Join Free About Support Login 
Home Blog Pricing Community Training OverviewSEO Training
Pay Per Click Ads
Tracking Results
Website Credibility
Site Monetization
Videos & Audio
Marketing Tools
Interviews
Discounts
Tools Public Tools
Free Firefox Extensions
Keyword Tool
Analytics Tools
Keyword Research
Competitive Research
Pay Per Click Tools
Link Analysis
Rank Checkers
Members Only (Join Now)
Competitive Research
Local Rank
Website Health Check
Duplicate Content Checker
Domain Keyword Tool
Keyword List Comparison
SEO Site Planner
Hub Finder
Videos Home ? Blogs ? Aaron Wall's blog Gain a competitive advantage Today! Say What!? Previous Maximizing Google Analytics Insight for SEO with Custom Reports Next Branding & The Cycle Why SEO Consultants Push Brand
Mar 7thby Aaron Wall0 comments posted in publishing & mediaAt SMX I gave a presentation on brand & how Google has biased the algorithms toward brands. having already seeing the bulk of my argument months prior, Bryson Meunier spoke after me and put together a presentation that used bogus statistics & was basically a smear of me. He was so over the top with his obnoxious behavior that when Danny Sullivan mentioned the next speaker after him he jokingly said "up next, Ron Paul."
I honestly thought the point of the discussion was to highlight how Google has (or hasn't) biased the algorithms, editorial policies & search interface toward brands. However, if a person speaks after you and uses bogus statistics to reach junk conclusions, you can't debunk their aggregate information until after you have looked into it some. An honest person can put what they know out there & share it publicly in advanced, a dishonest person hides behind junk research and the label of science to ram through poorly thought out trash, collecting whatever "data" confirms their own bias while ignorning the pieces of reality that don't.
As an example, he suggested that based on the number of employees and revenues Wikipedia is a small business. He then went on to say that since Wikipedia wasn't on Interbrand's "scientific" study that they were not a top brand. Nevermind that no countries, religions, sports, celebrities, or non-profits make the list of top "companies."After IAC figured out that they were able to get away with running Ask.com as a thin scraper site, they outsourced "the algorithm" and fired many of their employees. Because they have fewer employees, Bryson considers Ask as "a mid-sized business" even though they are part of a multi-billion Dollar company and IAC is Google's #1 advertiser!According to Compete's downstream traffic stats, YouTube receives about 1 in 13 search clicks from Google, but since it wasn't on Interbrand's list "who cares?" Incidentally, the folks at Interbrand do have a mention of YouTube on their top 100 brands page, but it was a suggestion that you watch their videos on YouTube. Their methodology is so suspect that Goldman Sachs and Yahoo! made the cut while YouTube didn't, even though YouTube is one of their few offsite promotional channels they promote on that very page. Their list also puts Microsoft's brand value at about double Apple's (and the list came out when Steve Jobs was still alive).Bryson also claimed that since big brands are inefficient and slow moving they already have a big disadvantage so it makes sense for search engines to compensate for that. That is at best an illegitimate line of reasoning because those companies have plenty of solutions available to them & have the capital needed to buy out competitors. Even when the SERPs look independent, a lot of the listed sites are owned by large conglomorates. As an example, here is a random search from earlier today:
Meanwhile the same idiotic logic ignores the lack of resources at small businesses. Nowhere in his presentation was a highlight of how Google favored affiliates & direct marketers until the profit margins of the direct response marketing model started to peak & then Google transitioned to promoting brands, as they wanted to keep increasing revenues and monetize more clicks. Bryson also shared an example of where he got a photo sharing site 40,000 unique visitors a month as a case study of the power of white hat SEO. 40,000 monthly visits to a photo sharing site might fund a light Starbucks addiction (assuming you value your time at nothing, have no employees, ignore hosting costs and the SEO is free), but not much beyond that. If that is a success case study, that shows how much harder the ecosystem is getting to operate in as a small business.He also put out a painfully fluffy "white paper" / sales letter which stated that since Wal-Mart has a page about SEO they should outrank seobook on "SEO" related queries if my theories of brand bias are correct. That misses the point entirely. I never stated that garbage content on branded sites always outperforms quality content on niche sites, but rather that a lot of smaller websites were intentionally being squeezed out of the ecosystem. Sure some small sites manage to compete, but the odds of them succeeding today are much lower than they were 3 or 4 years ago.At SMX near the end of our session a question was asked about the audience composition & most people were either big brands or people working for big brands. If you go back to when I first got into SEO in 2003 the audience composition was almost entirely small publishers and independent SEOs. This squeezing out of small players is not something new to search or the web. If you look at the history of any modern communications network this cycle has repeated itself in every single medium - phone, radio, television, and the web.
To be fair, I can understand why a no-name also ran SEO consultant would want to pitch himself for being up for doing SEO work for large brands. Brands generally have fatter margins, economies of scale, and large budgets. As Google tilts the algorithm toward the big brands (to where they can fall over the finish line in first place) they are the best clients to work for, since you are swimming downstream.
Why push huge boulders up the side of the mountain for crumbs when you can get paid far more to blow on a snowflake at the top of the mountain?
That is why so many SEOs fawn over trying to get brand clients. The work is high-paying, low risk, and relatively easy.
If we were ever to close up our membership site & focus primarily on SEO consulting work in more structured arrangements then absolutely we would aim at brands & help them fall over the finsh line in first place. ;)
Back when I worked with Clientside SEM we did a good number of big brand projects with some of the largest online portals & retailers. Understanding the business objectives & communicating things in a way that builds buy in from other departments is of course challenging. You need simplicity & directness without oversimplifying. But (if you work for great clients - like we did), then that is nowhere near as challenging as building a site from scratch into something that can compete for lucrative keywords. I recently stepped back from the client consulting model for a bit simply because I was pulling myself in too many directions & working too long, but Scott is still flourishing & delivering excellent results for clients.
I have nothing against the concept of branding (think of how many years I slaved building up this site & the capital I have poured into it), but I like to share the trends in the ecosystem as they are, rather than as a hack warping my view to try to pick up consulting clients. Our site would likely make far more income if we kept using the words "enterprise" "brand" "fortune 500" and then sold consulting to that target audience. In fact, a large % of our members here are fortune 500s, conglomerates, newspaper chains, magazine publishers, and so on.
It is not that brand counts for nothing (or that it should count for nothing) but anyone who claims the table isn't tilted is either ignorant, a liar, or both.
Truth has to count for something.
Disclaimer: I am not saying enterprise SEO is always easy (there are real challenges, especially with internal politics that add arbitrary constraints). And I am not saying that everyone who targets the enterprise market is a hack (there are some super talented folks out there). But the challenge of being a profitable small webmaster is much more of a struggle than ranking a site that Google is intentionally biasing their algorithms toward promoting.
Disclaimer2: I realize refuting a douchebag like Bryson Meunier is batting below my league, however as a matter of principal I won't let sleazeballs get away with taking a swipe using junk science. The word science deserves better than that.
Published: March 7, 2012 PreviousMaximizing Google Analytics Insight for SEO with Custom ReportsNextBranding & The CycleNew to the site? Join for Free and get over $300 of free SEO software.
Once you set up your free account you can comment on our blog, and you are eligible to receive our search engine success SEO newsletter.
Already have an account? Login to share your opinions. Over 100 training modules, covering topics like: keyword research, link building, site architecture, website monetization, pay per click ads, tracking results, and more. An exclusive interactive community forum Members only videos and tools Additional bonuses - like data spreadsheets, and money saving tips
We love our customers, but more importantly Our customers love us! 
My Account username password Signup for FREE account 
SEO Community New Threads 
SEO Competitive Research SEO Book Keyword List Comparison Tool SEO Toolbar Google Rank Checker Top AdSense Keyword Lists Link Building 101 Google's Matt Cutts on Brands Sister Site
Visit PPC Blog, our new sister site focused on pay per click marketing.
Site MapBloggingBrief History of Search TechnologyBrief Summary of ContentsBuying SEO ServicesContent Management CopywritingDomainingInformation ArchitectureInternet Marketing toolsKeyword ResearchMonetizationLink BuildingOn Page OptimizationPage TitlesPay Per Click / AdWordsSearch Engines / GoogleSelling SEO ServicesSocial InteractionTracking ResultsUsabilityWeb DirectoriesWebsite CredibilityWebsite DesignWebsite HostingWhy Search is Such a Powerful Marketing Channel Related Posts Which Source Do You Trust Most? Content Locking Ads Google Instant Answers: Rich Snippets & Poor Webmasters Panda 2.5...and Youtube Wins Again Algorithmic Journalism & The Rise of Corporate Content Farms Google Rips Rip Off Report From The Search Results The God Complex in SEO Why Was Demand Media Torched by Google? Branding Why Content Farms Are Here to Stay Is the Huffington Post Google's Favorite Content Farm? Recent comments NeonDog, Google DID ignore 4 hours 8 min ago sad but true 7 hours 37 min ago Thanks Marty, it'll be 17 hours 22 min ago great example James 18 hours 51 min ago simple 19 hours 18 min ago We got tanked too and managed to get Cutt's feedback on why! 23 hours 18 min ago Not Working 1 day 4 hours ago yup ... 1 day 5 hours ago Quite right 1 day 5 hours ago We're getting there 1 day 6 hours ago Tweet
Have a question? Join our training program today and get the Google rankings, search traffic, growth, and profits you deserve!
Not convinced? Try our free 7-day course for beginners. After viewing it we hope to see you join our community! Best of luck growing your business & we hope our site helps increase your rankings!
I'd like to learn more about: Link Building On-Site SEO Keyword Research Domain Names Tracking Results Site Architecture Website Monetization About SEO BookIn Short? We offer the #1 SEO training program. And it comes with tools, videos, a private member's forum, and so much more.
Home Join Blog Free SEO Tools SEO Glossary Community Training Videos Affiliates About Archives Support SEO Training Overview SEO Strategy PPC Tracking Credibility Monetization Video & Audio Premium SEO Tools Interviews Discounts SEO Toolbar Competitive Research Tool Rank Checker Keyword Suggestion Tool Keyword Comparison Keyword Domains Local Rank Hub Finder 
This website is powered by peanut butter, the cosmos, and you! :)
© 2003 - 2012 SEOBook.com
Email Address Pick a Username Yes, please send me "7 Days to SEO Success" mini-course (a $57 value) for free. Learn More
We value your privacy. We will not rent or sell your email address.
No comments:
Post a Comment