Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 42
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: July 9, 2008 - 7:27 am
Posted By: hugoguzman 53 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://blog.zetainteractive.com)
Category: SEO
12 Comments
Went Hot: July 9, 2008 - 7:27 am
Posted By: hugoguzman 53 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://blog.zetainteractive.com)
Category: SEO
12 Comments
Top 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New
- Why Alert Competitors to Your SEO S... (20)
- Traffick: Infinite Regression Award... (16)
- How to File a Google Reconsideratio... (16)
- Link Development Decathlon « Link P... (14)
- Div ID=”Header” Different SEO Tacti... (14)
- Search Marketing: Sarah Palin Case ... (14)
- Online Reputation Management, The E... (13)
- 5 Easy Steps to Great IA the SEO Wa... (13)
- Search & Internet Explorer 8 (11)
- Google’s Historical Data Patent, Pa... (11)
Latest Comments
- Its a slippery slope for uninvolved clients, assigning monthly goals and ag…
- Post lists all the benefits of social media, good job! I think …
- @jill Yep I noticed that too - amazing eh? I even had to vote h…
- If they're such good forums, why did the author nofollow the links to them?…
- Exactly, g1smd. Same with Sphinn really. The line has blurred between forum…
- Wow, two comments in a row by John I agree with. (Checking to make sure I'm…
- I actually agree with John. Took me awhile to figure out it was talking abo…
- Well, I goofed on this sphinn.This post, in the most obsure way…
- - read more -
Save the date for:
• SMX China (Nanjing) - Sept. 23-24
• SMX Stockholm - Sept. 23-24: See who's speaking or register now.
• SMX East (New York City) - Oct.
6-8: See the agenda or register today and save!
• SMX London - Nov. 4-5: Pre-agenda rate now available. Click here.
Comments
It's one thing to go head to head and it's another to build client education and stakeholder empowerment into the overall enterprise SEO engagement.
Working with the client side contact to identify potential internal assets for the SEO cause that have influence should be in place from the start. Energizing those who "get it" with communication tools and reporting that makes them look good to superiors will do wonders right along with ongoing training.
Making logical arguments is no longer enough to get interdepartmental SEO efforts implemented. You have to combine the ability to associate SEO implementation for each stakeholder to how it will help them and the organization at large with the value created both personally and organizationally.
Thanks for the feedback, Lee!
Words like "client education" and "stakeholder empowerment" definitely have some merit, in that educating stakeholders and making them into heroes within the organization pays huge dividends.
That being said, this article is about going head to head with stakeholders.
In a perfect world, all stakeholders fall in line with a little education and kudos, but there will occasionally be situations were a little courage and gall is required. Typically, those really hard-nosed and combative stakeholders will actually appreciate a little pushback, so there's something to be said for standing up for yourself in front of the client.
Going head to head with stakeholders... can only be about ego. It's unnecessary and counterproductive whether you are on the agency side or in-house.
@hugoguzman It doesn't take courage to brute force your opinion to a client whether you're right or wrong. It takes skill and persuasion skills to create a compelling argument plus a clear picture of what's in it for them and the company.
If someone client side says something absolutely stupid about their SEO, and yes they certainly do, then the way to handle that is diplomatically and persuasively in a way that builds up the dissenter, not breaks them down.
Thanks for the feedback, Natasha. I definitely disagree and don't appreciate the subtle "about ego" cheapshot, though. It also makes me feel like you just glossed over the headline and comments and didn't actually read the blog post.
Whether you're an in-house or agency SEO, there will always be a situations where you and the marketing/dev/legal stakeholder will not agree. If you're not prepared to go head to head with those stakeholders in those situations - in a respectful and professional manner - you will likely fall short of being a truly great SEO.
The idea of simply falling in line or not pushing back when a stakeholders says no or goes against your recommendation is simply not an option.
Those that are able to overcome those objections, through education and solid business cases, will usually win the stakeholder's respect (and their incremental business).
@toprank - I totally agree. Nowhere in my post did I refer to "brute force". I spoke about solid business cases and points of view and consistent follow-up. I also specifically said that this technique should only be employed when you're convinced of the value and ROI that you can deliver for the client, so I'm not sure that I follow your comment about "whether you're right or wrong"
What typically happens to inexperienced SEO's when they get shot down, is that they get demoralized and go into that "if you don't implement these recommendations, that's your problem" mentality. I've seen it time and time again, both at the in-house level and with ex-colleagues that are no longer around.
I just think that too many people are afraid to push back, for fear of losing the client, but if done properly, it the "pushback" is actually very effective and can even build client rapport (instead of losing it).
@natasha - as for the reasoning for your DeSphinn, again it looks like you didn't thoroughly read the post.
It says that at in-house position for small companies it's easy to get your way. Not at in-house positions for medium to large companies.
Oh well, I guess everybody just reads what they want to read and interprets what they want to interpret.
@hugoguzman I was responding to your comment here on Sphinn, not the post. There is room for interpretation with a phrase like "push back" since many people who do that aren't tactful about it.
If noobs aren't confident in their recommendations and don't have data to support them, then they're going to have a problem in any job, not just SEO. It seems that's what you're talking about, being confident and having strongly supported recommendations. Yes? No?
The other side to this is that consultants that do not hold true to the client's best interests and that do not challenge thinking that runs contrary to agreed upon goals will be subject to blame. Even if the reason for a course of action or inaction lies with the client, it's the consultant's "fault".
Many companies hire outside agencies in part to challenge groupthink and "yes" men mentality. Outside perspectives can break companies free of bad processes and "we've always done it that way" syndrome.
My point is to accomplish those things tactfully not just by pushing or forcing as the phrase "push back" implies. I guess it might just be a matter of semantics.
"If someone client side says something absolutely stupid about their SEO, and yes they certainly do, then the way to handle that is diplomatically and persuasively in a way that builds up the dissenter, not breaks them down."
I agree with that, though it can be difficult when dealing with people who knows enough SEO to be a danger to themselves but don't have the capacity to think critically (e.g. are inclined to believe A caused B if A is followed by B). "Pushing back" can be a battle of egos, but when you're down to the wire - either a client agrees to go your way or the campaign is bust - its not merely a question of ego. Then you may find yourself asking which is more important: keeping a client happy by minimizing friction or getting the job done even if that means pissing off your client. Option A may put money in your pocket for a few months but its a short term "out" because the SEO campaign will likely go nowhere and the blame will fall on the SEO even if he/she recommended against every tactic that was implemented by a client. Either that or you diplomatically persuade a client to do it your way and if that fails, drop the client.
@ Hugo - I did read the whole article.. I guess it's easier to dismiss my DeSphinn and comments by saying I didn't. Maybe you need to re-write that sentence because that is how it read to me ie: to include BOTH in-housers and agency's doing work with small companies... as this is exactly what you wrote "When you work as an in-house SEO or render optimization services for a small company, it’s relatively easy to get your way in terms of implementation..."
The ego comment was not meant to be a cheapshot... or meant to be taken personally, that is what I think about the desire to go head-to head with a stakeholder - and if ya took it as such... that was not my intention. However I still stand by my statement, that "It's unnecessary and counterproductive."
The opposite of going head-to head is not "falling in line" it's re-evaluating the first case you made, and coming-up with a more persuasive case that speaks to the business/product goals of the people you are making your case to...because in the end your goal should be doing what's best for the company/product that you are working with.
@toprank, Halfdeck, Natasha
You all make valid points and rebuttles. That, to me, is what Sphinn is all about.
You've helped round out and refine my point of view, and we managed to share differing (and potentially combative) points of view without getting into personal attacks or childish insults.
Hopefully, we'll see more and more of this as time goes on.
P.S. I think the best way to look at this is as follows "push back, but only when you're convinced that it's in your client's best interests and when you have the data and experience to do so in a thorough and convincing manner"
Cheers to that :)