AntC
Good comments all. Well done on the article for sparking great interaction. My take: Having taken a fairly detailed look at the programme, the package seems to offer little real value. For this very reason, from an implication perspective (i.e. Paid placement, Rand’s involvement or other search engines) I dont think it poses much threat. Anyway, the search engines own their space, so as long as its legal, they can do what they like. We (the engines and us) are all in the game of marketing to searchers in some way or another - we do this on their turf. Therefore, the us and them scenario doesnt hold much weight with me. Here are my thoughts:Firstly, its a package, not a solution. There is no strategy behind it, just data (search volumes), quality assurance (checking that the criteria matches up), and perhaps a little expert advice (from who? - I would like to see their CV’s). As you all know, there a lot of variables that need to be correctly aligned for an SEO strategy to work. Next, who implements the tactics (the copy, link building efforts). Not Microsoft - do they have link builders? The customer does. The service presumes the customer has the time and skill at hand to implement the tactics. If they dont, then they could still find themselves outsourcing to an SEO company on top of the MS service. This could get expensive - and impinge heavily on ROI. At the end of the day, throwing more budget at PPC might be the better option in terms of cost per acquisition. Next, what about conversion optimisation? Obviously, the "search engine friendliness" tools are not gunna help too much with conversion tactics. Does Microsoft have a team of specialist copywriters, usability experts, and web designs that are help you increase your sales, enquiries, brand interactivity, exposure etc. Perhaps you getting the traffic, now what?Next, accountable and personalised service. Who’s watching your campaign and watching trends in your industry - and offering you proactive advice for approaching opportunities and looming threats. Who are you dealing with, whose answering your questions, who is taking the time to understand your business? I could go on. But what we have here is a partial solution. If you understand SEO, and you feel the tools are a valuable addition to sharpening your campaigns (using MS data, haha) then perhaps you can find some way of justifing the expensive. As a player in the SEO industry, with their big brand, they will sweep up some of the average Joe’s. But i dont feel the lifespan of any serious customers can be that long here. They will have to realise that without a holistic SEO strategy in place, and some work-smart experience, they aint getting maximum ROI.
I suppose the biggest worry, over and above negative content resurfacing and lapping in the waves of the SERPs, is that content going viral - spawning and spreading through the blog community and creeping into the SERPs 1 by 1. From an SEO perspective, having the issue content showing up relevant searches for your client, changes the whole landscape of your campaign - expectations need to be reset. Supposing that your client is ranking #1 for ’Self catering Florida villa’ and the next result is a bad review or a blog post slating the venue - it may take a lot to put things right. I am unsure whether content changes to the site (after some time, maybe) or the purchase of links (especially with the paid links issue) will set the record straight. Perhaps negotiating with the vendor outside of the SERPs may be a swifter effective option.
Story: Microsoft & Rand Team Up To Squash the SEO Industry