SEO Business Models and ROI

[Marcia]

While reading this discussion, I started thinking about the different SEO business models that are possible:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2170

There can be *really* good ROI if it's good client site - but it can be that the page that's ranking and bringing in the traffic that results in the ROI is NOT on he client's site at all, but a doorway page on one of the SEO's sites; perhaps even with Page Rank generated for the doorway page via hidden links. It is possible that it is not the pages on the client's site that will appear in the SERPs, but the ones on the SEO's sites.

Then, if the relationship ends and payment stops, so does traffic & ROI. And the client doesn't realize it all until it's too late.

I've seen this done - hence the qualification expressed of a pure ROI model for endorsement of services. In other words, with this scenario it's clear that the SEO has the client by the short_hairs.

Clients generally expect that it's their own site's pages that will achieve rankings if they're paying for search engine optimization; however as described, that may not necessarily be the end result for them in some cases.

Among the various options available for SEO business models, what are the ramifications and issues involved with this type of an SEO business model, as it relates to disclosure of methodology and also to ROI as a criteria?

[seomike]

I think you should only be responsible for what you have control over.

If you are hired to bring in "only" traffic and a client wants to get on your back about ROI then set them staight. Hey if their site sucks that's their problem you're fulfilling your end of the bargin.

If you have control of both then the monkey is on your back. Just from reading the forum in here I think we have posters that hold themselves accountable for ROI when they are not the designer or webmaster just the SEO. That's a No No. :D


As per the traffic and ROI through doorways. That's a safe guard against people that don't pay their bills (that depends on pricing models though) and I can see why it would be used. BUT a client should know that you have implemented a doorway to suppliment rankings and traffic to their site.

[projectphp]

I think you should only be responsible for what you have control over.
I agree!! Otherwise, you are stuck wondering how to justify anything.

<added>Having said that, perhaps one shouldn't take on contracts for big money if teh ROI won't be their. That may do more for a business, long term, than getting the most out of every client that you can!!!</added>

[Jill Whalen]

Then, if the relationship ends and payment stops, so does traffic & ROI. And the client doesn't realize it all until it's too late.

That's why I generally recommend against that sort of SEO unless the client is completely aware of what's happening. Most ethical companies that use that business model make sure their clients understand that once they stop paying, they will definitely lose their results/traffic/ROI/whatever.

But some don't make this clear,and that's not very nice.

[fathom]

While reading this discussion, I started thinking about the different SEO business models that are possible:

It comes down to making the offered service synonymous with both investment and long term growth.

When successes are made regardless of how beneficial they are at the time should the strategy become stagnant and not progressively compounding successes the relationship loses luster and ends.

While you can alway pick up another client in the same industry - it's never the same thing.

Keeping a client "is" more often than not an easier sale thus I have been modeling different approaches to the singular "NDA" & "NCA" approach.

Interesting enough: I spent a great deal of time appreciating the similiarity and differences of forum communities and how they aggregate likeminded professionals that collaborate and at the same time tend to be direct competitiors.

Should this be successful rather than giving up a singular SEO relationship the client is given up a major growth investment.

[fathom]

That's why I generally recommend against that sort of SEO unless the client is completely aware of what's happening. Most ethical companies that use that business model make sure their clients understand that once they stop paying, they will definitely lose their results/traffic/ROI/whatever.

But some don't make this clear,and that's not very nice.

This kindna stuck me funny Jill. I'm reminded that when you stop paying Google for AdWords results/traffic/ROI/whatever dries up immediately.

When you stop paying the newspaper, radio, TV, catalog company or any ad agency etc. these dry up pretty quickly as well.

that's not very nice either! ;)

Short of teaching the client to manage their own SEO strategy tends to suggest SEO benefit will dry up in due course.

But I understand your meaning -- just playing with the word "nice"! ;)

[Jill Whalen]

I agree, and I'm not saying it's a bad business model; just that it's important that the client understands what they're getting, and what they're not getting. As long as they're making a good return on their investment with that model, most clients shouldn't mind paying for it.

[St0n3y]

Obviously, if the SEO is offer full disclosure on their methods and the pros and cons to those methods, then any business model is acceptable. For me personally, I think of SEO more as branding than as a TV or radio ad. Ads come and go but SEO should help brand the site, or at least provide the long-term benefit for the site owner. On the other hand, if the business likes the pay-per click model then they should be comfortable with an "SEO" company optimizing doorway pages that simply point to the client site.