Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 45
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: December 2, 2008 - 6:04 pm
Posted By: Xurxo 215 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.shimonsandler.com)
Category: Search Marketing
What do you think? Agree - Disagree? Why?
With the tougher economic times now present, I'm seeing many more instances of this debate come up. Would be great to get the search marketing community to comment!
11 Comments
Comments
in the long run, of course, however ppc gives clients more control and measureable roi which is why when talking to a traffiiotnal marketing manager in a corp, that they sway to ppc... even tho given 6 months(ish) more could be achieved through traditional seo.
I think a combination of the two can be most effective although a lot depends on the type of business involved and their aims, both short and long term. I think organisations like ppc because of its measurablilty and flexability, and of course, the quicker results. However, Sandler's point that SEO is like buying and PPC = renting is a good analogy. Without good SEO to fall back on, a website can fade away overnight once their PPC campaign ends - which is why I advocate a combination of both.
I agree with susiehood that a combined strategy tends to yield the best results since having a presence on both the organic and paid side works to improve performance from each channel. One thing that seems to be left out of the discussion is how flexible PPC is and how much it has to offer.
The content network is now so much more relevant and powerful given the new targeting tools available. Google also offers the ability to place advertising on other mediums like mobile phones. So for advertisers that know how to tap into all these extras, PPC can provide a reach that SEO can't which is one more reason to employ both in your search marketing strategy especially if your budget is limited.
Using the different targeting and placement options available through PPC you can get more bang for your buck while improving the performance of your SEO efforts. Makeing sure to be present as people are searching for what you have to offer is key and studies show that both an organic and paid presence simultaneously brings in incremental traffic and conversions. That alone should convince people that PPC and SEO go hand in hand. So the arguement of one instead of the other is a little counterproductive and misleading in my opinion.
I totally agree with Shimon. Too many people are out there looking for instant gratification and not thinking long term. PPC may get you quick traffic, but at what cost? If managed correctly, PPC has it`s place, but you will alway pay for every click and all efforts will be worth nothing the second you stop your campaign. Orgainic link building, on the other hand, not only provides the traffic you are looking for, but it continues to add value through search engine trust with age. If I had a limited marketing budget, I`d chose link building for organic palcement over PPC any day.
agree.
Ultimately the answer is a mixture of SEO & PPC to satisfy short term and long term objectives. But the current economic climate complicates the issue. Many marketers will focus on shorter terms tactics (PPC) due to insecurities about job security and the immediate need to meet sales targets. The thought of waiting months for results (which aren't guaranteed) will scare off a lot of people.
I'd expect budgets to sway towards PPC while the economy remains volatile. That being said, Rand did recently report a surge in interest over at SEO Moz, so there must be some smart people out there still focused on the long term. Or maybe it's just the lure of free traffic... :)
It's interesting that coming up behind this post on the top What's New list are 1) a post about the synergy between SEO and PPC and 2) a post about the tactics for melding PPC, SM and SEO campaigns...
All valid - If you have to chose just one online marketing strategy, long term via SEO is better, as this post describes. But hopefully you need not have to chose.
Great article. I agree that the combined approach is the way to go, and to make sure that each works where they have the natural advantage.
In these times, you need to make sure that PPC is not cannibalising your SEO traffic, to conserve as much of your spend as possible.
Also, I suppose I hadn't given much thought about marketers with job security looking more than ever for the quick fix. Great point.
Part of the post also assumes that you take your 10k and invest in SEO and you are there permanently 'owning the land' - not strictly true.
If you just leave those terms you got ranked well for (particularaly competitive ones) then you are likely to lose your positioning anyway.
But good to see most people are agreeing that PPC and SEO need to live with one another - not compete against each other.
If PPC can can gain you a new customer or client while still leaving you a good profit, short term or long term, it's a good business strategy. I don't see the relationship between paying rent and ppc. Most of the benefit to "owning" is due to leveraging your money. Putting 20% down, and having it rise. In SEO, you're not putting 20% down. You're putting 100% down. I would consider ppc much more similar to buying call options...except you are the market maker...and you know what that call option will convert to. In certain markets, its like shooting fish in a barrel.
The biggest problem with this article is this analogy:
Here’s a nice analogy to think of the difference between SEO/PPC.
PPC = renting the land
SEO = Owning it.
In neithr case do you have full control or ownership, the search engine does and the moment you think you do is usually about the time you lose positions.