Our field has grown tremendously over the last 5 years. When Danny Sullivan launched the first Search Engine Strategies conference, I'd estimate that less than 5,000 people worldwide called themselves SEOs. Today, the number of self-referencing "search marketers" is probably closer to 100,000 and may well be much higher. But, a number of features separate the SEO/M expert from the novice, and today I thought I'd point out a few of these. The following refer specifically to consultants in search - people who help other companies get the most out of their search traffic.
- Brand Level Experience
While experts generally carry experience with a few Fortune 500s (or 1000s), novices often haven't dealt with a recognizable brand name. The difference is in how to approach projects - with small brands, the biggest struggle is getting recognized by the engines, with big brands, the challenge is more frequently (and sadly) with management. - Contacts & Relationships
After several years of successful projects, an expert's network of contacts can sometimes be the most valuable asset they bring to a project. This doesn't always mean relationships with search engines, but with advertising firms, experts in disparate, related fields or even connections with other SEOs that can help to diagnose problems cooperatively. - Holistic Approach
While novices often approach a project with on-page SEO basics, a link building campaign, keyword research and a PPC campaign, experts can identify and diagnose weaknesses in site architecture, customer targeting, usability, design, analytics and dozens of other issues. - Accepts the Right Projects
A novice consultant or firm might be tempted to take any client who can pay the bills (and many times, they must). Experts know how to choose their projects, based on the expected outcomes, the style of the client & the short and long-term ROI. - Sixth Sense for Rankings
Many experts have what I dub the "ranking sense." They can, in a matter of a few link searches and some competitive analysis determine the scope, difficulty, trends and opportunities of a market, even if they haven't worked in that field before. I believe this prized ability comes from countless thousands of searches with a critical eye, and the repetitive practice of watching the SERPs change over time. Personally, I think my ranking sense has actually slipped, as I don't watch the SERPs day by day and hour by hour the way I used to 6 months ago. A few weeks back in the SEO trenches, though, and I'm sure I could pick it up again :)
In addition to these qualities, there's a number of specific mistakes, pitfalls or missed opportunities that I see novices frequently stumble over.
- Duplicate Content
It's not that novices don't recognize duplicate content, but that they often don't realize the best ways to handle it. One of my favorite examples is the SEO who uses "nofollow" in links to duplicate content, not realizing that others may link to it in the future (hint: use robots.txt and meta robots instead). - Keyword Cannibalization
This one is the rookie mistake I see most often - SEOs who try to target the same term on 65 pages of a 100 page site, not realizing they're spreading out their anchor text, link and keyword targeting value rather than concentrating it. - Connecting with Offline Campaigns
It's critical that offline campaigns for branding or advertising integrate properly with the online property. Drive offline traffic to a URL you can track, measure inbound links, use the same messages on and offline to create a seemless user experience or face the consequences of a less-than-optimal ad spend. Chris Boggs nailed a few of these in his Super Bowl Ads roundup. - Analytics Integration & Testing
So few novices properly attach action tracking to a site, properly hypothesize, test, measure, and refine. Analytics are a powerful tool for improving the quality of every online campaign, but it's often lost in the search for better rankings and more traffic. - Multiple Sites/Domains
Why do even savvy SEOs continue the practice of launching separate sites for their sister-projects, blogs, or other related content. The links that come in to a single domain help all of the content at that domain rank, and 100 links from diverse, natural sources will earn you far more than 10,000 links to a Blogspot blog that you interlink with your main domain. - Content Separation
A great number of content sites split up their articles in multiple pages or create dozens of short pages about minute details of a larger subject. This makes for lots of page views, but very few inbound links. Remember that links are likely to come to "complete" resources, and if you make the linker work to identify the specific content piece she's trying to point to, they'll simply give up (and link to the evil Wikipedia, where all the data is always on one page). - Misuse of Meta Description Tags
I see a great number of sites where the meta description tags are either copied from page to page (i.e. non-unique) or contain only the first 2-3 sentences of the page's content. The former's issue is obvious, while the latter is unwise because the search engines will show whatever content is most relevant to the user's actual query if you provide no meta description, and thus you'll almost certainly get more long tail search clicks by letting the engines supply your description. The exception is if your intro sentences are excellent descriptors of the content on the page, which is sometimes the case with certain article sites or blogs. - Aggregation as a Source of Unique Content
Many novice site builders and SEOs assume they can trick the search engines by combining snippets of data or content to create pages. The engines, however, have a small army of PhDs to combat every possible re-mix, re-hash or re-purposing and their techniques improve every day. Don't take the engines for idiots - I predict the next few years will see them able to identify not just unique content, but grade the quality of articulation and unique information as well. - Measuring Traffic Rather than Conversions
Rankings are great and so is traffic, but a website that's improved it's traffic tenfold while ignoring conversions has got the process backwards - your goal isn't (except in a few rare cases) to bring just any visitor, it's about bringing the right visitor.
Any novice mistakes you see (or ones you've made) that you can share with us?
"...your goal isn't (except in a few rare cases) to bring just any visitor, it's about bringing the right visitor."
I've spent a loooong time trying to get people to understand this. The example I've always used is this:
So, I've got a website and it's advertising a product. I'm running two PPC campaigns on it. One of them has brought me 10 visitors, the other has brought 1,000. Which is the more successful campaign?
People almost invariably say "The 1,000 visitor one..."
The simple answer is, with that data, you don't know. Because the site is advertising steak. And all of the ten people who came from the first campaign are steak lovers, and have gone on to buy my product.
All the people from the one thousand visitors campaign are vegan animal rights activists. They haven't bought anything.
It's not about the numbers on your search traffic analytics, it's about the numbers on your bottom line. Traffic is great, but it's even better when it's the right traffic that buys what you're selling.
Take away thought? Taxes are my friend - they remind me that I'm making money, thus I'm doing it right :)
Yep, it's the old 'quality v quantity' issue. If you're not bringing in thr right quality of traffic to convert to a sale / conversion event, then you're not doing the job that you're supposed to be doing.
BTW - I like your example, I believe I'll be stealing that ;)
Feel free. Just make sure you give me some credit :) Viral marketing at it's best or what?! :)
Credit? I gave you a thumbs up, isn't that enough? :p
Yeh, it'll do :)
So the moral of the story is the steaks are high when choosing keywords! :)
BTW is that really a Hull City football shirt? I can't talk there better than Oxford United.
Yes it is, and I have the black away shirt coming in the next few days :)
The steaks are high? Sir, I smite thee for thy bad punning...
Or, in the immortal words of Ross (Friends):
"Ugly baby judges you!" :)
>>>what I dub the "ranking sense." They can, in a matter of a few link searches and some competitive analysis determine the scope, difficulty, trends and opportunities of a market
Excuse my language Rand (haha, that sounds so cute - I think you're in the same category as my grandmother now Rand, someone I do my best not to curse in front of), but it is the only way I can repeat something, edit if you must... I was at SES NY with stuntdubl about two years ago, we were standing outside and discussing how to price clients and decide whether or not to take them. I made mention, much like you did, that I could take a five minute look at the site and determine if they're kinda fucked, really fucked or beyond fucked and would decide on whether to take them as a client and what to charge based on that five minute "instinct" look.
>Edited as I remembered the exact phrase I used.
I love it, Rae. Just trying to decide if I can use that on conference calls or not. Probably just depends on the client.
I have. But, then again, most see my blog before they ever contact me. If the blog didn't stop them from calling, most times, nothing else I say is "unexpected". :P
Lol..... I have seen that look... the one where you have decided something or someone is beyond fucked.... that's the one I try and avoid...
Well put Rae! As I have subconsciously done that myself as of late. It's a good way to determine what you're getting yourself into. Also I found that it is a good way to see if these are people who are really going to trust your expertise or think that this is a one time fix it and quit it job.
I find it interesting that so many people still separate SEM/O from marketing. It is one and the same - just another medium.
The best possible team for most businesses would be a traditional marketing expert and an SEM/O expert. Put these two in a room and give them the budget they need – the ROI will be incredible!
Rand - "I think my ranking sense has actually slipped..." - Ah - that is an interesting problem in our industry. As you become an expert - you begin to move more into a leadership/trainer/manager role in order to lead the charge. The problem is our industry changes so fast, if you're not in the trenches you quickly lose touch.
The good news? If you can manage to lead successfully whilst remaining in the trenches, you not only keep your expert knowledge - but more importantly, you gain even more respect from your subordinates (no one likes an out-of-date expert).
"The best possible team for most businesses would be a traditional marketing expert and an SEM/O expert. Put these two in a room and give them the budget they need – the ROI will be incredible!"
Ironic, as I'm a traditional marketing person (press releases/packs, direct mailing, direct reponse stuff, classified ads... the whole whack) who has spent the last three years adapting all that kinda stuff to the online arena.
And people wonder how come I'm always three steps ahead... :)
On a "not blowing my own trumpet" note (get it... trumpet, note... love the pun, hug the pun) you've hit the nail on the head with the first comment. SEO is a form of marketing, just as pay-per-click is a form of marketing, just as co-registration, email marketing, list mailing, article submissions, press releases/packs are forms of marketing. And in my humble opinion, any good marketer, online or offline, should have a solid grounding in both worlds. The two are just too mixed nowadays for you not to.
Scott,
"I find it interesting that so many people still separate SEM/O from marketing. It is one and the same - just another medium."
The reason for it is that SEO started in the "Tech" department and only after it has proven it's self as a great marketing tactic was it taken seriously by the "marketing department".
I couldn't agree more.
I absolutely agree. SEO/M only became a true marketing channel in recent years - like...mid-2006.
My comment is more driven from the shock that more SEO/M people haven't figured out the marketing aspect yet.
I list traditional marketing knowledge as a requirement now on all SEO/M related positions with my companies.
Excellent post and I agree with everthing you have said apart from the brand thing, I don't think you have to have worked with a major brand to be a true SEM professional, I was recently contacted by Rightmove (a major UK brand), this guy calls me up and says "would I be able to speak to your business development manager please" I said "your talking to him, one man band" he then went on to tell me he was from Rightmove and that they were looking for a company to help them with SEO/SEM, I was a little bit shocked at 1st and I said " what, the Rightmove" he said yes but I could see straight away that he was put off by the one man band thing, anyway I convinced him to let me to send him out some info. casestudies etc. and I did and today I got an email saying:
"Thank you for your response to the first stage of the rightmove ITT. The selection criteria have been very rigorous and we were impressed by the information you provided. However we have compiled a shortlist of companies to invite to the second stage and on this occasion we are unable to include you."
I wasn't at all suprised after the one man band thing, I bet they will end up getting had over big time off some big time UK SEO crooks with a receptionist, I was a little bit disapointed never the less, it would have been a nice one for the old prestige, does this mean that I am not a true SEM professional because I am a one man band who cannot get the major brands in? I have saved small to medium sized businesses 10's of thousands of pounds in online marketing which in my eyes is a bigger achievment then doing the same for a major brand, IMHO the UK SEO companies that get the major brands have it easy and it is the ones who do the business for the small to medium sized businesses that are the true pro's.
David E, that's a bummer. They are missing out, I would rather go with a "one man band" than a big SEO company for the following reason:
1) A "one man band" has got alot more to lose and will put in a 100%
2) In some big SEO company you don't know who will actually be doing the SEO or running the PPC campaigns, it could be some graduate student with 3 months experience for all they know. With the "one man band" you know that what the case studies show is HIS or HER skills.
3) You will always be able to get a hold of the one man band, with a big SEO company you are likely to be flobbed off and play phone tennis.
I have seen evidence first hand of some really dodgy work by a very "BIG" UK SEO company. Big does not equal good!
Honestly David, cliche I know, but their loss! You'll get there =)
I have that Sixth Sense... I see dead web sites everywhere.
>Sixth Sense for Rankings/ levels of f***ed
I think this is really a big one because of the confidence factor as well. I meet and work with a lot of clients or are about 70- 80% sure they know that what they are doing is right. The trouble is, you really have to be 99% certain. This is especially true for those working for a company, where losing the job is more of a concern than being the hero internally.
Many of us have been very lucky to have gotten in on SEO when we could still experiment and directly see the results of changes, and understand the direction the engines were working towards. I think we'd all like to have "google dances" back, but just by having experienced them we have more confidence in our gut feelings. The same is true with links that pass link juice, and a variety of other factors (as well as how they mix and match).
Another good addition would be:
Execution/ Team Project Management Excellence
As Rae mentioned, after a while, it's pretty easy to see what it's going to take. Explaining that to someone who is savvy takes a little bit longer. The REALLY hard part is tying it all together, and getting the job done and seeing it through (maybe this is why most of us stick to "site audits" ;)
There are two mistakes that I have to say I've seen novice SEO's make over and over:
1. Not setting up expectations with the client - at the senior level.
2. Looking for the Quick Fix - Novices tend to think that SEO is a "bag of tricks" that can be used to quickly fix whatever is lacking in their overall online campaign. The thinking is that "I can succeed as long as I have the most up-to-date tricks". In reality, SEO is a long-term strategy that is part of a wider online marketing strategy.
"Not setting expectations"
Good one! This is critical for success, especially with Fortune 1000 clients.
Thanks, Scott. The hardest part about a project can be getting executive buy-in. Without it, your job can be 1000 times more difficult. If you can clearly set out what you are going to be doing, and what you need them to do, life can be a whole lot easier.
Absolutely! It also saves you from a client services nightmare down the road.
I learned this the hard way making my work orders vague and variable - after all, we need flexibility in SEO, right?
We do need flexibility, but big-business management teams will often use the vagueness of the agreement to get much more out of you than you may have scoped.
Expectations...timelines...details - once you get used to it it's a no brainer! ;)
I agree, flexibility is a great thing to have. But even though SEO may be recognized as a valuable marketing tactic, there's still the barrier to understanding what it "is". Many execs really don't understand what it is that we "do", even when they may understand that they need to do it. So by explaining the process as closely as possible, you can increase the level of confidence that you can be trusted to get all this "newfangled stuff" done effectively.
I think some of what you listed is basic to marketing and not really SEO but you specified "Search Marketing" so hey... *winks*
More and more companies want online marketing managers who can do SEO plus market segmentation, corporate branding, manage a tech team, design a website and fix things when they go wrong.
All a bit much but keeps us all busy and off the streets *winks*
Managing a client's expectations when you are agency-side is one thing but being client side with politics and the like is a whole other kettle of fish. While I do like it, I think we are expected to be more all-singing, all-dancing.
Wonderful post and really a benchmark for many to hold themselves to and be held to.
All in all a few good points Rand. I also seem to think that SEO will start to migrate into an online marketing specialist more and more. Due to algo changes requiring the knowledge and expertise that incorporates general online marketing techniques more and more, experienced SEO's will require more and more knowledge of the impact that other marketing methods like viral marketing, media mentions etc. has on SEO.
As a novice I tended to look at things completely differently, I used to be more technical and less marketing orientated, today I see more value in building relationships with others in the industry. I also see more value in the cross integration of online marketing strategies to improve the SEO of the site. No longer is it just good site structure, nice titles, keyword research, backlinks and frequent content updates. It is looking at the integration of SEO in the dynamics of my site. Automailers now contain 'link-back' links or 'link to us' request, viral campaigns are designed to obtain natural backlinks.
I think in summary the biggest difference is more the approach and views that changed.
Great post Rand!!
Being new to the SEO business I have been reading up as much as possible. You're site is hands down the best reasource I have found!
It's great content like this that will keep me coming back for more.
Thanks!
Maybe I just have a different way of looking at it, but to me that article is really catered more towards expert vs novice client-centric SEO/SEM. That'd be the first point of contention, for those that choose to work in-house only. It is akin to a private versus publically-traded company; out in the open making money, or quietly cranking the dollar bill machine in solitude.The second point that comes to mind is that some of the best SEOs I know are not in the public light whatsover, don't participate on more than one board/blog, and have no intention to be, because it doesn't really give them much value. To them, the difference between novices and experts is how many 0s exist on a person's monthly profit. To a large degree, I tend to side with their thinking.That said, it is interesting to point out the variety of areas where newer individuals have a tendancy to fail, usually because learning in this industry is largely experience based. Providing a primer like you have done in the past is very helpful for those individuals, and explaining various ways that even "authority" SEOs have failed in the past is some of the best non-experience learning I can think of.
Cygnus
Re: Any novice mistakes you see (or ones you've made) that you can share with us?
Novice mistake: Spending too much time reading forums (though forums in general used to be alot more informative - guess that information has moved to blogs).
What I've learned: Spend more time testing theories
Re: 6th sense for Rankings
Dude! so true (though I like Rae's phrasing better). Somone asked me to sum this up, and the explanation of what I looked for actually took longer to explain than actually figuring it out.
>6th sense
...and it's yet another reason why folks outside the industry see it as black magic:) I find it helpful to remind myself that if they all "got it" - it would be a very valuable skill.
I also find it helpful to describe the "brief history of SEO" to people when describing the 6th sense/gut feel thing.
>time on forums
Most blogs aren't MUCH better. I now just come for the entertainment value, and when I feel like arguing. I talk to friends in private when I want to LEARN:)
Maybe what has been called a 6th sense is really the learned ability to access numerous factors relating to the rankability of a website and its competitive landscape quickly and draw a conclusion.
The only analogy I can think of, is the ability to solve algebra and geometry problems quickly. If you've solved enough of them and memorized enough, you can look at a simple problems, access quickly what it takes to solve the problem and solve it quickly as well. And there is no black magic to that.
Hmm... I wonder why it is that one who has never taken a geometry class can see that it is a learned skill, but some who don't get SEO, see it as black magic? At the Salem Witch Trials (...err Digg if you are an SEO), it was easy to dismiss anything you didn't understand as Black Magic. My gut says it has something to do with ego - lol.
Excellent post Rand. Rather than consulting Fortune 500 companies, I happen to work at a Fortune 500 (or its equivalent in Australia).
The two most congruent mistakes in my role are Measuring Traffic Rather than Conversions and Analytics Integration & Testing. With the budget most Fortune 500s have, they better have efficient analytics and measurement packages in place. Between the Hitwises, Comscores & Omnitures, the ability to identify/rectify conversion points, optimize pages & forecast trends is at your fingertips.
At a large firm you jump through hoops everyday. While half the battle is getting buy-in (advice: get a champion, talk to the money, compare yourself to competitors) the other half is in simply reducing the incidence of novice SEO.
Novice mistakes commonly observed in a big corp:
Rand,
I think somewhere in ther you stumbled from "Advanced SEO" to "Marketer". But I suppose it's encouraging for me as most of that seemed like old news or common sense... even if I do break the rules from time to time.
I did have a couple ah-ha moments though.
"you stumbled from "Advanced SEO" to "Marketer""
Is there really a difference? SEO is just a form of marketing...
Well, I think so. Not everyone agrees. I made a youmoz post last night but it seems we are stuck dealing with blogohlism for now.
Yep, marketing with an extremely technical side.
My post made it up - quick everyone go comment!
One novice mistake i would like to add is not dealing with domain name cannonicalization. The first step i take in an SEO campaign is to immediately fix this.
Choose one:
its so simple but few people take the effort to fix it.
Another favorite of mine - being 1 month into a campaign and realizing the client has half a dozen domain names that are mirrored on the server.
client: "Oh, yeah we have lots of domain names - is that an issue?"
SEO: um, yes...
-------
funny, i just saw Matt's post
dear-digg-million-code
This is a great post because it has also inspired a lot of discussion and input from the members.
Agreed. Actually, it'd be interesting to dig through SEOmoz posts and find which get the most comments, and which get the least, and then analyze why...
I like the concept.... but confounding variables could throw a curve.... or you are going to have to categorize the posts in a very broad behavioral manner.
That analytic geek side pops up every know and again....
Working with Fortune 500 companies are hit and miss. You have a lot of hoops to jump through, many of which may not have anything to do with SEO . In some respects it can be like working with any other client -they may or may not take action with your deliverables. But if they do and suddenly rank well, is it really that much of an accomplishment? To get links to their site(s)?
Harder to get solid links for smaller companies - so I think ranking well and then having solid conversions for a smaller company is a better test of SEO skil
Then again, why are we having this elite, excuse me, expert vs. novice conversation in the first place?
Hey Rand...just catching up on my reading...nice post! Funny story I was about to comment on a scrapped version of this that I found somewhere. Like an idiot, I registered for that site and now my email will be at the mercy of countless spammers. That makes me a novice I guess. :) Anyway one more thing to add is the seeming belief by some novices that Submissions still matter. Not talking about directory submissions, which of course still do, but some people are still pushing the value of submitting to search engines in this day of crawling. Maybe that seems too elementary to many, but it is a myth still often perpetuated.
Keyword Cannibalization
Rand,
Forgive my ignorance here. While I understand most of everything posted above, I have a question concerning Keyword Cannibalization.
I have always believed you should treat each page as a separate site with its own theme, title, description, etc. Also links going to internal pages should be linked to from external sources with different anchor text.
But, when you mentioned "spreading out anchor text", are you referring to internal site navigation, or are you referring to external off site links to the inner pages of a site using relevant anchor text?
By the way, I am nowhere near being considered a Search Marketing Expert. I do well with my own sites and business and that is where my interest in Search Engine Marketing comes in. we do own a web development company, but my core focus is high end development, not SEO/SEM.
I am a novice; I have been around SEO for a couple years now, like many of you guys did I’m in the process of learning, I would add a couple more bad practices made by us SEO newbies:
- Trying to build link popularity by doing link exchange
- Giving page rank a high importance
Also not understanding the power of 301's and the .htaccess.
The two biggest things I see is the similar meta, keywords spread out on multiple pages and people that are stoked on their new re-design but didn't think to do any 301's. It's suicide, it may seem simple but it is probably more common than the same meta and all the other stuff.
"Multiple Sites/Domains Why do even savvy SEOs continue the practice of launching separate sites for their sister-projects, blogs, or other related content. The links that come in to a single domain help all of the content at that domain rank, and 100 links from diverse, natural sources will earn you far more than 10,000 links to a Blogspot blog that you interlink with your main domain."
This particularly caught my eye. I work in a tight vertical and this is a predominant strategy among the major players. I think the strategy centers around harvesting more relevant domain names and ability to target as opposed to dumping all the content on one domain that targets the more general topic.
Generally, each main site contains pages devoted to the more specific terms/categories, but targeted sites are all also created and delve into more specific terms.
Main Site with Sister Sites
Site: Widgets
url: www.widgets.com
TypeA(widget) url: www.widgets.com/typeawidgetTypeB(widget) url: www.widgets.com/typebwidgetTypeC(widget) url: www.widgets.com/typecwidget
Sister Site: TypeA(widget)
url: www.typeAwidget.com
class1 url: www.typeAwidget.com/class1class2class3
Sister site: TypeB(widget)
url: www.typeBwidget.com
class1 url:www.typeBwidget.com/class1class2class3
VS.
One Umbrella Site
Site: Widgets
url: www.widgets.com
TypeA(widget) url: www.widgets.com/typeawidget class1 url: www.widgets.com/typeawidget/class1 class2 class3
TypeB(widget) url: www.widgets.com/typebwidget class1 url: www.widgets.com/typebwidget/class1 class2 class3
TypeC(widget) url: www.widgets.com/typecwidget class1 url: www.widgets.com/typecwidget/class1 class2 class3
Am I getting jumbled with your meaning here? Would you mind elaborating on your point (or if someone else wants to jump in on this topic that would be great.)
Do you think it hurts to use these in tandem? (in terms of links etc)
That caught my eye too. I have split topics off into a different site when I saw they were starting to distract the main site and draw the "wrong" crowd. Of course those are valueable visitors - that can convert! And they have shown a need. So why not throw up a new site and spend a little time publicizing it?
What isn't on that list is brand/message control. I wouldn't expect it for an SEO but as you get into marketing it is essential.
Hmm.. Interesting question..
I'd have to admit to the last novice mistake. We've manage to over double our traffic lately through some linkbaiting and better SERPs, but the conversion rate has halved (or worse). Luckily the volume has made the $s better, but if we'd kept the same conversion rate, I'd be asking for a big raise!
So what you need to do now, is try and find a different conversion method for those people. Generally, if you're attracting traffic, they're interested. And there'll be a way to monetize them. You just need to find it, and get them from that stage of interest, into the mindset of NEEDING to buy.
If you want some ideas, give me a shout and I'll give it some thought.
Good post Rand. Let's add some to this list of mistakes:
1) Worried about PR movement
2) Doesn't pay attention to Trust (stuck in the "sandbox" or -30 or whatever) when building links
3) Too much focus on recip linking and directories
4) Inability to stay ahead and anticipate where algo's are moving, always playing catch-up.
5) Prioritizing the wrong things (aka on-site vs off-site)
Rand, that was a very good post.
I think what it shows is that a novice SEO/M is still stuck in the IT room trying to do SEO by counting the keyword ration on page and incoming links ... and "expert SEO/M" has finally started to understand "marketing" and how other things such as brand, PR, etc. can add to the success of the campaign.
Hull City???
I'm a Plymouth Argyle boy in exile and still in the FA Cup
We have no delusions of grandeur :)
In fact, next month I'm giving a speech on "Fanatacism, Jingoism, and Futility". Hull City will feature rather heavily in the final third (my poor tigers) ;)
Hey, I'm originally from Hull - moved up to Scotland a couple of years ago. :)
Well that was a good read....
I guess I'm an expert and didn't know it - I knew I was pretty good as I get Fortune 500s advice requests often and have one as a client.
I'm not really one for spouting off about things and this has often led to me underpricing myself sadly.
I have "gotten into it" with several clients about bad practices and consequently lost their business- oddly enough those several lost clients usually always come back to me having been burned and pillaged elsewhere - of course then I get the "it's not in our budget now" excuse for a low payment offer after being burned grrrrr.....
Thanks for cheering me up!
David
Another thing that I think truly seperates a novice from a professional is basing practices from tested applications and not just theory.
Obviously not everything cant be tested with a high degree of accuracy, and new ideas need to be tried. But, the SEO that uses tactics based on measured results, and measures the results in everything that they do, is far more of an expert than someone who tries what they heard recently on a forum or conference.
Great post Rand. I do have a question about working for fortune 500 companies. I completely agree that working for one will give you experience with things you won't get working with mom and pop sites, but are you saying you can't be an expert unless you've taken on at least one fortune 500 company?
I realize there's a difference working for a recognizable brand and working to build a brand, but couldn't someone still become an expert as a brand builder. Is it absolutely necessary to have a certain kind of client before you can become an expert?
Having worked with brands of all sizes I have to say that big brands carry a different weight and require a different attention. It's tough to explain but I would say big brands carry two things small, new brands don't: legacy and baggage. Being able to deal with these things does take experience. And nobody wants to be the guy that screwed up Major Brand, Inc.
Plus big brands are usually looking ahead more than 5 years and that kind of vision just doesn't apply to the inexperienced most of the time. They just don't know enough about business to see that far out.
I'm going to agree with RMC here. But only to a point.
For my, I wouldn't quantify it by turnover, I'd do it by brand recognition, which I think is what we're really after here. I work with several clients who you probably don't know of, unless you're looking for them. In their fields, they're massive. It's just that their fields are very niche specific.
So for me, yes, there's definately a difference dealing with a "brand" client, rather than a "term" client.
I can back that up. "Super niche" companies are a different perspective too. And usually a lot of fun because there are clear rules defined by the culture of the industry so the work is, in a way, easier.
What Rand is trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong Rand) - is not that you must have big brand experience to have expert SEO knowledge. Nor do you need big brand experience to succeed in the SEO world, per se.
The difference though, is that big brands require completely different communication and project management protocols. Just having expert knowledge in SEO won't make you a success here - you have to understand how to communicate everything you do in a different way.
This encompasses many different facets of marketing, business management, technical savvy, project management, and client services.
In the end - much of your success with big brands will be in perception. You may have performed stellar work, achieved high rankings, even doubled their ROI - yet they may still perceive your work as mediocre.
On the other hand, your work may actually be mediocre – yet the big brand raves about you because you’ve succeeded in molding their perception and delivering on their expectations.
great post rand!
good news, i thought i was a complete novice, but i guess i'm somewhere in between, definately would not consider myself an expert, but i have been learning a lot of what you mention here.
i guess i have a pretty good teacher!
i completely agree with this, although you do need the technical mindset as well as the creative. which is what i love so much about it!
I think you summed it up Rand. I think your 6th sense has a lot to do with experience in the dealing with the serps. Its one thing to read SEO blogs and do SEO on your own sites but when you are really trying to compete for truely competitive keywords and phrases like "web hosting" or "used cars" then you need to have experience to back your decision making and shot calling.
Without experience under your belt all you have is opinions of what SEO's are saying! SEO is not an exact science, although there are forumla's to follow and general guidlines, the problem is that the Search Engine Algo's are changing all the time and just because someone is suggesting an idea of a filter, a new technique or a new loop hole does not mean it will work for you or for your industry.
Analyzing metrics, verticals, industry competition and keywords goes a long way but in the end a seasoned professional is going to walk away with a better ranking then someone just getting into the game.
I think you missed one...
Any SEO that works primarily on other people's sites, I would considered a novice.
The experts work on ranking their own sites. They know that building their own sites/business is where the true money is at. (If they are good at what they do)
Any SEO that doesn't have their own money-makers on the side is missing out, that's for sure!
Now that sounds like a true seo pimp......
The reason I don't think this is always true Kurt, is that it often takes resources to get a top notch site started. The barrier to entry has become a lot higher for creating a site and having it make money right off. In the last 3 years or so especially, the cliche "it takes money to make money" has become much more true.
I think you're right that any GREAT seo will ultimately become an entrepreneur, or dev their own sites, but I've even seen a lot of folks that have plenty of their own sites dive back into consulting for a little diversity.
I would say any SEO that that doesn't have side projects or a "night job" on their own sites is an amateur;)
Bang on target,
Few thing you missed
future thinking, the best seo's anticipate possible corrections in algorithm and take measures to counter them rather than blindly following the herds.
Technical/analytical expertise
Most seos do not have the technical and analytical ability to relate abrupt changes in search results to algorithm corrections
This is why you see a lot of experts crying evil google banned me in seo forums
De seoing
Yup the best seos know when to tone down
The best seos know if trafic from rank 3 is better than rank 1
Risk hedging
The experts spread their risk and know how much hit the client can take
Backup plan
Experts have a plan b
list is endless:)