Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 46
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: May 22, 2008 - 6:39 am
Posted By: iBrian 107 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.internetbusiness.co.uk)
Category: SEM Industry
When search marketers complain about others manipulating the web and or media, at best it can be described as hypocrisy, at worst, plain ignorance.
3 Comments
Comments
"These are the same people who game Google for SEO purposes, push down negative reports on clients as part of Online Reputation Management, game social media for traffic, and all in all - manipulate the internet according to their own set interests.
Therefore when search marketers complain about others manipulating the web and or media, at best it can be described as hypocrisy, at worst, plain ignorance about the influence of marketing on media, whether offline or across the internet medium."
I don't consider what I do to be deceptive. Manipulative, perhaps...but optimizing a web page so that searchers can find what they are looking for is not "gaming", it's perfectly reasonable and logical. The latest top 10 list of stupid shit on Digg may be using a psychologically manipulative headline to get clicks, but when the reader clicks it, they get the stupid shit they were looking for. A sales page may use tricks to get the reader to stick around, and some may even outright lie. Even if the lies make money, I don't call the liar a genius. I call him a criminal.I don't think Lyndon is a criminal, but neither do I think he is a genius. This type of promotion just lowers the bar for our industry and makes it tougher to gain the trust of clients and searchers. The big problem was not so much Lyndon's article as the readiness of the media to embrace it, but I certainly don't see this type of marketing is representative of the SEM industry in general. I don't attempt to mislead people in my marketing efforts, and I don't think most sphinners do either. I don't see any hypcrisy in criticizing a marketing tactic that consists of deliberately misleading the reader.
"The big problem was not so much Lyndon's article as the readiness of the media to embrace it"
yup, that is most detrimental. it spreads like disease. just look at our SM followers..some SMers have hundreds or thousands of people ready to jump when they say 'how high'.
its like the movie 'i am legend'..in a hurry to grab kudos, corners were cut and yes, a miracle drug was created that cured cancer. every patient that was given the drug, on a 1 for 1 ratio, was cured completely of cancer. the problem was, the creaters of this miracle cure found that the side effects caused every one of those given the drug, to morph into this ungodly unfathomable beast that ravaged and ate everyone and everything of flesh that they could get their hands on.
within 3 years time, only a small community of normal people managed to survive..the world as was once known..had been lost.
it may sound 'sensasionalized' and of course, it is not an actual real life experience. but is similar in concept.
marketers are already viewed by many as 'hungry' enough for greed, why add insult to injury?
That may be what some search marketers do, and if so, no wonder so many of you think this latest bit of defrauding the public is brilliant. This article finally made that click for me, so thanks for that, Brian.
That description, however, isn't what all of us in search marketing do.
I think I need a new industry, cuz this one I'm in right now, pretty much sucks.