"Search Engine Optimization" "Search Engine Marketing" SERPs as Potential Candidates

[! !]

A Search Engine Optimization Firm

and/or

A Search Engine Marketing Firm


would probably aspire to be in the TOP 30 on Google for those terms

(or analogous terms: Search Engine Positioning or Placement),

and in the Top 20 on other Search Services at least...


Should Not one filter the potential of a SEM, SEO - or hybrid of both - firm by how well they ranked on the high-traffic engines with their site(s) as one major point of consideration?


Would a firm NOT aspire for a visible ranking for those terms
(regardless of whether they are a Marketing versus an Optimization Firm or BOTH)?

...and if a firm's only visiblity for those terms was Sponsored Links

what could one infer about their "Abilties & Flexibilities" :confused:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79&page=4

[Daria_Goetsch]

Choosing which SEO/SEM firm to hire should not be based solely on what rank they have in the search engines.

There are all sorts of factors pertaining to how a company ranks in the search engines. Some companies are new, so they don't rank well yet. Some companies do not care about ranking, or they are focused on the PPC end of things. Some companies are so busy working they do not have time to spend ranking themselves. And some companies do not want to show up in the rankings. How big or how small a company is and how much they charge does not automatically say how proficient they are in their services, either.

Many factors should be used to rate a SEO/SEM company for possible hire. Take each situation on a case by case basis to find a good fit for your company needs.

[Elisabeth]

! ! - You need to STOP putting Font/Color tags into your posts now, as we have disabled the system's ability to render them properly, as we feely plain text is simply more user friendly. Please don't create more work for our already hard working volunteer moderators who have to continually edit them out of your posts for cleaner reading.


As to the point of the post, sure, aspiring to be in those top slots is fine and dandy, an admirable goal - and of course prospective customers of SEM firms may take that into partial consideration when hiring a consultant, but it's only one small factor to consider.

It's basic math. There's only a limited amount of slots available - hence, the Top 30.

At this point, there's so many "SEO/SEM firms", both credible and non, that not everyone is going to rank that high for every related keyword phrase. and as we've seen many times over, dubious tactics can get you into the top slots, at least for a limited time.

The industry is starting to shake out pretty nicely at this point. those at the top of the game are getting business primarily on referrals at this point anyway, and don't need to market themselves, as they already have full client rosters. Customer budgets are going to factor in to whom they hire as well, so "top 30" may or may not having any bearing on that at all.

Additionally, those SEO's who have been in the game for awhile are starting to create specialties or niche markets for themselves, being ranked for the most generalized terms aren't necessarily important to them.

[Terry Plank]

Daria, I agree 100%. Also, not all the top 30 results for these keywords are going to be SEM/SEO companies. Even if they were, only 30 get to be in the top 30 and there are certainly more companies than that doing excellent work!

Some of the best firms I know and recommend are not in the top 30. :-)

[Webmaster T]

[CENTER]A Search Engine Optimization Firm
Would a firm NOT aspire for a visible ranking for those terms
(regardless of whether they are a Marketing versus an Optimization Firm or BOTH)?Agreed, but there are also conversions and competition to consider. I have been in the top ten for search engine optimization and although the quantity of enquiries and traffic was higher the quality was not so good.

From a competition perspective I think those choosing other optimization terms for the short term looking to move up on the others in the long term is a good strategy. It took about 6 months to reach the top ten on Google, we never reached that high on any other engine. However, on lesser terms we achieved total visibility. Often the traffic generated from a large list of other lesser terms will provide equal traffic with higher conversion rates. No use in trying to reach Mars if you only have enough fuel and the technology to get to the Moon.

IMO, choosing realistic terms should be a positive not a negative because it illustrates thorough and complete keyword research. Not every site has the means or $ to support a campaign for really competitive terms that often don't convert very well! IMO, that's just using the time the client is paying for efficiently. Anybody can run WordTracker or check the Overture inventory and base optimization candidates on those numbers. The skill is picking the right keywords within the context and budget of the campaign they are being used in.

[Joseph Morin]

Actually, the best firms that I know are not in the top rankings for those terms as those terms simply do not convert well. The average marketing manager will use other keywords to query assistance with search marketing campaigns but more often than not will simply ask collegues for recommendations.

When we pitch potential clients, we never mention rankings - we speak about targeted traffic and conversions, usability and ROI...and the potential to generated new revenue streams by applying strategic initiatives. We don't get any traffic from our website nor do we want to (rather ironic no?), We work harder at turning away clients than at marketing ourselves simply because the word of mouth referrals are more than we can handle.

The inquiries that we do get from the web are unqualified and arent aware of our reputation or what we can provide and need an additional sales pitch and these potential clients are also getting competitive quotes from our collegues here with whom we would rather not pitch against, we'd rather just hand it off to them. A new client is much more qualified when they know a firms reputation and based on that alone they do not wish to seek other quotes because they want top tier results and they have complete faith and confidence in what that firm recommends based upon a past history of measurable results and client referrals, NOT rankings.

[steve sardell]

There is an old trite saying that is still true: Market to your market. As has already been stated more eloquently than I can aspire, many firms do not need to be found for the general phrases. Web consulting, whether it be SEO, SEM, link building, copywriting, etc. can and often is built by referral. It is a business where one does not need to pitch heat, or as Joseph said, A new client is much more qualified when they know a firms reputation and based on that alone they do not wish to seek other quotes because they want top tier results and they have complete faith and confidence in what that firm recommends based upon a past history of measurable results and client referrals, NOT rankings

[Wail]

I agree. And disagree. We've grown our own tree and handed out our own pieces of rope here.

Yes, a search engine optimisation firm should rank well for the key phrases it has chosen to promote itself with. Many SEO firms decide to target a different set of phrases and if they can convince clients that that was due to their marketing savvy then it'll earn the SEO firm two-scale rewards.

No, a search engine optimisation firm should concentrate on promoting their clients rather than fighting over the limited limelight spots for itself.

[NFFC]

The best guys and girls I have ever come across don't even have web sites. If they could rank that would be amazing!

[seobook]

a top ranking for something like "seo" shows that you are spending a bunch to promote your site or work on your own site a ton. it does not guarantee that you are willing to put that same amount of effort into clients websites.

there are some great SEOs who do not even have websites.

[Wail]

It does show that the SEO can spend the money and get the results. I imagine some SEOs wouldn't be able to even if they had the money.

Remember, though, I'm torn in this debate.

I'm not sure I follow the "Some good SEOs don't have a web site". Why? Don't they love the web?

[NFFC]

>"Some good SEOs don't have a web site". Why? Don't they love the web?


Maybe they are too busy. ;)

[yellowwing]

It does show that the SEO can spend the money and get the results.

Agree. I think its a business function to be ranked in the top 5 for these phrases. The corporate firms have the capacity, and process, to field all the sales leads generated.

Gosh knows, if I was ranked 3rd, I'd spend most of my time on the phone and not on the grunt work of SEO. It would only work if I had a trained sales staff and many technicians. Then I would need much more office space, a network, dental plans... :eek:

[Robert_Charlton]

I think it would be foolish for any SEO... of whatever hat color... to expose his clients and his linking resources to the kind of scrutiny that a top ranking for search engine optimizing etc would invite.