. I suppose a randomly oriented directory would also be OK (as I'm an alphabetically-challenged surname, I've never though alpha listings so fair.

Also, dropping the RFP option I assume makes you feel like SEMPO isn't inadvertently endorsing its members -- the current disclaimer, I assume, doesn't do the job enough.

OK, all of that is easy for SEMPO to do and get off the standards hook some want them to take up with one last thing -- aren't some going to argue that anyone being a member of SEMPO and being listed in any way is an implicit endorsement?

[Alan Perkins]

Also, dropping the RFP option I assume makes you feel like SEMPO isn't inadvertently endorsing its members -- the current disclaimer, I assume, doesn't do the job enough.It probably does the job. But submission of RFPs was not a job that needed doing. When you think of all the jobs that did need doing but haven't been done, IMO it shows that the focus was in the wrong place.

OK, all of that is easy for SEMPO to do and get off the standards hook some want them to take up with one last thing -- aren't some going to argue that anyone being a member of SEMPO and being listed in any way is an implicit endorsement?Yes, some always will. The fewer name drops and (particularly) link drops in material published by SEMPO, the less likely this is to happen.

When SEMPO first formed, I was firmly of the opinion that it needed to have standards and police those standards. Now I believe it is possible to avoid the standards issue by not promoting/endorsing the membership in any way. Obviously I would prefer the org to have standards, but I realise the problems this would cause and I'm trying to propose practical alternatives.

[dannysullivan]

When SEMPO first formed, I was firmly of the opinion that it needed to have standards and police those standards. Now I believe it is possible to avoid the standards issue by not promoting/endorsing the membership in any way.
It's an amazing change, both by you and apparently Doug. A heartening one, too.

I cannot begin to total how much time has been spent banging against SEMPO when it started -- before it had any track record -- that it was already useless because it wasn't going to vet members. And why don't we see board members and others stepping up in forums to talk more today. Heck, they got pretty battle scarred trying to engage in conversation over the standards issue in the past.

The group specifically avoided getting into this because of the entire debate (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/3071421):

To be successful, SEMPO's essentially side-stepping the standards debate that has bogged down other attempts to organize search engine marketing firms and aiming to achieve goals where there's more agreement.
Not vetting members has probably been the single biggest criticism I've heard leveled at it since it started, and before Mike's recent article appearing highlighting different concerns.

Part of me is left wondering if all those concerns, issues about how members are listed, tier levels, etc. today might have been different if those who stayed out of SEMPO because of a "lack of standards" had stepped up at the beginning and exercised a voice from within the organization.

I'm not excusing the many problems people currently have with SEMPO. There's lots that needs to be fixed, absolutely. But until Mike's article, it was the issue of standards that most vocal critics of SEMPO seemed to want to ding it for.

Now, it sounds like this whole thing can be sidestepped with some pretty simply changes to how members are listed on the site. That's great to hear.

All along, I though SEMPO would be most useful if it didn't try to divide us into white hat/black hat but instead worked on areas where various people in SEM have common interests.

In my SES keynote, I did this chart where I tried to show that the dividing line between white and black hat that seems so distant actually completely changes when you add in other dimensions, such as concerns a small firm has, a big firm has or what everyone may have in relation to the search engines themselves.

If the standards thing can indeed be set aside, it definitely gives SEMPO (or any alternative trade group) a good chance. And NFFC idea of leaving potential vetting to other bodies (such as legal groups or perhaps search engine whitelists/blacklists) also means consumers can get protection, as well.

[qwerty]

Now, it sounds like this whole thing can be sidestepped with some pretty simply changes to how members are listed on the site. That's great to hear. I don't think it's fair to say that Alan and Doug speak for everyone who has refused to become involved with SEMPO over the vetting issue. We haven't all changed our minds about that.

Speaking just for myself though, I've never had a major problem with the idea of SEMPO existing. I just didn't want any part of it. My biggest gripe was, and I suspect will continue to be that I'm uncomfortable with the organization claiming or appearing to represent the industry as a whole. The vetting business is part of that, but so is the concentration on promoting only large projects for large clients.

[dannysullivan]

I don't think it's fair to say that Alan and Doug speak for everyone who has refused to become involved with SEMPO over the vetting issue. We haven't all changed our minds about that.
Valid point. I guess it's just heartening to think there's been some change with at least two people that I know hold the idea of standards very close to their hearts.
My biggest gripe was, and I suspect will continue to be that I'm uncomfortable with the organization claiming or appearing to represent the industry as a whole.
Indeed. This was such a huge thing on a WebmasterWorld.com thing when it started. Probably the biggest other issue that I've seen out there. We could do a whole other thread on it -- you know how I love new threads. But my main advice is that SEMPO needs to be careful in its language to represent itself as "a trade group" or even "a leading trade group" but not suggest that it is the only industry voice out there. I think the release (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/8/prweb149028.htm) they just did on the SEMPO ad campaign that just started does a good job of this:

About the Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization (SEMPO)
SEMPO is a non-profit professional association working to increase awareness and promote the value of Search Engine Marketing worldwide. The organization represents the common interests of more than 250 companies and consultants worldwide and provides them with a voice in the marketplace. For more information, or to join the organization, please visit SEMPO.

That seems pretty factual and even handed to me. I have no doubt there have been statements that have gone completely the other way. Again, it's something that I hope they'll watch.

[Alan Perkins]

It's an amazing change, both by you and apparently Doug. A heartening one, too.It's not so big a change, it just required recognising what my real problem with the standards issue was, which was that the organisation is promoting people/companies who don't share my standards. Stop the promotion and the standards is less of an issue.

I cannot begin to total how much time has been spent banging against SEMPO when it started -- before it had any track record -- that it was already useless because it wasn't going to vet members. And why don't we see board members and others stepping up in forums to talk more today. Heck, they got pretty battle scarred trying to engage in conversation over the standards issue in the past.That may be because there was so much self promotion going on at the same time.

From a personal POV, if you look back you'll find I've had very little to say about SEMPO. From very early on I decided it wasn't for me and left them to it.

Not vetting members has probably been the single biggest criticism I've heard leveled at it since it started, and before Mike's recent article appearing highlighting different concerns.

Part of me is left wondering if all those concerns, issues about how members are listed, tier levels, etc. today might have been different if those who stayed out of SEMPO because of a "lack of standards" had stepped up at the beginning and exercised a voice from within the organization.The structures were not in place for this to happen, IMO. One other criticism of SEMPO is the inability for members to change anything.

Now, it sounds like this whole thing can be sidestepped with some pretty simply changes to how members are listed on the site. That's great to hear.Not just on the site, IMO - in everything SEMPO does, including conference talks, press releases, etc. SEMPO probably does need to police how its name is used by its members. For example, is this acceptable from a very high profile member (I'm not passing judgement one way or the other as I'm not a member :)):“White Hat” Search Engine Optimization Methods
We're proud Circle members of SEMPO, so we're not about to ruin our good reputation by using cloaking, keyword spamming and stuffing, or other non-standard methods of affecting search engine placement. We keep current on what is considered “safe”, as well as “aggressive” search engine optimization techniques.

[ihelpyou]

Oh, that's easy.

Some Circle Members are using the fact they paid $5000 to mislead potential client's into thinking they are actually "better" than others. Frankly, I know for a fact that most of those Circle Members could not SEO their way through a wet paper bag.