Search Engine Strategy - Imitation = Flattery?

[Jeremy_Goodrich]

There's the old saw about "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery..."...so, if this is true, then if somebody imitates my SEO strategy, I should be "happy"?

Hmm...in many ways, I don't think so - eg, there are more links on a page, less pagerank passed, and whatever 'benefit' I was getting just got downgraded by the imitator jumping on board.

To combat this, long term, the only strategic recourse seems to be development of a strategy that can't be replicated - eg, one that your company can do *only* because it relates to your firm's competitive advantage in your market.

Strategically speaking, how do you go about SEO? Is it imitation, or innovation? And, if you innovate, how do you tie in with your competitive advantage? Bundling services, promotions, mutual backslapping, etc?

[Golgotha]

Well let's face it, SEO isn't rocket science - it doesn't take much to learn the ropes. That said, not everybody can do it.

Let me explain. There are many things that are quite easy to do and yet I still pay someone to do them for me. Recently I paid someone to fix my sprinkler system, it's not that I couldn't do it, I could, I simply don't have the time to do it. I also pay someone to change the oil in my Lexus - not because I can't do it, but because I don't want to take the time.

Some people try and make SEO sound like it's harder than it is, like you're splitting the atom or something. While others tell people never to pay a SEM company, just do it yourself.

The fact is you can do alot of things yourself, if you want to take the time. You don't see people standing in front of Grease Monkey telling people to just do it themselves.

[NFFC]

>Let me explain. There are many things that are quite easy to do and yet I still pay someone to do them for me.

Sure you do.

>I paid someone to fix my sprinkler system, it's not that I couldn't do it, I could, I simply don't have the time to do it

Sure you don't.

>Some people try and make SEO sound like it's harder than it is, like you're splitting the atom or something

Good point.

>The fact is you can do alot of things yourself, if you want to take the time. You don't hear people standing in from of Grease Monkey telling people to just do it themselves.

Exactly.

Let me guess, you are in an uncompetitive keyword area and have yet to experience the "ass handed to you" scenario?

[Robert_Charlton]

Since we're inevitably reverse engineering algos, I think most of us, at least at first, learn by some degree of imitation, by studying what works, looking at pages that rank well and at linking networks, sharing information, reading in fora, etc. I've follow this up by experimentation, observation, testing.

Do I look at competitors backlinks? Yes, of course. When you're playing poker, you look for every facial twitch and clue you can get. Do I confine myself just to these backlink sources? Not if I want to beat them.

Do I read competitors pages? Less and less... They're usually pretty terrible.

To combat this, long term, the only strategic recourse seems to be development of a strategy that can't be replicated - eg, one that your company can do *only* because it relates to your firm's competitive advantage in your market.

I'm assuming here you're talking about the client firm's competitive advantage, not to the SEO firm's, but in a way it doesn't matter, because the same principles apply and there's actually a continuum between the two.

I think we inevitably must go with our strengths. In some market areas, where the goods are pretty much the same, the site(s) and the optimizing become part of the advantage. Some SEO/SEMs choose to compete on the basis of quality... others might try quantity... others throw money at it.

In movie acting, they say that the hardest thing to fake is sincerity. I've found that the quality approach works best for me, and in SEO it's the hardest for others to fake. Others won't get the same links that I do, eg, even when they check my backlinks, because I've built a better site and made a more careful approach to get the links.

But there are companies that build sites and get backlinks faster than the engines can nuke them... and maybe for them quantity works best. I like to think the days of sheer quantity are numbered, because I'm competing with it, so I do try to come up with ways of multiplying my efforts, but I'm pretty much a hand crafted guy. For some market areas, this approach may well not compete. I'm pleasantly surprised, though, how often it works.

I should add that the client is a big part of the equation. A company with a good product and reputation is much easier to optimize for. In areas of uniform goods, you'd better stand out in terms of price or service.

[Jeremy_Goodrich]

>>>uncompetitive keyword area and have yet to experience the "ass handed to you" scenario?

LMFAO, actually.

>>client's competitive advantage...seo firm's...a continuum between the two

Nice word choice. And yes, spot on, actually.

[St0n3y]

The best competitive advantages are quality and service. Some SEOs have neither, some have just one or the other, but the best (and fewest) have both. There is room for all as some people don't necessarily want to pay the cost that quality or service entails, much in the same way that not everybody buys the BMW or gets the 10/year, 100,000 warranty.