News Source: http://www.johnon.com
Published: Sep 07, 2007 - 04:07 pm
Story Found By: chriswinfield 1721 Days ago
Category: SEO
18 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://www.johnon.com
Published: Sep 07, 2007 - 04:07 pm
Story Found By: chriswinfield 1721 Days ago
Category: SEO
18 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Sept. 5-6, 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Oct. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 5-6, 2012
- SMX Munich - Apr. 9-10, 2013
- SMX West - March 2013
- SMX Toronto - April 2013
- SMX Sydney - May 2013
Latest News From Marketing Land
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- Search, Social and Mobile: What Travel Marketers Must Know - June 26, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Google Disapproved 134M Ads And Disabled More Than 800K AdWords Accounts In 2011
- Microsoft Integrates More Nokia “Infrastructure” (Traffic, Geocoding) Into Bing Maps
- What Trademark Search Data Can Reveal About User Behavior
- iAcquire Banned From Google After Link Buying Allegations
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 24, 2012
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
The only "secrets" that have been divulged to me have all involved things I would never do. "Let’s set the record straight. Competitive SEO is about exploitation of “secrets”. You look at the target search results page, examine who ranks and figure out why they do, and take a look at the web materials you have to work with yourself. What secrets do you know, that the current ranking web sites don’t seem to know? What exploits can you execute, that will overtake those players at the top of the SERP?" Hm. Maybe this is a secret, but it shouldn’t be: SEO is not about rankings. Not anymore.
Agreed. Rankings and clicks are for noobs. Conversions are where it’s at.
When he says ranking’s he means rankings that equate to market share/monetize-able traffic. John’s article is excellent, and accurate.
In the article Chris writes: "I discover new “secrets” every day, and sadly, I routinely learn of secrets my colleagues have been using well after they started using them. More often than I care to stomach, newly discovered “secrets” cause me to revamp SEO strategies in a hurry. I’m not the most connected SEO in the world, so I don’t know all the secrets, but of course I know there are secrets!" IMHO, they aren’t really secrets if anyone can figure them out. While there may be a temporary advantage to discovering a new strategy and keeping it to yourself or a small circle of friends, any advantage obtained is: a. Temporary b. Not as advantageous as sharing the secret with the world I realize that this idea goes against the current paradigm view of a limited "pie"; however, let me elaborate: If every brilliant person blogged every strategy they have ever come up with - put it online for all the world to see - the "pie" would be bigger and everyone would benefit. Most likely, 95% of the people who could read what you post wouldn’t be all that interested. About 3% would understand and implement some portion of what you shared. Perhaps 2% would really understand it and be capable of competing with you. Unless you’re in a really major, competitive niche, most of that 2% aren’t competing with you anyway. And you still have the advantage that you are able to find and invent new strategies. If someone actually does manage to implement your ideas as well as do as fast as you do life would be more interesting and you’d push each other to new heights. Competition - especially weak competition - is your best friend. If they spend a lot of money on advertising they raise awareness of your industry, products and services which makes the pie bigger. They help educate your potential clients and if you provide better value or customer service they help them decide what to buy and then send them on to you. The easiest deal to close is to someone that already has what you’re selling and wants to upgrade. The more competition, the more products, the more repeat business there is for everyone. As someone so wisely said in some other comments somewhere, the best SEOs wouldn’t call themselves SEOs any more - you cannot get great results in a vacuum. I used to call myself a PPC Specialist until I realized I had to become an Internet Strategist. It won’t matter how brilliantly you can send traffic to a Web site with PPC, SEO, or any other method if the site doesn’t convert. Usability and a clear path to your goals are more important than traffic. I don’t know if this article has anything to do with a post I made in my own blog titled "There are No Secrets" or that is a coincidence; however, when I write it is highly unlikely that I am ever specifically writing about SEO - since I’m not an SEO expert. That post is in a section which is not specifically about anything technical. The category is called Visionary Business Truths rather than SEO, or PPC, or Analytics. They are "my" truths and everything I write is my opinion. Everything anyone writes or says is an opinion. Even if the information is backed up with statistics or research, how the research was structured and the conclusions drawn are opinions. Life is not black and white and there are far more variables than any of us can possibly know. I recognize that my perspective is vastly different than what is considered the norm. I just write; what those who choose to read my posts do with that information is totally up to them.
@Jill - I see 21 friends in your list here and I’m certain you have far more admirers and friends who haven’t found you here yet. I’d be thrilled to have you as a friend although I’m beginning to think that could make life more challenging for anyone willing. I seem to be unintentionally pushing a lot of people’s buttons. I swear it is NOT on purpose. I just post it like I see it.
@flyingrose - I think the point of the article is that there are a limited amount of competitive advantages available to any business in a mature market space. Some of those are "knowledge" advantages (aka "secrets") and some are physical advantages (like owning a 15 yeard old PR9 with 20 million backlinks). The Equation John points out is: knowledge X physical advantages = total competitive advantage. In mature market spaces, you don’t need competitors, you need competitive advantages - and this is the conceptual issue the article was addressing. In advanced SEO the top players realize that to win the race, they need to get the BIGGEST ROI from the physical advantages they control - thus - the whole "secret" thing. But your philosophy is correct for emerging markets - you want competition etc. to increase visibility in those. It’s just that the top end operates in mature, hyper monetize-able, hyper profitable, hyper competitive markets.
Thanks for the input, John. I know that everyone believes a competitive advantage is necessary. I simply believe that collaboration is better for every business than competition. Even major corporations often submit one bid for a major contract alone and others in collaboration with what are generally their competitors. Having to be the top dog, all or nothing, and effectively being a monopoly - and some corporations carry that to competing unfairly - are old paradigms. These are going to change, and soon. Those who don’t realize that what benefits all for the greater good also is in their best interest are going to go the way of the dinosaur. In both the PPC and SEO worlds, there is more than one spot on the first page and most buyers are going to visit more than one seller. The idea that this is a "zero-sum" game is just inaccurate for almost every industry.
It depends on what you call a secret. "How SEO Works" isn’t a secret. "The latest place to spam and get links" is a secret.
"Internet Strategist" - that sounds so much better than SEO.
Hi guys. I wish my cell would indicate when a discussion starts on on eof my posts. Alas.... Thanks for the discussion anyway (and the sphinns). To clarify, I think one needs to take a more conceptual view of business. In any transaction, one side has information the other does not (i.e. a secret). That information defines the value for the transaction. If you knew how badly she wanted to buy it, you could raise the price. Since you don’t, raising the price carries risk. You use what you know to set your price, and you keep it secret. Just because someone else knows doesn’t mean it’s not secret to the transaction. I disagree that SEO is not about rankings... that’s another myth I’d like to debunk someday. In some niches, top spot is HUGELY valuable. Go long tail all you want, but don’t deny the money terms that are indeed money terms. And remember #1 gets a ton more trafic than #2, which gets a ton more than #3, etc. And by the way, there is only one #1 spot for a SERP. Business is knowing what to rank #1 for in order to meet revenue targets. SEO is getting that ranking. @Jill I am reminded of hook humility. You speak mostly to SEO people, so nothing seems secret to you. You also educate your clients, so maybe nothing’s kept secret. That doesn’t mean they aren’t secrets at some point in time. And all those new things you learn each day... ?
"I disagree that SEO is not about rankings... that’s another myth I’d like to debunk someday. In some niches, top spot is HUGELY valuable. Go long tail all you want, but don’t deny the money terms that are indeed money terms." When I say that SEO isn’t about rankings anymore, what I mean is that there’s a great deal more to it than rankings. An SEO’s job is far from done if the site is ranking well but isn’t converting. Back about four or five years ago, there were major debates in the forums about whether SEO was about rankings or whether it was really more about marketing. I thought that had been settled by now.
I have the numero uno surefire SEO best top secret. Sorry I can’t share it with you guys, its a secret. To all you doubters, google "Tribute to the Best Song in the World"
Is it screen scraping other SEOs content?
Thank you, Jill! I’ve always wondered why some people who are usually such kind souls seemed to have something against you that just didn’t add up. Now I totally "get" it. I always knew I liked what you wrote whenever I came across it. [For those who still haven’t caught on, I am NOT an SEO and the article that started this debate wasn’t even about SEO - although I suppose any specialty makes a good subject for discussing the broader concept.] @JohnAndrews - This is such an awesome discussion so I’d love to elaborate on the difference between the existing paradigm and what I see as it applies to your comments about negotiating. Some assumptions you’ve placed on the table are: 1. "...information defines the value for the transaction." 2. "If you knew how badly she wanted to buy it, you could raise the price" (and you seem to believe that would be a good thing.) 3. "You use what you know to set your price, and you keep it secret." In the old paradigm, it appears to me that the goal is to get as much as possible at the other person’s expense. If you do not believe that do let us know. I’m going to call that a win-lose scenario. (A belief that for one person to win someone else has to lose.) Now, even in the old paradigm, if you study Negotiating skills there are a couple of key concepts taught. (It has been years but I believe these are probably in a book called Getting to Yes.): 1. Win-win is better than win-lose 2. Always have a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) 3. Don’t argue over a specific detail; determine WHY the other party has asked for that and seek a common solution that satisfies that goal. (Many negotiations blow up over details that weren’t even critical to the outcome. Best to check egos at the door.) In the win-lose scenario used by many businesses - especially by our legal system - there are secrets, mistrust, and someone is going to walk away feeling they got the raw end of the deal. It sets up constant, ongoing conflict and reduces collaboration to develop the best solutions. In a win-win scenario, you dispense with the secrets and lay all your cards on the table. Each side explains what they would most like to get out of working together and they can negotiate terms and deliverables at a price that allows everyone to be satisfied and financially successful. There are no losers. This develops trust and ongoing relationships and hopefully everyone in marketing knows the easiest deal to close is repeat business. Instead of trying to hide information that would allow the other side to do better work for you, you can be open with everything, i.e., there are no secrets. When there are secrets we have conflict, espionage, and distrust. We always assume the other side is "out to get us" and think we have to "get them first". The same way business is run is how countries are run. Even the computer in that War Games movie realized that win-lose can lead to lose-lose. When we collaborate and always act for the greater good there is abundance for all instead of wealth for the few, fairly good lives for the middle class, and poverty, starvation, and lack for many. Worse yet, the harder many work the less likely they are to make enough money to even keep a roof over their head and food on the table. They’re too busy working to learn how to earn enough to live on. Carry this concept from top to bottom of any organization. In the past, employees unionized to do the least amount of work for the most amount of pay in response to employers trying to squeeze the maximum amount of work out of people for the least possible amount of money and benefits. That has been carried to the point that many have no personal lives and damaged health. What if instead the employees and employers collaborated to produce the best possible result? More and better work would get done, the employers would have higher profits and the more they shared with their employees the more their employees would love what they’re doing, the more they would contribute, and the more money the company will make. Then the company can share more with the employees, and the employees will keep contributing and the company will make more money - you see - everyone wins. Carry that into the community. When you have more money, you can spend it which provides more abundance for those businesses and then their families have better lives, and they spend the money and the entire community has abundance. The decisions we make about what to buy determine whether everyone has abundance or we all end up poor and the very few add to their billions. The same thing happens in entire communities and countries. There are ample examples. Ask yourself the difference in customer service, quality of work, and speed of delivery provided by government agencies, corporations, and start-up businesses - right up until their IPO! As soon as short term profits become more important than the joy of creating, the decline in quality starts. Whatever you focus on grows. Look at Google, and also the changes at Dell depending on which CEO was there and what that CEO focused on. (That is easily found in magazines and I can look it up if someone wants to know and can’t find it.) We can either share the wealth with everyone and all have abundance or we can stay the course we’re on. I hope everyone reading this starts thinking about that. There is enough food produced across the planet now to feed every single person. The only reason some are starving is because others are greedy - and that includes us when we fill our houses with stuff we don’t even need at their expense. The wealthy people that are doing this are just as brainwashed as everyone else. That is the only explanation for the willingness to add more billions at the expense of people’s lives! Ego gratification? Poor self-esteem? Keeping score? Being on the World’s Wealthiest List isn’t good enough if you’re not number one? This is a life or death thing here - and what really is the point of having more billions than you could possibly spend in a hundred lifetimes? No one who has achieved wisdom will ever say they wished they had spent more time working and less time living. Money can’t buy happiness. Believe it or not, you could actually live a joyful life completely without money of any kind. We have forgotten our priorities which are easily remembered when you’re on your deathbed or facing a life-threatening crisis. What if we made those our guiding principles every day instead of living out the rat race we’ve been programmed to perform in? We’re just the rats in the maze in the study. And as Lily Tomlin is quoted as saying, "Even if you win the rat race, you’re still a rat."
I achieved wisdom once. It was brief, and boring ;-)
LOL@snowboardjohn
Look, I am aware that I am different. Also, that how I write for some reason shuts down comments or isn’t very inviting of them. That is totally opposite of the reaction I would most prefer and doesn’t happen in some crowds - crowds of others like me. I write such long comments because I see so much more to discuss. The more there is, the more comments there could be. So, why if someone offers more does that stop everyone else from sharing THEIR truths? (Truth - even reality - is different for each of us.) If you don’t want to engage in a conversation publicly here, I’m open to discussing anything in my own blog or privately via email or MSN messenger.
I expect it’s because we’re internet people. We’re accustomed to short, pithy text, and we tend to scan that rather than read it word for word.