Top Ten Ways SEM Companies Bend The Truth To Win Business

[Igor718]

We had people come in from a pretty popular SEM company .... you know them for sure. Here are things they mentioned.

1. With Yahoo and Google you can do Paid Inclusion and get higher ranking. We can get you in top 10 quickly.

2. Our engineers know what Google will do with their algorithm in the future.

3. Google Site Maps is a great thing to get better results in rankings.

Guys and ladies ... please tell me your opinion on this??? Do they deserve a boot in their A**?

I am particularly interested in their "Paid Inclusion" suggestion.

[bhartzer]

When they mention "paid inclusion" they're talking about PPC (e.g., Google Adwords or Yahoo! Search Marketing).

Absolutely no one know what search engine engineers will do in the future. The Google algorithm is more closely guarded than the Coca Cola recipe.

Google sitemaps has absolutely nothing to do with actual search engine rankings.

[Nomadic]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

When they mention "paid inclusion" they're talking about PPC (e.g., Google Adwords or Yahoo! Search Marketing).

Absolutely no one know what search engine engineers will do in the future. The Google algorithm is more closely guarded than the Coca Cola recipe.

Google sitemaps has absolutely nothing to do with actual search engine rankings.

I agree! Sounds like you were fed some hogwash!

[sootledir]

1) You don't need Paid Inclusion, and it won't guarantee your result. PPC means you Pay for clicks. You don't need them for that
2) Bullcrap. Their engineers wouldn't know if a meteorite was about to hit them, let alone what Google is going to do. Google is the text case for "Rule by Secrecy"
3) Google Sitemaps is for Sissys.

[David Wallace]

1. I have always been suspicious that Yahoo gives some preference to paid inclusion even though they will never admit to it. Google doesn't have paid inclusion and hopefully never will.

2. Load of BS.

3. Site maps can help if pages were having issues getting indexed but site maps itself gives no boost just for the fact that someone is using the program alone.

So, yeah, all in all sounds like you were fed a line.

[Chris Boggs]

1. I hate to be contradictory , but paid Inclusion IMO is becoming a very sound option to PPC, especially in areas where the Cost Per Click is going through the roof. If you can get PI for less than a buck per click, that blows the pants off paying way more, which we know happens now more and more frequently. I feel that the site has to be sound in order to rank highly when participating in PI. I do hope Google ends up offering such a program.

2. No one knows Google's future algo changes, not even Google.

3. what David said below.

[shor]

It sounds like a Guy Kawasaki list of Top 10 Lies told by SEOs.

1. With Yahoo and Google you can do Paid Inclusion and get higher ranking. We can get you in top 10 quickly.
We can get you in top 10 of MSN search quickly if you aren't in travel, real estate, porns/pills/casinos or any other competitive industry.

2. Our engineers know what Google will do with their algorithm in the future.
Our engineers spend half of their day reading Webmaster World Google algorithm update threads.

3. Google Site Maps is a great thing to get better results in rankings.
We got tired of creating sites with a good navigational structure and a real site map, so we dump everything into Google SiteMaps.

Let's fill out the list!

4. Our expertise includes a SEO Knowledge Transfer session for your development team.
We're too lazy to put together a proper brief so we've prepared a generic powerpoint presentation for your developers.

5. We have several Fortune 500 clients on our portfolio
Last year, AA|Razorfish outsourced a search project to a SEM company who outsourced the PPC keyword campaign to us.

6. That was the fault of an overzealous junior optimizer who is no longer with the company.
We've since promoted the optimizer responsible for the hidden link text on Expedia/FT Online/Colgate to the role of senior search engineer.

7. We have extensive connections within the SEO industry that are on hand for consultation.
We outsource.

8. We share a deep rapport with industry experts such as Danny Sullivan, Matt Cutts, Tim Mayer
I took a picture of the panel speaking at SES San Jose and posted in the comments section of their blogs.

[Marcia]

Google has no paid inclusion and never has. Paid inclusion isn't the same thing as PPC.

[glengara]

Nice one Shor, and unfortunately probably a fairly accurate "translation" ;-)

[PeteBKay]

"3. Google Site Maps is a great thing to get better results in rankings."

That's akin to "We carefully hand-submit your site to the top search engines each month."

[Wilksy]

We have a player in SEO over here in Oz that ranks all of his clients in the serps via subdomains off his SEO and Travel domain. He also cloaks and braggs about it on his SEO site, which is no big deal considering he cannot get the best rankings anyway. He does rank very well in areas however.

Anyway he gets a lot of business and controls a fair amount of local businesses refferals from the web. My only problem is what happens when he pushes it too far and ruins everyone's rankings (his included) and faith in SEO. He has launched legit sites (although sub domains) unfinished and half cloaked into the top 10 before, which is fairly amatuer at best.

Recently after an update he got his site booted for one of the most popular accommodation search strings that a lot of his clients rely on for traffic I gave him a call and asked him to please be a little more careful with other people's web presences. He was a very nice man, to say the least.

The phone call was interesting, he simply rang his mate at Google Australia and got reincluded after 3 weeks. Oh and removed his htags positioned 5000px off the page, so some spam reports must work (and no I don't report the site).

Also he treats his clients like affiliates and if they are not getting traffic, it's OK cos he's not making money. I was shocked, it's people like this that ruin business's faith in SEO.

While it's no massive beef, hell make SEO as obscure as you can, works to my favour. But it's a shame when clients loose faith in SEO period cos they will need bailing out eventually...

added/

It is a great business model though, it's very interesting how much info you can glean from compeditors. It's a shame he can't actually link build and get their sites ranking independant of his network of sites, but I am sure that one day he will have to (oh and I cannot wait to see that day ).

[bobmutch]

On #2 I think that some SEO's do know what Google is going to to in the future with their algo. I got out of doing recip's for my clients over a year ago. I saw the writing on the wall and so did many others.

Those in the know have been saying for some time that Trustrank is going to get a larger slice of the ranking weight pie and that has happened (and they directed their clients it look at ways to get Trustlinks).

I am telling people that the next big thing it get hit is the 1000's of spammy web directories and/or the spammy article sites.

Some SEO companies don't have a clue where the market is going, others do. Site ownes need to hook up with those that are in the know and have a good idea where the Google algo is going.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Also he treats his clients like affiliates and if they are not getting traffic, it's OK cos he's not making money. I was shocked, it's people like this that ruin business's faith in SEO.

I have to disagree with that. In fact, it is exactly business models like that, that will save the SEO business. The problem today is that too many clients pay too much and gets nothing in return. If you only pay your SEO-firm for the values they actually bring how can that be bad? Well, maybe it's bad for the ones that don't deliver but honestly, I don't care for them. If you are not good enough to actually bring value to your clients you shoudn't be in this game to begin with

[PhilC]

2. Our engineers know what Google will do with their algorithm in the future.

That made me laugh out loud!

bobmutch. You were a wee bit late getting out of reciprocals - I never got into them, so maybe you picked it up from me j/k

Seriously, Bob. Nobody knows Google's future algo. Some people make educated guesses, and get lucky, that's all. But the educated guesses are based on what we think are good ideas for search engines, and everyone has plenty of those - such as, I predict that Google's future algo will do away with hidden text in the serps (note that you read it here first). Of course, people have been saying that many years, but one day they'll be right, and they can claim to have been clever enough to have known - but they didn't know.

I remember 2½ years ago, when Jill announced in her newsletter that reciprocal linking is dead - way before you got out of them (maybe that's where you got it from). But they weren't dead.

Nobody "knows" Google's future algo - people only guess, and occasionally they guess right, and some of them even contrive to make a new update fit something they'd said a while back to make themselves look clever.

I agree with Mikkel. There aren't many SEOs who are willing to put their bank account where their mouth is, but those that do are bound to do a good job, or they don't get the money. The problem with the Aussie guy is that the traffic comes via his sites, so the clients are permanently tied to him if they wants to keep the traffic. I think that's a bad model for clients, and the model can be used to create doorway sites that are liable for penalties, but there are other ways of doing it that are better.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Phil, with me its pretty simple: If you only want to to pay for traffic, sales or conversions you only get that - not a website. If you want me to make you a website, or optimize yours, I'll do that too, but most often it is just not possible to do so on a performance basis, as there are too many factors out of my control. If I build the trafic on my sites, I am in full control and can take full respisibility - if I don't deliver, I don't get paid. Thats a very honest model.

I've done on-site performance based deals too, but they are so much more complicated to do and not the least track and monitor.

[glengara]

It's a recognised business model Mikkel, but at the end of the day "the site" is still in the gutter....

[Wilksy]

Mikkel, I have no issues if that part is discussed with the client, but this guy does not and many come to him for optimisation of their website and can not really leave.

It is an excellent model if outlined appropriately to the client.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

You should allways be honest to your clients

[PhilC]

Phil, with me its pretty simple: If you only want to to pay for traffic, sales or conversions you only get that - not a website

That's fine, Mikkel, although I've never come across a client, or potential client, who wasn't bothered if their own site attracted the traffic or not, but then I never asked. If I'd asked, my guess would be that they would all want their own sites to rank highly for the traffic - that's why they approach me in the first place - but I'd also guess that some would settle for no traffic - no payment, even if it meant that their own sites weren't SEOed.

The reason I dislike the model is because a client is tied to it on an ongoing basis. As soon as he ends the deal, the traffic stops, and he's gained nothing in the serps, so he is back to where he was before. It's not seo for a site - it's just traffic.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

It's not seo for a site - it's just traffic.

True, and there is billions of dollars made each year on "just" getting traffic. It's a HUGE market.

As soon as he ends the deal, the traffic stops

Yes, exactly like PPC-engines, TV-advertising, newspaper ads and just about any marketing you can buy. It really is just PR and onsite-SEO where you get to keep the traffic after you stop paying. In fact, that is the least common concept around