Hey Gang, let's pick up our Pubcon coverage pretty much exactly where Jane left off since, as it would happen, I was sitting in on the same link building panel that she had to leave early. Once again, I'm not going to give the blow-by-blow of these sessions (there are plenty of people live blogging these things to the point of transcription) but I'll try to offer some overall impressions and greatest hits.
Link Building Campaigns & Strategies
Jane already touched on the first part of this presentation, which was actually fairly standard issue: Jim Boykin offered a very 101 approach to grind-it-out link building (a directory here, some forum participation there, then a long slog of begging for links), which certainly wasn't sexy, but the guy is successful so it'd be foolish to discount his methods as ineffective, if dull.
Greg Hartnett gave an entertaining spiel about the value of directory links. Rand caught a lot of flack awhile ago for saying that most directories were crap, so it was nice to hear El Capitan from Best of The Web agree in large part: most directories are crap. If you want effective directory links, you have to find editorially reviewed directories with good history and good editorial management. Don't expect any bait-like traffic from directories, but the low flow you do get will be minimal, though it tends to be targeted and high-converting. Greg finished off with a shout out to DMOZ, suggesting that, despite corruption issues at times, it's still a valuable resource and a good operation in general. At which point Open Directory Project founder and session moderator Chris Tolles chimed in with perhaps my favorite quote of the day: "The ODP is now run by a fiercely anti-commercial cabal of former East German Communist Librarians, that's the problem." And no, he wasn't joking! So if you ever feel like you're being thrown out of the blimp for having "no ticket" when you submit to DMOZ, that's why.
Rae Hoffman then fired off an awesome and very valuable presentation on the does and don'ts of outsourcing or hiring for link development. Her presentation will be up at her blog, and I suggest anyone who wants to bring in new folks to handle link building for them read her incredible questions to ask contractors and/or prospective hires--they'll save you a lot of headaches. Rae did suggest looking to recurring conference sponsors as good indicators for good link building/buying contractors. While I won't say that all conference sponsors are problematic, I couldn't help but think of perennial conference imprint Text Link Ads who, along with Text Link Brokers, were unanimously slammed by the entire panel as doing more harm than good due to their large footprints and semi-public link inventories.
Roger Montti finished out with "Alternative Link Building," which amounted to a link buying 101 course, particularly for negotiating one-to-one link buys from relevant sites (tip: negotiate a reasonable annual payment, avoid monthly). Most of the panel, particularly moderator Chris, seemed to cringe a bit at Roger's open talk about the oft-maligned practice of link buying, with Chris outright saying, "The methods Roger's talking about will get you penalized." Yeah, well, maybe. But more about that below when I discuss the Link Buying session.
Rae did shoot in with an excellent point about "site relevance." Roger mentioned the industry-standard example that a travel site shouldn't look for links on a cooking site. Rae countered that if your site does travel to Thailand, offering up some content about authentic Thai cooking to a strong cooking site could be very complimentary. You've got to think outside the box when it comes to relevance.
The overall takeaway from this session: Link building is dull, tedious, NOT instantaneous, but incredibly important in the life of most webmasters and SEOs, so approach it carefully, thoughtfully, and patiently.
Email Marketing with Dr. Ralph Wilson
There ain't much controversy in Email Marketing folks. Dr. Ralph is among the most respected dudes around on this topic and he was speaking by himself, so don't expect fireworks. Email still offers among the highest ROI of any ad approach, so the big tricks all lie in formatting and delivery issues.
To nobody's surprise, HTML email has a 2-3x higher click through than text, but multi-part MIME is the way to go in order to get past certain spam filters and corporate mailbox controls. Images should be used sparingly and content should be tight and brief, with links to full versions of articles if necessary.
The big topic in this session was permission. There was some debate from the sparse audience about whether opt-in checkboxes should be checked or unchecked by default, especially in the face of CAN-SPAM easy opt-out requirements. Unchecked provides a more respectful user experience, while checked is obviously better for building a larger (but possibly lower quality) subscriber list.
I wish there was something more exciting to offer here, but alas. So let's move on to something that was a bit more exciting...
Link Buying
We all know that link buying has been the BIG NEWS for some time now, what with PageRank shuffling SERPrise Parties courtesy of Google, and a general McCarthy-like fog of fear, uncertainty, and doubt haunting the search-scape. So, with the spectre of Matt Cutts holding court in the back of the room like a bespectacled, cat-loving Don Corleone, Rand, Jim Boykin, John Lessnau, and Aaron Wall led a spirited discussion on link buying.
LinkXL's John Lessnau led off with a brief presentation that amounted to the all-too-obvious link buying caveat: If it seems obvious, it's crap. Don't get caught if you can help it...next.
The ever brilliant Aaron Wall disappointed with a cop-out presentation presenting "alternatives" to straight-out link buying....aka organic link building. It was basically the Bizarro-world flip-side of Roger Montti's buying presentation in the building panel. Aaron did suggest a few interesting tactics though, such as buying AdWords for your high quality content pieces in an effort to become an expert resource on that topic, especially in the eyes of the media.
Jim Boykin, who during the earlier Link Building panel had told the audience (with full-on slacker braggadocio) that he hadn't bothered to put his presentation together until the morning of the session, showed up to this panel with a beautiful, fully fleshed-out, and sublimely useful dissertation on the perils of link buying. Of course by, "beautiful, fully fleshed-out, and sublimely useful dissertation on the perils of link buying," what I mean is "45 seconds of insinuating loosely that most built links are paid and absolutely no presentation materials." Benefit of the doubt, maybe he was placed on this panel at the last minute (doubt it, he's listed in the published conference guide), but this kind of performance is insulting. People pay a lot of money to come to these shows and see these presentations. I know speakers don't get paid, but agreeing to do a session and then showing up with nothing is bullshit, in my humble opinion. Jim's a smart guy and I like him plenty, but come on.
Maybe the previous presenters were a little slim on materials because they knew what I didn't: this panel would default to The Rand Fishkin Show. Yes, I work with the guy, so this may seem like sucking-up, but Rand's presentation was great. Opening with some great illustrations depicting the ideal web versus the real, cash-influenced web, Rand attempted to dissect why the engines are so concerned with cracking down on paid links (they think it'll provide a better search experience and, thus, increase market share) and what could be considered acceptable (or at least invisible) based on conversations he had with Matt Cutts and Eytan Seidman. The takeaway here: avoid above-the-radar brokers with public or easily accessible link inventory, use sneaky brokers, one-to-one link buys, and links that result as secondary assets of business relationships.
Rand finished out by suggesting the need for an above-board, editorially controlled link marketplace, similar in nature to current paid review and blog services, but more transparent and keeping to Mr. Cutts' oft-quoted permission of editorially reviewed paid links such as the Yahoo! Directory.
The Q&A got pretty interesting, with moderator Detlev Johnson obviously having something to say on the topic (and clearly getting a little annoyed when Rand repeatedly called on audience members, usurping Detlev's mod duties). Detlev vehemently asserted that buying links is not a crime. Google is not the law, and they shouldn't have this much power over linking practices. An audience member named Jason (perhaps Rand can add his last name) countered that Detlev was correct: Google is not the government, or the law, or regulated in any way; they're just a website and they can run their website however the hell they choose to. He added that suggestions of FCC regulation and such were ridiculous because the FCC is an American institution and Google is an American company, but it serves and is used by a global community.
There was a lot of discussion about how young sites may need to buy links as a springboard to visibility, after which they can build natural links and coast on reputation, much like old sites that may be incredibly stale but have the link pop to stay atop the SERPs. While Detlev stated that he doesn't think link buying will work in a few years, Stephan Spencer asserted that he feels links bought now will hurt sites five years from now. Listening to the discussion, I couldn't help but think that the engines are going to have to move to a much stronger level of temporal link analysis and ranking if they plan to keep results timely, relevant, and "legitimate."
One audience member inquired about whether or not link buying was only a problem because of who was buying links. Would it be an issue if only quality sites were buying? Are P.P.C. sites killing the practice for everyone else? It may indeed be a factor, which is why LinkExperts CEO, Seth Besmertnik, suggested the need for a standards and practices authority on link buying, which would help to set policy on quality control and acceptable practices, perhaps in conjunction with the engines. I have a feeling this is probably an inevitability in the not too distant future.
All in all, this was a very spirited panel, even if Rand was a bit over-the-top in dominating the conversation (he gets a little excited sometimes). There were some good conversation and great ideas about where this is all heading. Of course, we're all at the mercy of Google, but one would hope eventually they'll come around and just acknowledge what everyone else already has: as long as they're serving up link-based results, the web will be a link-based economy and what's of value is worth buying and selling.
That's it for my PubCon coverage for now. Sarah and Jeff will have coverage of Wednesday's sessions, and Rebecca and Mel will chime in on Thursday. The conference has been great so far, and I expect these next two days will be just as valuable and entertaining. Cheers!
By: Scott Willoughby
"Communist Librarians" and Other Tidbits...Pubcon Continued
Events
The author's views are entirely his or her own (excluding the unlikely event of hypnosis) and may not always reflect the views of Moz.
Sorry if you didn't enjoy the little I had to say. I think Matt has been pretty clear lately that he doesn't approve of any type of link buying....did you expect me to share with a public room methods of link buying?...maybe last year...but today...no. I've got a company and clients to protect and I'm not about to get up there and say things in public anymore that are going to risk what I have built.
Aaron spoke on alternative link building methods...rand took the easy route and gave the search engine point of view, john spoke of linking methods...but this panel was called "Link Buying"....I think everyone skirted what people were hoping to see....
sorry, but I'm not going to stand up and say "I buy links, and here's how I do it"....the new rule of link buying is "don't talk about link buying".
Sorry if people felt let down, but that's why I've stopped blogging, that's why I didn't say much during that presentation.
I'd rather be under the radar in what I do. I think you'd be foolish to stand up there and say "I buy link, and here's how I do it"....that's be like putting a big target on yourself saying "Google, please ban me"
I hope people understand.
In light of the topic, and the fact that a certain cat lover was seated in the audience, I don't think anyone can fault you for this, Jim.
I think Ciaran is right when he says it's probably time we stopped talking so much about this issue. Google isn't going to roll back their PR penalties, and they're not going to change their stance on paid links. Quality links still have a lot to do with high rankings so there is little choice for us but to keep these dealings under the table. It's survival.
The best thing we can do is stop using the most obvious sources of paid links, and if we're going to buy them do it in a way that isn't trackable. We obviously shouldn't share our methods in public. Common sense. We go underground, and we move on.
Disclaimer: I wasn't there.
Jim - I hear what you're saying (and I can only hope to grow to the success you have achieved). And I understand Ciaran's point that we should talk about it less.
Nonetheless, the panel is surely for people who *do* want to talk about it (no-one has to go if they're not interested) and you presumably volunteered to be there. What I'm not quite clear on is why you would want to present in a session like that if you don't want to make public comment on the subject?
You are welcome to your view on the underlying subject, and you are welcome to keep your views to yourself if you wish, but I'm not sure why you would want to be on a panel if you wish to fly under the radar?
This isn't a criticism of how prepared or otherwise you might have been - as I say, I wasn't there!
Jim- I agree with you wanting to be slightly stealthy and not "i'm here shoot me" with looking after your business and clients, its what your clients expect and value. However Will has a very valid point - if you didnt want to talk why go? to increase your reputation or to help? bit of a quandry i know but when people shell out a lot of money for these conferences they do expect to get value for money.
I know if i'd persuaded my bosses or shelled out $1500 odd dollars for a conference i'd be incredibly angry to see people saying "we're not talking" or skirting the issue that the conference title states, i'd be there to learn about "x" and learning "f" which I didnt pay for.
Maybe its a problem with the conference title, maybe matt cutts etc should be told to go away (politely :) I know that in some industries this is allowed! Simply being the biggest search engine shouldnt give them carte blanche to attend every session when it occurs to them.
just my 2 cents.
cheers
Jim, I understand what you're saying here, you make a valid point. But I've gotta agree with those below that if you don't want to talk about it, why agree to be on the panel? Reading your comment, it would've even been cool to hear you talk about why link buying discussions can't happen honestly under Google's FUD atmosphere. People Wanted to hear your feelings on this topic since you are so respected in the link acquisition game. It sounds like there was a bit of an expectation disconnect on both sides of the equation.
Admittedly, I don't have much personal stake in the paid-links debate and I'm partially sympathetic to Google's POV, but I agree that it would've been nice to see someone the industry respects stand up and say "this is why I think paid links are legitimate and Google is wrong". Instead, I heard a lot of "Google sucks!" sort of comments and not much real debate.
I agreed to speak on this panel many months ago. It's only been during the past 2 months that Google has been taking even more drastic steps to take aim at link buyers/sellers.
About 2 weeks ago suddenly I felt "damn, do I really want to speak on this panel?"
I guess the past few weeks I was just hoping I could come up with an angle of something to say....and the only thing I could come up with when it came down to the wire was "The first rule of link buying, is don't talk about link buying"....and ya know, that's the best piece of advice today on the subject. So I might not have said much, but at least I feel I gave the best tip about the link buying debate ;)
Cheers!
Fair enough. Sorry for taking you to task! You're right that a lot has changed in the last couple of months.
Hey Jim,Thanks for the info behind your planning around this very touchy subject. I like everyone commenting here understand why you would want to fly under the radar. Perhaps it would have helped to explain exactly that - that divulging how to safely purchase links is probably going to get you and everyone else purchasing links in a lot of hot water. It certainly would have helped the audience to understand the machinations you went through in the weeks and days coming up to the conference.
You are always will be a great contributor to the SEO community! Thanks Jim!
That's understandable. Thanks for taking the time to reply and explain the situation, I really appreciate it.
I'm glad everyone is getting in on this conversation including Jim! Jims response is putting alot of it into a nice clear perspective!
Great post. I was in the link buying panel and just found it depressing. We spend so much time going on, & on about this topic, but none of it means anything.
No matter how much we all go on about it the engines will not change their minds; this is why, with all respect to Rand, I really couldn't care less why the engines have these policies (apart from anything else, it's fairly obvious) - it' enough to know they do.
I think it would be great if we all stopped talking to ourselves, about ourselves. Nothing is gained and I'm sure all the hot air is contributing to global warming
LMAO!!
Ciaran - I respect your opinion a lot and really rate a lot of your contributions. I disagree with you here though - I think the model is going to have to change and it is important to us to work out *how* it's going to change.
I don't think self-'inflicting' nofollow is going to work for the long-term - there are just too many webmasters without a clue about it.
Having said that, I wasn't there so it might have been depressing as hell :(
Nice detailed post Scott. I'm glad you took Boykin to task. You're right on both accounts - great guy, but c'mon - these conferences do cost a bunch and with so many entrepreneurs that pay their own way, they deserve top notch presentations - or at the very least - top notch preparation.
I think Jim adds a lot of value with just a few words - he is, after all, probably the best pure link building outfit on the web. I think he was just overwhelmed by paranoia with Matt, Tim, Eytan, Maile and others in the room. Jim's tactics aren't all gray hat or black hat (far from it actually), but he's had a lot of success with his strategies and I think he feels a little uncomfortable sharing that in front of engineers who he thinks might try to bring his systems down.
Seeing him do two sessions in a row, it wasn't an issue of nerves: it was lack of preparation, pure and simple. Totally agree that Jim's brilliant at what he does, but I'm sticking by my call that the non-presentation was a lame move.
At the same time - when he was asked to be on those panels, it may just have been to do Q+A (I can double check my email on that), and not to have a formal presentation, so the "lack of preparation" may actually have been planned. I think he contributed valuably to at least 3 of the audience questions in a robust fashion.
I have to completely agree with you Scott. I was put off by Jim's seemingly lack of respect for the people in the room who paid good money and took a lot of time to come to this conference. It is for this reason that I have lost a lot of respect for the guy and give more respect to the people on panels who clearly prepare and offer some SUBSTANCE, rather than a whitewash of general information.
Good on you for saying what a lot of people have been grumbling about at the lunch tables.
I've gotta come in somewhere in the middle of this one: at first, Jim's thrown-together Word document turned me off, but then I ended up getting a lot out of the content. After a while, the weird scrolling style was even oddly engaging. I ultimately got enough out of it to say "hi" to Jim at his booth today and make sure I'm subscribing to his blog.
The "East German librarian" quote was classic. My favorite of the day next to Craig Newmark's: "I like to encourage people to disbelieve my existence."
That was really great coverage! While I enjoyed this panel I have to agree that Jim's performance was a let down. Not only did it leave me wanting some information on Link Building - it left me with a less than positive feeling about the conference in general. We come to these conferences looking to get a shot of the best of the best information to bring back to our companies for our clients benefit - but presentations like that don't cut it.
After the session I figured out a possible solution. Each moderator should be charged with ensuring that the presenters on their panel are prepared in advance with their presentations, that the presentations are on topic and no one is duplicating the information. If anythings off - the moderator should be able to exclude the presenter from the panel!
As I said - I think you're being unfair here. Jim was asked to be on the panel without a formal presentation, but rather for Q+A, and I think he did just that. Greg Boser did the same thing on the Universal & Blended search panel and was, IMO, brilliant. I hate to see someone called out for doing what they were asked.
Fair enough point - if Jim was not asked to present than the moderator should have said so. So of course Jim is not completely to blame - the moderator / and the conference organizers should have announced it properly.
Hopefully those with the ability to shape the conference take note, and make the appropriate adjustments next time!
"Jim was asked to be on the panel without a formal presentation, but rather for Q+A, and I think he did just that."
Seems to me that if Jim was asked to do a Q/A session and came prepared for that and then had to give a full fleged presentation than the fault would lie with the organizers.
I know I wouldn't prepare a full fleged flashy presentation if all I was supposed to do is answer questions. I'd just bring my points and notes in a Word doc.
Just my 2 cents :-)
- Matt
I totally agree. If, in fact, Jim was asked to attend only for Q&A either he (or even moreso) the moderator should have introduced him as, "link building expert, Jim Boykin, of We Build Pages who's joining us for Q&A." Without such an intro or program note, the audience had no idea and it looked bad. I also spoke to several people who attended the Link Buying panel largely because Jim was on it and they wanted to hear his ideas for link buying. I'm sure they would've come to hear him do just Q&A, but as is, their expectation may not have been met.
Great commentary.
I am not sure I agree with everything you put in it Scott, but understand your POV.
BTW - I am that JasonD of "microphone hogging infamy!" :)
Jim, glad to see you chimed in here. I was at the presentation and totally understood why you did what you did. Of course, we are a link building company so maybe I had more empathy for you -- but come on -- what did everyone in the room expect?
Besides, it's not right to see a person who was a sponsor, donated his time and is a thought leader to get called on the carpet for his 15 minutes on stage. If it weren't for guys like you there would be no PubCon.
Arnie - I totally understand Jim's reasoning too, but worry that your saying something like:
is a sure way of stifling debate. I think that Scott's points were valid and actually think that the blame here lies with the organisers; they should have checked what people were going to present and, perhaps, pulled the session.
There was no name-calling in this thread, just honest debate - and more of that might help improve these conferences where too many sessions seem a little half baked.
Ciaran - not trying to stifle the debate at all, just expressing my opinion.
I do think the quality of the presentations at the entire conf. were all over the board. I noticed the dates on some of the presentations were months old and clearly recycled from previous conferences. So I totally agree that we need to press the conference to improve the overall quality of the information at the sessions.
Link building/buying was a tough session with all the Google reps there. I guess maybe the best statement would have been for Jim to bow out of his presentation explaining his position. That would truly be going underground.
"So, with the spectre of Matt Cutts holding court in the back of the room like a bespectacled, cat-loving Don Corleone; Rand, Jim Boykin, John Lessnau and Aaron Wall led a spirited discussion on link buying." - great scott!
Wow, that was much needed this morning... T/U for you! Very funny...
Thanks for the run down too. Great information..
Scott - I really liked this post. Your writing style for coverage is really good. Got to disagree with you on one piece though - I thought Aaron's presentation had some really juicy information on link strategies, even touching on some nice gray hat tactics that the search engines are unlikely to catch. His "paid links" without "paid links" was a really solid concept and I think that SEOs would do well to pay attention to how he's using those strategies to build up very defensible properties.
As I mentioned in the session, I think Aaron is possibly the smartest, most talented guy at the show when it comes to competitive webmastering. He doesn't "sell" himself like many others do, but he is probably offering the best advice on a consistent basis of anyone in the industry (that talks publicly).
Also - sorry for dominating the buying links Q+A... I got a little carried away I think. I'll try to be more respectful in the future.
Seperate point about DMOZ - it's much worse than described. One of our business competitor's SEO consultant runs our category. We've pointed out this to the DMOZ high muckety mucks, to no avail. For two years!
-OT
PS - This was not a sad attempt to get more MOZ points! :0-)
@Will (can't reply to comments on the mobile); the model may well be broken, but until Larry, Serg & Eric ask me to take over or Jim takes over from Matt, there's nothing we can do that will change it. Everything else is(I think) hot air.
Admittedly I didn't have to go to the panel, but with the quality of the other sessions, the only other option would have been to hit the slots (and that wasn't the only session where that was the case)
Fair points. Hope you're enjoying Vegas. Wish I was there!
I'm surprised to see reports around the blogosphere of the panelists being caught off-guard by Mr. Cutts dropping in on their link buying discussion. This seems beyond obvious to me.
I think next time it'd be a good idea to have a guard out front to stop Matt in his tracks. Here's what I'm thinking. No way Cutts is getting by that!
@Scott: Very interesting post. I'm still sore about having to miss Pubcon yet again, but with thorough coverage like this to read in the morning it isn't so bad...not to mention I get to skip on the hangover.
@Rand: I can't speak to Jim's presentation (obviously), but I'm seeing a lot of negative reaction around the web. Hopefully for Jim's sake the fact that he was unprepared to make a full-featured presentation for reasons other than the perceived disrespect/laziness can be made more visible. I'll certainly raise the point when/where I can, but bad press tends to spread faster than good press. Maybe Jim should post about it?
LMAO.
Actually, invite him in, but have everyone speak an imaginary language, like Hungarian, very earnestly.
-OT
Nice coverage, Scott. Great to finally meet you, too...
Wow. Some serious smackdown here! Hehe. Excellently-written coverage. Thumbs up.
"as long as they're serving up link-based results, the web will be a link-based economy and what's of value is worth buying and selling"
Well said.
It has been some years since I went to a "new" market type tradeshow (as opposed to, say, Comdex) but I recall that at least 50% of the presentations were, well, krep.
So I usually have pretty low expectations.
But, man, your description of a moderator hijacking a Q&A brought back some really *angry* memories.
I may have to make the show next year. But bring a hip flask.
-OT
I don't think Detlev "hijacked" it - I think he was adding a lot of salient points and information from a different perspective than some of the other panelists. I've been on 10-15 panels with Detlev moderating and while he was more active in this one than others, it was not in an obtrusive way (at least from my perspective).
That is a very good point - obviously I wasn't at the conference, so should have made my reference more neutral.
-OT
I have to say Jim’s “ill prepared” presentation didn’t really put me off. Sure that may have been unprofessional and arrogant but in the end I feel that he offered decent value to the debate. He may have been capable of a much better presentation and if I find that to be true then I’ll feel cheated.
What Rand and Aaron brought to the table would easily make that session worth while… On second thought, if we were to see nothing but Rand’s presentation I would have left quite satisfied.
i've never been to a conference so these posts are great for me. i like your coverage style, scott.
as for feeling ripped off by unprepared presenters...i only wish i was there to feel ripped off with ya!
sure it sounds very un-sexy, but for those of us who have clients with un-sexy businesses we need these kinds of links. the dumptser and portable toilet rental company as well as the bulldozer and machinery company on my client list are not exactly what i'd call link-baity.
I actually think the dumpster and portable toilet rental site could be very link baity ;)
Excellent coverage Scott! I soaked up every word. Thanks a bunch!
Crash,
To your point about the "link baityness" of dumpster and portable toilet businesses, here's a similar example.
You'd never think a company that fixes building and home cement foundation cracks would be very link baity - unless of course they came up with a mascot named "Mr. Happy Crack" and built a viral video around him!
Pretty clever - and Kimber - might be worth checking out to get your creative juices flowing. Can you say - "Mr. Potty Mouth"?
Perhaps it's apropos that this was posted on TheB2BLead blog under the section "Marketing WTF".
One thing is for sure. If I ever need someone to fix my crack, I know who will be the first to come to mind!
Nice synopsis. I do find Rand's comments interesting as well. He has a bit of an obligation to walk a fine line with his staff (doesn't want to stiffle creativity) but also to make sure the SEOmoz name isn't know for ripping fellow SEO companies or names in half. I think Rand handled the situation well.
Two things I liked about the post . . .
1. Detailed.
2. Bold (and not just the one dude that had a shitty presentation).
Brent David Payne
Cheers. No intention to ruffle any feathers, just recapping the sessions honestly. As mentioned, I truly do have the utmost respect for those that some may view me as "slamming." It's nothing personal (I've very cordially run into Jim several times since posting this), hopefully just something future conference speakers will consider, especially as I've received a lot of personal feedback expressing similar disillusionment.
I think to get the most out of a conference like this the audience would be best off educating themselves ahead of time a bit about the expertise of the people on the panel.
yes traditional link building is boring. and oh, it's also more effective, more often, than non-traditional link building. perhaps people should wake up to that fact. Jim and his business are evidence of that fact. If the audience were familiar with his background, they could appreciate that. They might also appreciate that a presentation about anything other than the basics (which hardly warrants a presentation) is missing the point for the vast majority of the audience, who need to learn to walk before they can run.
But you know, people pay a lot of money to go to these presentations, and so would feel disappointed to not hear about the cutting edge news in link development... even if implementing cutting edge practices wouldn't benefit their business very much if they don't have any perspective on the root of the issues, which Jim is the expert on.
What Jim does is simple - so there isn't much to say about it. Those who do simple things very well see success. There's a lesson people who go to search conferences are likely to miss these days.