Lycos, ASK to resell SEO in the US

[KeywordMonkey]

According to Search Engine Lowdown http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2004/11/ask-jeeves-and-lycos-offer-seo.html Lycos and Ask will start reselling SEO.

Interesting in itself (would you buy SEO from a search engine? Conflict of interest, anyone?)

But it seems Lycos is in fact reselling Inceptor's services.

This Lycos SEO page http://ranking.lycos.com/siteside.html (http://ranking.lycos.com/siteside.html)has 978-298-1550 on it as the enquiries phone number and Inceptor's homepage has 978-298-1525 on it. Suspiciously close numbers!

And a Google search for the number on the Lycos SEO site -
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=978-298-1550+&meta= - shows the number on Lycos' site in a press release from Inceptor... (unfortunately it's no longer on FindArticles but cache here http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:fnOpY_Llt7kJ:www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/2004_March_2/113791263/p1/article.jhtml+978-298-1550+&hl=en)

So Lycos are reselling Inceptor's SEO services.

[Nick W]

There is quite a bit of coverage on this actually. It started at this searchguild thread (http://www.searchguild.com/tpage17191-0.html), which was reported at my site, then isedb.com and now searchenginelowdown.

Check em all out, good reading between the lot of them...

Nick

[seobook]

It started at this searchguild thread (http://www.searchguild.com/tpage17191-0.html)
Kalena Jordan started it at IHU (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=16912&perpage=10&pagenumber=1)

[Nick W]

Whoops!

Pardon me for my rudeness Kalina! Credit where credit is due!

thanks seobook!

Nick

[seobook]

Credit where credit is due!
green, not red ;) :D

[NFFC]

...and in the bizarre world that is the current forum scene...it was first noticed here http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=516

That thread focused on the "ranking" reports but the SEO service was there too.

[rustybrick]

Three Words:

Conflict of Interest

[David Wallace]

Definite conflict of interest. So if you hire a search engine for your SEO (SE responsible even though they are outsourcing), then they are essential allowing money to influence their organic results - right? What is the difference between this and allowing someone just to pay to be on top? To me this move is nothing more than a struggle to survive in the search engine wars and a "grasping at straws" at that!

[Daria_Goetsch]

Definite conflict of interest. So if you hire a search engine for your SEO (SE responsible even though they are outsourcing), then they are essential allowing money to influence their organic results - right? What is the difference between this and allowing someone just to pay to be on top? To me this move is nothing more than a struggle to survive in the search engine wars and a "grasping at straws" at that!

Absolutely agree with you KeywordMonkey, David and Barry. Does the process actually boil down to paid inclusion and ranking for the engines? How about how much the SEO relates to the Lycos and AskJeeves algos, but not the other search engines, any conflict there? It's all pretty interesting when you think about it. Wouldn't this imply that search engines admit SEO is worth something by getting into the market?

[I, Brian]

But it seems Lycos is in fact reselling Inceptor's services.

Does this mean that Greenlight lost the contract, then? For those who may have forgotten, Greenlight were hiring (http://www.greenlight.co.uk/searchengine-articles/articles.lycos_appoints_greenlight.htm) SEO's to SEO Lycos UK back in Jan 2004. Or was that for Lycos UK only?

[KeywordMonkey]

Implies one main thing in my mind; Lycos are as desperate for revenue as ever.

Ask is a differnt kettle of (SEO) fish - they inherited a tie-up with a SEO with their acquisition of Interactive Search Holdings; apparently their CEo says "it's not true" - http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2004/11/ask-jeeves-not-in-seo-business-or-are.html - ie. they aren't really getting into SEO.

Hopefully, this will fade away and most marketing people / business owners will realise the conflict of interest in this - I doubt Inceptor expect it to be a major boost for their bottom line, either. They've not exactly shouted about it.

[KeywordMonkey]

Does this mean that Greenlight lost the contract, then? For those who may have forgotten, Greenlight were hiring (http://www.greenlight.co.uk/searchengine-articles/articles.lycos_appoints_greenlight.htm) SEO's to SEO Lycos itself back in Jan 2004. Or was that for Lycos UK only?
The SEO reselling using Inceptor is Lycos US.

Greenlight were hired by Lycos UK and Ireland to SEO www.lycos.co.uk (http://www.lycos.co.uk) .

Lycos USA is part of Terra Lycos; Lycos Europe is owned somewhat differently and listed in Frankfurt if memory serves.

[NFFC]

Just a comment about the lycos thing, I haven't looked at the Ask stuff.

I think there are two false assumptions, one that Lycos is a search engine, two that this is any different to the "submit you site to a gazillion search engines" advert that used to show on the AV ransom note submit page.

[Nacho]

I hate say it, but I told you so (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=21656#post21656). Geez, why did I knew this was comming?? :mad:

I'm in the I DONT LIKE IT group.

[grnidone]

How is this any different than paying a search engine to rank your site well via ppc?

In my mind, PPC is just a way to bribe the engines to put you at the top. I don't see how engines doing seo for people is any different. You pay them a bribe to put you at the top. No matter how they do it, you pay, they put you at the top.

[I, Brian]

I hate say it, but I told you so (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=21656#post21656). Geez, why did I knew this was comming?? :mad:

I'm in the I DONT LIKE IT group. Any SE involved in SEO will:

1. Target the lowest denominator
2. Fail large-scale commercial clients
3. Refuse to shape clients to any real application of search tech

Otherwise, all you have is a PPC SE, and so far I'm not convinced that anything in that mould has made a particular impact on the search market. Some degree of relevancy has always been the key to SERPs - any SE that values it's stock share will almost certainly think twice about providing nothing but ads instead of search relevant results. Ads as separate.

[Webvisitor]

Seems to me this is PI by another name. It also seems to me that they will attract some business as the name Lycos is a recognized internet brand.
So -- pay from the Lycos Insite page for your page(s) to be "optimized" for organic listing-- then move into the Lycos PPC program.

[Nacho]

Even if I try to put myself in their shoes, I don't find it how it can work without any conflict of interest for relevancy of results in the natural listings. They would be placing themselves at high risk.

Even PFI has its pros and cons, but this . . . it's just too much.

I also agree with Brian that they will fail to provide a flat standard service acrosss the board from small business to large-scale commercial. Unless all they are providing is optimization of meta-tags :D

[andrewgoodman]

How is this any different than paying a search engine to rank your site well via ppc?

In my mind, PPC is just a way to bribe the engines to put you at the top. I don't see how engines doing seo for people is any different. You pay them a bribe to put you at the top. No matter how they do it, you pay, they put you at the top.
It's very different.

PPC is not a "bribe." It's paying for something identifiable on market principles. Search engines must disclose the areas on their sites that are marked off for sponsor listings.

Paying a Google engineer to hard-code your site into "organic" listings would be a bribe.

[Chris_D]

So if you hire a search engine for your SEO (SE responsible even though they are outsourcing), then they are essential allowing money to influence their organic results - right?

<grins> ;)

So you guys think that I should just tear up this Google contract to be their SEO for Hire?

:eek:

Ok - its a joke. I don't have any such contract. Just joking :p

But what would you do if Google offered your company such a contract? Conflict of interest - or put in your bid?

[Kal]

Kalena Jordan started it at IHU (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=16912&perpage=10&pagenumber=1) Thanks seobook. I was just about to correct Nick when I saw you had already jumped in :p . It's an interesting move and I would imagine the FTC will see it as a major conflict of interest issue. Interesting dilemma you pose there Chris ;)

[KeywordMonkey]

My reaction would be "WTF" - have they gone mad? Half their (very clever, very employable) algorithm staff will be up in arms at the conflict of interest. Not to mention shareholders, press and so on.

Beyond that, I'd wonder if it wouldn't be time to sell up to them but stay on as a well-paid, pampered employee ;-) enjoying the Googleplex vibe!

On the conflict of interest front, that would be a hard call to make - but alsoa great opportunity.

[stuntdubl]

Every time I read about this, all I can think about is how ironic it is that a SE would take money for providing the services of their declared enemy.

Hmmm...I keep thinking about Nelson from the Simpsons making Milhouse punch himself..."stop punching yourself...why are you punching yourself"....

Hey Jeeves...stop optimizing for your self...why are you optimizing for yourself??

Seems a very strange route to go...especially when Jeeves is already using the first 10 spots for PAID adwords listings. Why not just do a sitematch-esque type program. This almost sounds like people charging for SE submission to me.
A. They optimize the site for a very low competition/ low traffic phrase - very little value provided to the consumer.
B. The consumer asks to be optimized for a highly competitive phrase and the money is spent basically in vain. I'd gladly pay $300 for a few phrases (even on Lycos), but I somehow don't think the ones I want to be ranked for are going to be done for that price.

I understand the concept...and the incentive to do so...but where is the value?

*cough*vaporware*cough*

[KeywordMonkey]

Bullseye - vaporware is right. Note that Lycos, a search engine reselling SEO, doesn't have it's own index - uses Yahoo Search technology (formerly All The Web).

Bit of a sad history of vaporware at Lycos - portal strategy, content sites (WebMonkey only just survived), Insite PPC etc.

[pdstein]

Bullseye - vaporware is right. Note that Lycos, a search engine reselling SEO, doesn't have it's own index - uses Yahoo Search technology (formerly All The Web).

While my first reaction was like most people's here - conflict of interst - it seems to me it's for this reason there is no conflict of interst. Since Lycos doesn't have its own search database, they can't manipulate the results any more than any other SEO, right?

IMO, Lycos seems to be aimlessly looking for an identity. They are a search engine with no database, sort of a portal, sort of a web host, sort of a search marketing company, and a hodge-podge of other things.

[Voodoo Buddha]

"Slycos" (Picture a weasel in a trenchcoat laundering SEO money)

"Ass-Jeeves" (nuff said!)

[KeywordMonkey]

Ask are a different case - they inherited a deal with a SEO as part of their acquisition of Interactive Search Holdings. Their CEO reportedly emailed Search Engine Lowdown to say it wasn't true they inteded to pusue SEO - http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2004/11/ask-jeeves-not-in-seo-business-or-are.html

And they do own an index - Teoma - so the conflict of interest for them is clearer.

Lycos, well..."schizophrenic" is how I'd describe their brand. They try to do many things (because they view them as cash cows) and as a result end up leading in nothing.

[Voodoo Buddha]

It is just Lycos that has done the actual promotion of an SEO "product." But is it really their product or just them acting like an agency and outsourcing SEO? Something to ask their reps at the next Search Engine Strategies conference in Chicago (that is, if they're showing up to this one).

Honestly, I think its more amusing when Web Hosting companies try to get involved in SEO. Not really a conflict of interest issue, but more of a misleading "association issue" for the uninitiated mass customer base. If you want to see one of the worst ones, go to vianetworks.com (See those "SEO testimonials?" All done with link farms.)

There's really no more conflict of interest with Lycos than with a web hosting company or a media agency merely trying to capitalize on the ignorance of the masses. (Just how much of the public really understands that Lycos is not actually a search engine? Why make a disclaimer and clear up the misunderstanding if you don't have to and it works to your sales advantage?) Just another desparate attempt for short-term gains with long-term drawbacks, not really hurting any SEO providers except for Lycos itself.

[KeywordMonkey]

Webhosting companies and SEO - no doubt some do it well. Somewhere. Yet to find them. Like web design agencies who claim to do online marketing / website promotion and build 80% Flash sites, and don't know what PPC is, let alone SEO.
Anyway, back to Lycos - they started using technolgoy provied by Inceptor but branded as Lycos, and then extended this to selling a SEO service branded Lycos but apparently is carreid out by Inceptor. More info on the links in threads above.

Oh, and the prices are, well, extortionate it seems (see the links).

[ihelpyou]

t is just Lycos that has done the actual promotion of an SEO "product." But is it really their product or just them acting like an agency and outsourcing SEO? Something to ask their reps at the next Search Engine Strategies conference in Chicago (that is, if they're showing up to this one).
I already asked the rep. They are outsourcing. The company was already named in this thread. It's a "branded" deal where the client does not know it's "not" coming from Lycos.

The SEO will give a "report" on what the client needs to change on a page by page basis. Up to 50 pages of the site is like $10,000 for this report.

Needless to say, I expressed my dis-pleasure with Lycos over this deal. They did "not" screen any other SEO's for the deal either. They were using this SEO for their "tools" already, and simply expanded with the same SEO to provide this client report.

[Vural Cifci]

It definetly is a conflict of interest. Basically what they are doing is selling their algorithm. But we also have to realize that only a small portion of companies care to be listed on Lycos. (I really don't care much about Lycos). the other issue is if you get optimized for Lycos and ASK does it mean that there will be dramatical changes to your site that may result in losing position in google and such??????

[KeywordMonkey]

It definetly is a conflict of interest. Basically what they are doing is selling their algorithm...the other issue is if you get optimized for Lycos and ASK does it mean that there will be dramatical changes to your site that may result in losing position in google and such??????Lycos don't have an algorithm of their own. Ask have said they aren't going to resell SEO - see post 27 for why.

So what you are really asking is, if a site is optimised for Yahoo Search Technology (which sLycos :) use) will this hurt the site in Google or Teoma's indexes? I think that's a topic for a new thread...maybe somebody could start one if they think it's worth covering now?

[ihelpyou]

Lycos claims their SEO services are optimization for ALL engines. It's a regular SEO type service. Let's not get confused by this.

http://ranking.lycos.com/siteside.html

That page is being advertised by PPC on Google Adwords. Check the term:

website optimization

in Google to see their PPC ad. I did not check other terms.

They are clearly a SEO now.

The deal I see is this; The FTC clearly states They want full disclosure by the se's if advertising is involved. In my mind, what Lycos is now doing is not fully disclosing "paid" advertising.

It's certainly also a "huge" conflict of interest.

[KeywordMonkey]

The deal I see is this; The FTC clearly states They want full disclosure by the se's if advertising is involved. In my mind, what Lycos is now doing is not fully disclosing "paid" advertising.

It's certainly also a "huge" conflict of interest.
At what point do the FTC start investigating? What triggers that procedure?

[ihelpyou]

Don't know. If they get enough complaints? :)

[KeywordMonkey]

Give it 6 month's at $10,000...they may find they do.

So, will Inceptor regret this - unless they charged Lycos up front and banked the cash then and there?

[Receptional]

But what would you do if Google offered your company such a contract? Conflict of interest - or put in your bid?
Reply With Quote

I'd suggest they should just buy me out lock stock and barrel so I have no conflict of interest.

Failing that, I'd pitch.

It started at....

But in the UK Lycos have been pretty much flogging various incarnations of SEO for years through third parties - often in very odd and dubious looking moulds of sales pitch. They did this with trying to sell their directory inclusions and if they had a telesales tean with any integrity employed to do it, their fortunes might have turned out differently.

But new they have chosen Inceptor, you say. Well that's OK then ;)

[KeywordMonkey]

...But in the UK Lycos have been pretty much flogging various incarnations of SEO for years through third parties - often in very odd and dubious looking moulds of sales pitch. They did this with trying to sell their directory inclusions and if they had a telesales tean with any integrity employed to do it, their fortunes might have turned out differently....
So very true - they sell expensive links next to search results outside their normal PPC deal. "Dodgy" is the best way to sum it up.

Side note: Lycos Europe have apparently pulled the "anti-spam" screensaver they released. Not that it was all a PR stunt, or has annoyed the hell out of backbone providers or anything... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/03/lycos_antispam_site_offline/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/03/lycos_antispam_site_offline/) ;)

Ahh Lycos, where are you going?