Didier Bizimungu had a post on his SEO News Blog that circulated around the industry. The subject was the top 10 SEO leaders, and since Didier asked for my opinion, I thought I'd share it publicly. Here's Didier's list:
- Daron Babin
- Matt Cutts
- Rand Fishkin
- Jim Boykin
- Aaron Wall
- Danny Sullivan
- Barry Schwartz
- Bill Slawski
- Todd Malicoat
- Andy Beal
These are certainly influential and important folks (except for number 3 - that guy's small time), but by no means do I feel this list is accurate in any sense. I think that in order to come up with a list of influencers, it's first critical to think about the criteria you'd judge. These are mine:
- Ability to Reach a Large Audience
Whether through blogs, feeds, a forum, traditional media, or podcasts, an influencer needs to have a sizable reach. - Ability to Influence Decision Makers
A person with the ability to speak directly to people at the search engines, from the advertising side to the search engineers to the executives, as well as important folks in media, advertising, and related businesses (think Amazon, IAC or IBM). - Credibility
There are plenty of folks with large audiences who have a credibility gap - if you don't have the belief and trust of your listeners, you may be entertaining or even valuable, but your influence wanes. Credibility in our industry is about more than just telling the truth - it also includes a component of importance; thus, while you might consider SEOmoz "credible" in the usual sense of the word, for these purposes, I'd give a low credibility score. Unless some other folks write about the same subject and spread our ideas, we're fairly insulated.
Based on these criteria, here's who I'd rank in the top ten in the search marketing industry and my relative score levels (out of 10; higher is better) for each. Note that I've opted only to include those folks who regularly participate in industry gatherings (SES, Pubcon, etc.), thus excluding obvious list-toppers like Eric Schmidt or Jerry Yang:
- Danny Sullivan
Audience Size: 8/10 (used to be even higher at SEW, and probably will again soon - this also includes the entire SES conference audience and surrounding media)
Decision Makers: 10/10
Credibility: 10/10 - Michael Arrington
Audience Size: 10/10
Decision Makers: 9/10
Credibility: 7/10 (while Techcrunch matters, it doesn't have the same level of impact that Danny does with the search industry specifically) - Matt Cutts
Audience Size: 7/10
Decision Makers: 9/10
Credibility: 8/10 - John Battelle
Audience Size: 7/10
Decision Makers: 8/10
Credibility: 8/10 - Brett Tabke
Audience Size: 8/10
Decision Makers: 7/10
Credibility: 8/10 (the only reason I'd put him behind John is because he contributes so infrequently to the search world's dialogue) - Tim Mayer
Audience Size: 4/10
Decision Makers: 8/10
Credibility: 7/10 - Barry Schwartz
Audience Size: 7/10
Decision Makers: 7/10
Credibility: 7/10 - Shawn Hogan
Audience Size: 8/10 (all of Digitalpoint is included here)
Decision Makers: 4/10
Credibility: 5/10 - Philipp Lenssen
Audience Size: 6/10
Decision Makers: 6/10
Credibility: 6/10 - Jeremy Schoemaker
Audience Size: 7/10
Decision Makers: 6/10
Credibility: 5/10
(I struggled putting Shoemoney here, as there may well be some quieter, behind-the-scenes folks who have extraordinary influence in the search world. I also suspect that someone like Greg Boser, Mike Grehan, or Andrew Goodman might belong here, despite their smaller audiences, simply because of their ability to connect with decision makers)
While my list has preserved a few of Didier's choices, it's largely unique. While owners of SEO/M firms like myself, Jim Boykin, and Aaron Wall may have significant audiences, it's my general belief that the folks above all have a greater power to influence. My scores would probably look something like:
- Rand Fishkin
Audience Size: 6/10
Decision Makers: 6/10
Credibility: 5/10
Now, Didier's criteria could easily have been based on other crtieria like exposure or name recognition, in which case I'd still dispute a few of his choices. He noted in his post that it was predicated on "influence and the amount of time they’ve sacrificed in the industry." By that criteria, I think my list holds up fairly well, though folks like Arrington and Battelle are slight outsiders to the specific field of search marketing.
Your opinions?
I think the definition of the term "leader" is the problem. It's almost like there needs to be two lists, one for "industry" leaders and one for "content" or "inspiration" leaders. I like Didier's list a bit better (it's more on the "content and inspiration" side) because these are more of the SEOs that affect me day to day in terms of tips, help, and real-life examples.
Your list, Rand, is great too, because these are the ones (mostly) who have REALLY helped make SEO what it is today, even though they may not be as "directly" influential. If 10 weren't such a cool number, I would have included 12 top SEOs on Didier's list with Lee Odden and Michael Gray on there.
Ok, I've seen a TON of lists like this one out recently and I find them somewhat valuable, but what I would find A LOT more valuable is the answer to this question included with the list: "What the author learned from ____ SEO leader and what he/she believes you should know about them and WHY." The "why" part being of most importance.
good point.
Alot depends on strategy and networking - who gets chosen for these types of lists.
Search Engines WEB has probably had more influence on the Search Engines than any of them - but you'd never know it.
Maybe we should check for and define by ability, and start a contest: who will be number one on Google for "SEO leader". ;-) I guess there are many small scale "experts" that work on their sites and get good rankings within their niche by using common advice they find from various sources. The real leaders, I believe, are those that try new things, beat the competition through SEO innovation or secret insights, and than share it with their audience, whether large or small. I will be a happy follower applying their advice on my home turf and gain a few positions, lacking the connections, resources, and experience to invent these new techniques myself.
I'm not sure I buy into the concept of a list, much less this list. The way you define what SEO of a certain generation means to you seems to determine who is on the list. These things can get cliquish, and certain forms of "media" exposure mean less than others in terms of the substance behind them.
One measure I might go by is how often I feel truly compelled - by way of making a certain point - to cite someone's name and their work, in a serious discussion with a client or colleague in the business network generally.
On my list Rand and SEOMoz get included, but not necessarily for the reasons you might think. It's that list of SE ranking factors that is helpful in touching base to see how much people know and where we start in conversation.
To follow up on a thread on another blog, I have in fact mentioned Jill Whalen to someone because I know of few who provide a better exemplar of a "white hat" and someone who has a primer out on SEO copywriting, than Jill (there are others but you are often asked for a list of 2-3 resources - I get lots of email - and that means "one per category").
Others who get cited out of necessity include Danny (goes without saying), Matt Cutts, Mike Grehan, and Eric Ward. Chris Sherman gets mentions because of his direct involvement with the trade shows, in particular. Let's not forget Detlev.
Because of things I feel the need to explain to people, on more than a few occasions I have mentioned Marshall Simmonds because the role of SE expert at About.com and its history still resonates with the large scale content, in house crowd.
In the past, on the search/research side, Chris along with Gary and Tara would get mentions to folks interested in that side.
Because Greg Jarboe is leading the charge on something new, he gets mentioned.
I also mention Shari Thurow. Last time I checked there are still few good answers to "where can I read a book about SEO," and so I recommend hers. I've also mentioned Bill Hunt's book, though he wouldn't make it in the top ten by frequency of mentions.
Anyway, probably 20 people might make my list because our industry is so specialized, and it's those specialized contributions that form the building blocks of real life interactions. My reasons for mentioning people don't refer too much to the podcast or blog du jour because that is personality based as opposed to functional/substantive/making a particular point.
While I am all for the cult of personality if it leads some of us to be overpaid, (let's hope), let's give credit where credit is due in the rest of the biz. Naming 10 is too tough, especially when you waste one on Arrington, who is influential in general, but then again so is Godin or Kedrosky for that matter. Because Danny and Matt have to be on any list, you're down to eight. Bonne chance! :)
I know this is an older post but I really dislike the idea of "Top SEO", reason being is that each niche is different, each individual or organization has a different focus.
Additionally quite a few experts are very low key. You might argue that these could be the SEO's with the best industry level marketing or most effective SEOs.
Also Matt Cutts is an engineer and not specifically an SEO. Who knows I could be wrong. :)
Great information, I agree with everything that you talk about to what increases all the SEO efforts and also what it takes to get a site ranked high.
Matt Cutts is a great spokesperson for Google, and he does give out a few good tips here and there, but how in the world does that make him one of the Top Ten SEO Leaders? Please don't take this the wrong way. I think Matt is a great guy and all, but there is no way he makes the top ten.
If Matt was not with Google how much advice would you really take from him? Not as much as I would from the other great names on that list.
Boy do I hate Top 10 lists and Number 1's. I think we all have our own top 10's. Different people in this industry do different things for us if different ways. To be honest, some of these guys on your lists are so big that I could care less about them. They're not "leading" me in any way. It's the guys that return my emails or help the little guys out that I think are better leaders. Andy did a contest, Todd straight up asked us if we needed help getting a job, and Bill constantly gives me ideas on improving my business. These are the real leaders in my book.
I have to agree with oatmeal - Michael Arrington has nothing to do with the SEO industry. Granted TechCrunch is hugely successful, and is a media outlet that reaches tens of thousands of people daily, the reach is the tech/IT community, not the marketing community.
Including Arrington would lead to including Guy Kawasaki and possibly Robert Scoble, who have a huge audience, but no authority with the search industry.
One poll I would be interested in is to see which SEO company or service offering Guy Kawasaki would invest in and why. SEO is a huge industry, but as Rand's list shows, it is not at all dominated by one player.
Could a venture capitalist bankroll a firm that would be the Microsoft of SEO?
I'm surprised you put Michael Arrington on there. TechCrunch isn't online marketing centric, he mostly just reviews web 2.0 (or just plain new) stuff online.
Granted, there's a lot of overlap with SEO and web 2.0 - especially in social media. This doesn't seem enough to qualify him as a leader in SEO though.
Arrington has a HUGE influence on the world of search and search engines - both the 3 majors and in nearly every other vertical. His connections to business people at the engines, at major advertising firms, and to other major influencers is hard to overlook, despite the fact that he's not a primary player in our specific market.
I am surprised that someone like Brad Fallon isn't included.
He targets a different SEO audience, but is very influential in a different way.
https://menofseo.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html
He may be overlooked by other people, but not everyone ;)
I have to agree with you on Brad. Much different from what most of us do, but he sure is an SEO leader.
Pretty good list in my estimation. I would consider putting someone up there like dNaylor though. Considering the "ability to affect decision makers", I bet some of the stuff blackhats post gets decision makers moving a lot faster than any phone call from one of those folks in the top 10.
PS: What about that unsung SEO superstar russ jones? I hear he is pretty awesome. :)
Good point on Dave Naylor. Not many people get to share drinks with Larry and Sergei.
I think the danger in such lists is that it can only focus on the public faces - the speakers - who top the industry.
In terms of the actual top SEO's - that would probably be determined by market vertical and client base, and dominated by the Pills, Porn, and Casino SEO's, many of which I suspect you will never hear the names of.
Except DaveN. :)
Agreed Ibrian. Top SEOs and top public figure SEOs are two different segments for pretty good reasons; that's not to say there isn't a certain amount of overlap though.
I'd tend to create a list based on the SEO results I know people to have achieved (temporarily removing PPC success, social network success that didn't affect SEO, etc), but again that doesn't really mesh with the term "leaders", which appears to be more synonymous with spokespeople of the general SEM industry.
End result: everyone has a different list and that is probably for the best.
Cygnus
Again, I, Brian tells it like it is. No doubt that the list has many qualified SEO's, but Rand and Ditier have compiled a list of people who speak at conferences (ie-SES) all the freakin time (or are prominent bloggers in the industry). There are plenty of amazing SEO's out there that not only know how to naturally optimize, but know a thing or two about how to execute a solid online marketing campaign by vertical. SEO is awesome, but it is not the entire picture.
If this is strictly SEO leaders I think DaveN, Oilman, and WebGuerrilla have to got to make that list.
Much more influential and credible in the SEO community than others on your list Rand. They may not blog/talk as much, but when they do people listen.
Thats a good point drew! But even still there are people in the industry that are doing huge things in search but not publicly looking for recognition. DaveN is pretty public though as I have heard him a lot on webmasterradio.fm. Very smart guy ;-).