NOTE: This post has been edited. It was originally written in haste and without foresight. My apologies to Mike, who has earned better than to be criticized publicly in such manner.
Mike Grehan, who stands without doubt among the people I admire most in the industry, has a new column up today at Clickz on his recent sandbox post at SEW. This comes on the heel of his blog post on the same subject, which also irked me.
Mike, I know you work with a lot of big firms who launch new websites that NEVER get boxed, but the rest of us have other goals, other aspirations and other clients and your appraisal of our situation is, frankly, insulting - shockingly so since I know you personally and know that in person, you're the kind of guy who buys everyone a round of high-priced cocktails, not the kind of guy who rags on other people's business models. My feeling is that I should give Mike the benefit of the doubt - it may just have been a tough few weeks and Mike's certainly earned it.
Let me take a quick trip through Mike's points and see what he's trying to get at:
I don't usually bother much with search engine forums. I don't have the time. And so frequently it's the same old issues being regurgitated over and over again, as "newbies" enter our emerging community.
One thing I find, which is remarkably noticeable in these forums, is the lack of content relating to actual marketing. It's as if all the contributors believe the only way to rank at a search engine depends on some technical issues which need to be addressed. It's like, we'll do the SEO and then we'll have a look at your marketing!
This suggests to me that Mike doesn't spend a lot of time on the major SEO forums. There are excellent, active discussions every day on important aspects of site creation, marketing and non-technical issues (see here, here, here, here, here - that's just what I found today in 5 minutes). Mike may have all of this knowledge already, but I don't see why he has to criticize the communities where it's shared. Maybe he's just being dramatic, though, and doesn't actually mean to make such overarching statements (making forum members mad is, after all, a good linkbait tactic).
I thought I'd address some of the points, for the final time (I wish!!!) over at my own pad. I really don't want to get into any further debate in a forum thread where you only seem to have a valid contribution if you're wearing marketing blinkers.
The gist of most of this whole badly conceived analogy of a sandbox is that new sites get ignored for a period of time by Google.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Sorry guys.
But if you work with no hopers from the start you'll get nowhere fast. You can call it the sandbox if you want. But I'll tell it like it is.
Awareness campaigns for new brands/sites, using niche marketing into verticals, especially for b2b sites works a treat. If you are a genuine marketer, there are dozens of methods of promoting a web site other than just sitting on your ass in the so called sandbox, waiting around for Google to do YOUR job.
I have to take issue with the idea that forum posters, particularly at SEW, don't get respect if they address marketing rather than technical SEO issues. My feeling is that Mike himself gets an extraordinary amount of respect. I'm one of the folks who's read through his posts in particular because I like what he has to say so much.
In addition, the implication that everyone who has a sandboxed site or who posts at SEW or other forums asking how to help escape is not only incompetent, but lazy is far-fetched. After hanging out with Mike on multiple occassions, I can tell you that he's not normally that type of guy. It could be that something struck him particularly harshly. Let's move on to the ClickZ column...
The mere thought of some pimply SEO geek sitting with a proper marketing organization trying to explain to the marketing VP what a sandbox is, is almost laughable, if it weren't so serious. There are dozens of reasons companies fail offline. And, believe me, the same applies online.
OK. So my acne hasn't cleared up quite yet - and it's possible that a line like this came across as particularly personal (although I doubt that was Mike's intention). But why is explaining the sandbox any more or less difficult or humorous than explaining Google-bombing or blog-spamming or why certain text placement can get your site banned? I've explained the sandbox feature to several folks recently who run VC firms and they caught on very quickly - unless the site you're launching and promoting has serious "buzz" surrounding it, you should expect to rank poorly at Google for a solid time period (6-12 months after launch). The "Rome wasn't built in a day" analogy works very well.
The funny thing is, Mike is trying, in a very roundabout way, to make this same point, albeit with a much harsher tone. He believes that folks should expect the sandbox unless they are delivering a site/product/service that folks are clamoring for before Google spiders the site (or at the same time) - a reasonable concept, but not a great reason to downplay its existence or pretend that everyone can afford to release sites that will have the necessary "buzz".
When trying to penetrate a new market place, or increase market share in an existing market place, classically trained marketers use a variation of strategies. They can "push" the product into the market place. They can "pull" the product into the market place. Or they can do the ultimate combo of "push and pull".
It's more commonly known as marketing muscle. And if you take on a client new to a market sector and don't perform a marketing audit to discover just how much muscle the competitors have, and by that I mean cross channel, then you do your client a disservice.
If your client has developed a new cola and is now going up against Coke and Pepsi, will pure SEO help him up the charts at Google? Or will he need marketing parity in order to compete? The latter, obviously.
I like Mike's use of the Push vs. Pull marketing analogy, but I don't see why SEOs shouldn't use the search results to help "push" their campaigns and those of their clients, even if it does take 9 months to escape the box. Trust me on this, though, Mike. No one who's stuck in the sandbox (that I'm working with) is "sitting on their ass."
UPDATE: For those who might think I'm giving an unfairly negative view of Mike and his work, just read through the rest of the entries on his blog. He's a delightful person - a great guy to spend time with and someone who really appreciates what life has to offer him. My only quibble is with his view on the sandbox, small time SEOs and the various forums. In other respects, we're like peas in a pod. :)
Yes, some SEO's new to the biz will take any client - not just the one who has a huge budget for on and offline marketing. Some clients need hand holding. Some don't understand what they're getting themselves into. They don't look for the Mike Grehan type of companies because they can't afford them or don't know what they need.
Mike makes sense in his article in several places but unfortunately the article makes it sound like the only clients worth taking are those with a zillion dollars and a well thought out plan to zoom into first place. Where does that leave the stay at home parent launching a blog on the joys of making homemade organic baby food?
When did we stop helping these people succeed?
I don't get it. Isn't it our job to MAKE them visible? None of my (full-time) clients had ANY web presence to speak of - we built the sites, made the link bait, the content, the marketing and now they're quite successful. Just because we were stuck in the sandbox for 9 months doesn't mean these were bad projects to choose or bad clients.
If we hadn't started with small clients, there's no way we could have ever landed big jobs. Even Mike must have had to "prove himself" at one point or another.
The points about having something "marketable" and "link-worthy" are valid, but the rest seems designed to enflame, not inform.
I may be taking this personally, but I don't think I'm alone - and even if I am, well, everyone has their sensitive underbelly :) Mike just happened to scratch mine the wrong way. No hard feelings on my end, though, and I seriously doubt on his either. In fact, after picking on him so much, I'm gonna owe the man a few drinks when I see him in NYC.
I think everyone's entitled to their own opinion, more so in this industry than others. Since almost everything we do is based on speculation, nobody outside of the SE guys can claim the SEO 'truth'. If Mike Grehan views the sandbox differently, then that's his right. As long as he doesn't go out shooting people (Rand, I don't think he called you out), he's entitled to that. Mikkel once taught me this when nonbelievers were in my face:
It seems that you (nonbelievers) are working on a very limited scale if you think so. But please try and convince everyone you are right - it will just leave that market more profitable to the rest of us. I could prove you are wrong but why would I? :)
Marc
Just edited the post. My attacks on Mike were unneccessarily harsh and I apologize - totally boneheaded of me.
I'm still taking strong exception to his opinions on these subjects, but there was no excuse for me to go after him, personally. With luck, it will be chalked up to youth, brashness and inexperience. Sorry again, Mike.
Yes, big marketing budgets will get you more attention. No, Mom & Pop site spending $2K on marketing probably won't get a lot of attention.
Should this come as any surprise?
The implication made by some posters is that Mom & Pop sites have a god-given right to be able to compete equally for attention with big corporates.
However, unless these sites are doing something truly remarkable, or spending up large, they shouldn't expect to be able to compete directly. That is what happens in the offline world, and the online world is starting to mirror it. The party is over.
The trick is to be a fast-moving, adaptable, below-radar, niche exploiting small guy. Those are the advantages Mom & Pops have against the behemoths.
Whining about economic disadvantage will get nowhere.
I totally agree, Peter, that some sites avoid waiting, using various methods, one of which is getting attention (buzz). We are all discussing those methods on a daily basis. I also agree that ranking doesn't work the way it used to (pre-sandbox days), and people now need to take further steps. The sandbox does now exist, and using those various methods and taking those extra steps, whatever they may be, can help avoid it, or help get around it. And that's what we as SEOs are attempting to do. It just doesn't always take millions of dollars to do it. :)
>>Now, they must wait for the sandbox to release them before they are able to compete. If the competing small shop opened his site in Feb. 2004 (right before sandbox kicked in), and momandpop opened his site right after the sandbox kicked in, the competitior slid right through...momandpop had to wait it out.
One of the barriers to entry all businesses face is that there will already be existing, established competition who command all the attention. It's up to the new entrant to fight for a share of it. If the competion managed to gain that attention under more favorable market conditions, then that is part of their advantage. That's life.
There isn't a sandbox in the sense that all new sites must wait. It's a myth. Some new sites avoid waiting by getting attention (i.e. real traffic) from sources other than search engines, and that form of "voting" is measured and factored in.
The old SEO strategy of publishing content + getting links = ranking doesn't work the way it used to. People now need to go a few (marketing) steps further.
I think everyone likely agrees that small mom and pop shops probably cannot compete against the behemoths, (at least in most cases), but that is not what I, in particular, am talking about. But that same small shop should be able to compete with other small shops for the same terms. In the "old days", they could. Now, they must wait for the sandbox to release them before they are able to compete. If the competing small shop opened his site in Feb. 2004 (right before sandbox kicked in), and momandpop opened his site right after the sandbox kicked in, the competitior slid right through...momandpop had to wait it out. Perhaps mega money would alleviate the problem, but momandpop dont have the money.
I normally don't write "me too" posts, but amen from me to dazzlindonna as well.
But since there were raised two questions here, regarding question two I will make the words of Michael E. Porter to mine: The winners will be those that view the Internet as a complement to, not a cannibal of, traditional ways of competing. With that said, you can't be everything for everybody. But, if you don't do your work in the spirit of the strategy for the company, but operates with a seperate strategy (which is why the word e-strategy should be forbidden IMO since it often leads to a separate strategy for the actions on the Internet, and not a strategy built on the strategy for the company) you haven't done your work properly.
Miks's agruments sound like someone that has given up on SEO because of it's unreliability ever since the Florida update. If you stick with marketing and only marketing you can blame Google for not ranking well and not your skills as an SEM.
Also I work for a pretty large established online company myself and a 50k marketing budget is quite a hefty chunk of money. When a company is young and backed up by eager investors they turn into little children. So asking for a 500k media blitz isnt hard. I mean my company had a billboard in middle manhattan that cost a cool $1,000,000/month when we launched. If you ask the bossman if it was worth it he'll reply with "It's what the marketing firm thought would be best at that time"
Was it worth it? Hell No. Do you question them?? Hell No. Your new and young and feel like you have something to prove.
Mike can argue all he wants about getting noticed but what percentage of his clients are actually in business 3 years after launch?
Marketing is a good way to get noticed. SEO is a good way to keep getting noticed. Oh yeah and for free ;P
I think it's worth noting that there are two arguments here:
1. Does the sandbox exist 2. Should SEO be a wider part of marketing
On point 1. I disagree with Mike, but on 2. I think he's absolutely right.
Organic SEO in itself is opportunist by nature - a single Google Update can threaten to wipe-out entire business models. SEO as part of a wider marketing strategy - that's not so susceptible to a single update.
IMO viral marketing doesn't have to be a high-end only method. Webmasters are often creative and natural problem solvers. It shouldn't have to be a big step to use thiese gifts to go viral. I'll see if I can demonstrate this you later in the year, and provide a few tips on the way (else crash an burn on the coming year's updates!).
I guess Mike was talking about SEO sh#t and similar forums when he said "the lack of content relating to actual marketing." He should get out more often and check out all the great forums that deal with marketing and that are always helping oter members with relevant marketing tips but also "technical" tips purely related to search engines. Cre8asiteforums is the best example that I can give.
But Rand, you have to admit that many folks amongst the SEO community are still only focusing on rankings and keywords and never think about "pure marketing"...
I think Mike had some genuine intent in his article. But, It definitely came off as an I'm better than you, go get a real job post.
He is blatantly condescending, and insulting to damn near everyone that is active in the SEO industry. Anyone that has real experience in SEO will realize that marketing is a huge factor in actually making a site sell.
While I do agree that some forums can have a lot of redundancy in posts. It doesn't make these posts irrelevant or useless in any way. You can just start at the top without building your foundation first. Sh*ting on the NOOB as Mike would suggest us to do, possibly isn't the best welcome for those who are new to SEO.
Perhaps Mike should put his talent where his mouth is. Here's a challenge for you, Mike. Find a small mom-and-pop shop who wants a website, and only has a small marketing budget. Andy's $2000 comment sounds like a plan. Now, without all that mega-money to throw at a massive marketing blitz, try to rank that new site for semi-competitive terms - especially if that term exists in the company name. Perhaps it is time to come out of the Fortune 500 clouds, and see how well you fare with the little guys. :)
Wow, Randfish, you've been getting annoyed a couple of times in the last week ;)
I think there are good points on both sides of this issue, but I would like to emphatically agree with Donna on the issue of low budget SEO tactics in comparrison of high budget SEO or web site marketing.
dazzlindonna --- Amen!
I think you succinctly explained why Mike has the opinion that he has -- and why it's silly.
I think this comment of Mike's explains his view quite well. "It's because I've learned to say no. And I learned it from some of the greats in this industry. You don't get sandboxed if you don't take on no hopers."
Well, duh, if you don't ever try to rank with less than "a paltry $50,000", then of course you can say it doesn't exist. That's called "throwing a boatload of money at the problem, blinders", in my opinion. You put the money blinders on, and of course you won't see that the sandbox exists. Not everyone is trying to rank with Coke and Pepsi, Mike. Not everyone has even a paltry $50K to spend, nor should they have to spend that in many, many markets. Perhaps some of the marketing gurus should look at the other markets that exist beyond Coke, Pepsi, and the like. There's a whole 'nuther world out there. Take the blinders off to see it.
THANK YOU! I've been waiting for one of the top tier SEO bloggers to call MG out on this issue.
I realize that he is one of the most respected people in this space, due in large part to his longevity. But his anti-sandbox spiel is arrogant at best.
Yes, you can dodge the sandbox by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars creating a marketing buzz through online and offline channels. Which is probably what a lot of his Fortune 1000-type Websourced clients do. (And of course, now that Websourced seems to be making a push to be more of a full-service online marketing agency, is it any wonder that Mike is singing this tune?)
But what the hell happens to a mom and pop web site on a 2000 dollar marketing budget, when they don't rank for their own unique company name, Mike? Their SEO is lazy? The Sandbox doesn't exist, it's just that they didn't create a solid marketing plan?
Well guess what? The vast majority of small businesses don't create a solid marketing plan, but they should still be found within a year of launching on a search for their own damn company name. but they often don't. THAT'S THE SANDBOX!