It seems like an age now since Eoghan McCabe of Contrast wrote his controversial “SEO is Bullshit” blog article back in 2008. That article was followed up a few weeks late with an article titled “SEO is Still Bullshit” which included discussions and comments from some of Ireland’s most respected SEO experts.
At the time, Eoghan’s article and subsequent comments irked me quite a lot. He, like every other SEO sceptic totally ignored the value and definite “need” element of SEO and focused purely on the usability issues that were generated by poor techniques used by most SEOs in order to get websites ranked in the Google search results.
In hindsight and after many more years in this business, seeing the rise (and fall) of (too) many so called SEO expert individuals and companies; I’ve finally woken up to the fact that SEO is in fact total bullshit.
Yes that may sound quite alarming coming from someone who has sold the importance of Search Engine Optimisation for over a decade. But the simple fact is that SEO has probably one of the biggest cons of the 21st Century.
I say this with complete sincerity and assure you that this is definitely not an article designed to create linkbait as was suggested at Eoghan’s reasons for his original article.
Let’s look at the very basic facts surrounding SEO.
- Ranking a website is easy!
Yes believe it or not it’s quite easy to get your website ranked on Google or any other search engine. Granted, the more competitive the key phrase wish to rank for, the harder it is to rank. - Google wants to find Good websites with relevant content
A very simple fact of the matter is that Google wants to rank websites that are relevant to the search being performed. Searching on Google would be a waste of time if the sites it ranked in the top results were not relevant to what you were searching for. A simple rule of thumb is to build a website that a user likes to visit and is easy for a search engine to find relevant content. That’s not rocket science is it? - SEO is not Rocket Science
I’m sure you’ve been there before, discussing search engine optimisation with a so called expert and he/she talks in riddles and makes SEO seem extremely complex. Well it’s not – there can be quite a lot to it if you are targeting a competitive key phrase, but in most cases it’s pretty straight forward. - SEO only drives traffic!
One major misconception I come across with people who know a little about SEO is that they sell SEO as a way to drive business through your company. Well the fact is that all is SEO does is drive traffic. Of course with more traffic, it should in turn produce more sales – putting more effort into focusing on building a website site that will convert as many visitors to your website as possible will in the long run be more useful than having a website that only a search engine can understand. - SEO does not Educate!
A lot of SEO’s sell SEO as the holy grail in terms of marketing your business. The fact is that SEO only targets people who already know about a service or product you provide. If you have a brand new concept or product that n0-one knows about – SEO will not help you get in front of the people that are likely to buy your product or service. - SEO is just Good Web Design
Every website we build now includes FREE on-site search engine optimisation – we just call it building search engine friendly websites. A lot of SEOs like to class themselves as elite God like beings that are more important than Web Designers themselves. But they’re not and the reality is that you should be thinking about making your website search engine friendly from the time you start building your website. I used to be shocked at how little HTML knowledge a lot of SEO experts actually have. Iif you don’t understand how a website is built under-the-hood, how the hell can you really understand SEO?? - SEO Forums / Blogs aren’t always right and are often taken out of context!
One of my pet hates is discussing SEO with someone who has read up a little about SEO and automatically assumes that the information they have read is the Bible truth. If you happen to be reading an SEO article online, please check the date the article was published. Chances are the information you have is incorrect or well out of date.Also, please ensure you are taking everything in context and not just jumping at conclusions without testing. SEO is all about trial and error – NEVER assume anything!!For a classic example of how unconfirmed theories send shockwaves through a whole industry, read this article – a prime example of an out there theory… http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/7594-is-email-reputation-now-a-google-ranking-factor
- Matt Cutts is not an SEO
Yes I’m sorry Matt lovers, but have you ever seen any websites that Matt himself has personally performed a search engine optimisation job on? Well I haven’t, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t of course!Yes, one thing he has got over us all is that he has inside information. How much is questionable as he rarely seems to throw out anything more than the obvious.
He’s constantly being taken out of context, with a lot of people taking what he says as “fact”, without reading into the actual meaning of his comments in the overall picture of things.
SEO? The bottom is that anyone can can do it. That sole reason is why we now have a market saturated with SEOs that claim to be God’s gift to Number 1 rankings on Google.
The SEO industry has become one that preys on vulnerable companies who will never truly understood how the web nor search engines work, but believe the hype that is discussed at length at nearly every business seminar across the country.
There’s no doubt SEO is important, but its value in most cases has been greatly over exaggerated. For any website to be a success, you must create a search engine friendly website at the very least – whether you should go further depends very much on the competition in your field.
SEO is in the gutter as far as I’m concerned – from the companies that offer you “guaranteed No. 1 spots on Google” to companies who offer “link building services” from websites with little or no value. And of course we have the SEOs who think 301 redirects are the solution to all your problems, it just gets more ridiculous as time passes.
Maybe Eoghan saw all this long before the rest of us, one things for sure… he certainly seen it before me.
Related articles
- Beginners’ SEO (ikroh.com)
- The Story Google Did Not Tell You About Your Rankings | SEO Theory – SEO Theory and Analysis Blog (seome.me)
- What are the the lowest-hanging fruit opportunities for SEO? (econsultancy.com)
- Getting Creative With SEO (searchenginewatch.com)
#1 by Leon at July 8th, 2011
| Quote
Interesting. I wonder what your definition of SEO is though. I’m guessing it’s a lot like mine always was, ie – SEO = stuff you do to your site. I’ve heard a lot of people lately say it’s a hell of a lot more and encompasses social media, internet marketing etc..I’m still kinda undecided. I might prefer to keep it the way it always to me..
#2 by Tom Doyle at July 8th, 2011
| Quote
Stuff you do to your site is what I would call “on-site optimisation”, but there is so much more now with off-site optimisation that encompasses a hell of a lot.
So much more that I don’t think “Search Engine Optimisation” is really what it should be referred to anymore. I must coin a new term for it before someone else does.
#3 by Michele at August 3rd, 2011
| Quote
Tom
Good post, but I think you’ve underlined the key problem – the snakeoil merchants
Making your site “accessible” to search engines and publishing good quality content might be easy for some people, but it’s obviously not easy for a lot of people.
So I don’t think “SEO” is going to go away – but it might need a new name ..
Regards
Michele
#4 by Tom Doyle at August 3rd, 2011
| Quote
I don’t know Michele, of course there will be something else to game, that’s the nature of the beast. Regardless of the industry you’re in, people will always try a new way to get around those barriers and get something for free.
I also don’t believe it’s only the “snakeoil merchants” that you speak about that have given the industry a bad name. Some of the more well known companies that profess to be experts talk a lot of BS and I have seen many a proposal that is just built to get a quick buck from an unsuspecting client.
I’ll tell you the story that prompted me to write this article later!
#5 by frank at September 8th, 2011
| Quote
Hi
Good article.
The key issue is your own that SEO only drives traffic. I think there is far too much hype around SEO or anything else where the cost (eg to pay someone to optimise etc) is either greater than the resulting profit from sales or where another alternative can get better profits for the same cost. here I am talking about adwords.
It seems to me for small companies they are never going to get onto page 1 on most searches and if not you are not you do not get enquiries ( clicks). If you do get to page 1 on a very very specific search term you may find the numbers using that term are very few. so you are still fighting say 8-10 others for a share of that small number. since the click to sales ratio is according to my reading no more than 3% on average if the search has just 400 searches per month and you get 10% ie 40 clicks this is only 1 customer.
anyhow i think buying advertising time to get on page 1 of a bigger search may be very productive. As i read it 30% of page 1 clicks go to the ads (and 70% to the list from the search) .
so if you can via seo only get to page 4 naturally you are going to get volume with page 1 ad exposure so then all you need to do is measure the profit against the cost per clicks. where the profit margin is high and/or rather the winning of the work gives you work you need it is a greta move. eg a wedding photographer or other specialist providers with lots of competition may find it really “profitable’ to advertise.
in summary where i think the con is is that SEO people sell SEO and do not offer the client a better alternative. they do not have to of course as to them adwords is a competitor so why give business away. the problem is that most buyers do not get presented with both options properly costed in terms of sales returns.
I am starting up a small business to do just that.
#6 by Karen at September 8th, 2011
| Quote
“Stuff you do to your site is what I would call “on-site optimisation”, but there is so much more now with off-site optimisation that encompasses a hell of a lot.
So much more that I don’t think “Search Engine Optimisation” is really what it should be referred to anymore. I must coin a new term for it before someone else does.”
“Offsite SEO” is just link building so the term “link building” would suit it nicely! What do you think?
#7 by Tom Doyle at September 8th, 2011
| Quote
Emmm, no – there’s a lot more to offsite optimisation than that!
#8 by TheBozzMan at October 14th, 2011
| Quote
A good article. This is the second time I’ve felt compelled to comment on your blog.
I’m not sure the semantics of what constitutes SEO is that important, but I couldn’t agree more with the message that it is bullshit.
I like Frank’s comment regards small businesses, which are who I primarily develop websites for.
As more and more come online, Google really needs to think about how they’re going to be represented.
Even a small town has dozens of plumbers, builders, tilers and the like and they simply all can’t get on page one.
As more and more businesses come online, even Google adwords fails to deliver. Based on its bid system, plumbers can end up paying upwards of £5 for a single click.
I live in Blackpool, a seaside town in the North West of England with hundreds of hotels, guest houses and B&Bs, all of whom want their site to get a first page slot, which obviously does not happen, but many of them spend stupid amounts of time and money trying to get there.
Sadly, no amount of tidying your HTML, adding well thought out titles and meta data or writing decent content can ensure each of them gets their fair exposure.
I touched on this in a blog post of my own which you may find of interest: http://thebozzman.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/why-i-strongly-dislike-search-engines/. My argument for it being bullshit is simply the fact that all of it (even building keyword rich content on well labelled sites) bears no real relevance to the real world. It is simply a game that has to be played.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but until Google or someone comes up with it, the SEO bullshit will continue.
I think perhaps Google needs to find a way to seperate business information from its other results, perhaps in the form of a specific business directory. Google maps looks like a start to that, but even that is open to less savoury SEO techniques such as creating Google places for each of your employees in seperate towns.
And that I think highlights the biggest problem. An algorithm simply cannot do what a diligent human can and effectively sift out the garbage.
#9 by frank at October 15th, 2011
| Quote
Hi
to aid the debate further readers might like to see the following calculations I have made on whether or not hiring someone to improve your websites google ranking is value for money. I have just selected on movement but the model can work for all change types. the amounts are in $ but the amounts can just as well be in pounds or euros.
if a search term has 10,000 searches per month and you make $100 net profit on each sale then the benefit of moving from 6th to 5th place on page 1 i see as worth $45-$182. ie i would be prepared to pay a SE0 person $45 per month to get me from 6th to 5th and keep me there. I estimate after paying the person i would be better off by $0-$138 per month.
if there are only 1000 searches and i make only $40 net profit each sale moving from 6th to 5th is worth just $1.83-$7.31. So i would be prepared to pay the person just $1.83 to do it.
say a SEO person wnats $100 per hour and i assume their efforts help 20 search terms then it is ‘costing’ me $5 per hour per search term i want improving.
Thus i can relate the costs to improve with the benefits the improvement needs to make to be worthwhile.
The model is not perfect but good enough to make much sounder decisions about SEO.
have done a model on adwords which i will describe in another post.
Would welcome anyones thoughts. Its not science more an art form?
#10 by frank at October 15th, 2011
| Quote
Hi
my earlier post was about trying to value seo improvements assuming you were on page 1 already.
if not one page 1 and want to get to say 6th place on page 1 the net profit per month by doing so before your costs of SEO is $212-$850 per month ( for a 10,000 search term and $100 net profit per sale). it is just $8.51-$34.02 if there are only 1000 searches and net profit is just $40 per item. As you are on page 1 “organically’ from SEO work there may be no need to pay for adwords as well as SEO.
as with my earlier post this info helps decide on what you may pay for a SEO provider to get you there and/or allow a comparison to adwords which guarantees page 1 exposure and is much more immediate in sales generation. ie it takes time to get to page 1 assumin you ever can. By my calculations on the 10000 search and $100 profit per sale example you would still make profits paying up to $3 per click. if you got clicks for say $1 you would be $600 ahead after the costs of the clicks. If there are only 1000 searches and only $40 profit per item then the max to pay for a click is $1.20. If you got your clicks for $1 the profit is just $6.
it seems to show if you are small business and are a local business then the benefits from SEO and adwords may at times be less than the costs. certainly before using either businesses need some feeling for what the resulting dollars may end looking like.
again welcome anyones thoughts
#11 by Tom Doyle at October 17th, 2011
| Quote
@Frank – I don’t think this model works at all for SEO to be honest. Firstly, the SEO would need to give guarantees on getting you to a certain position – which is simply impossible and any SEO that offers this should be avoided as they are purely just ripping you off.
The model could work for SEM – again how ever you would still need to budget in more for the set up and management of the campaign.
In both SEM and SEO there is quite a lot of “set up” work that needs to be added to the mix.
There’s also an argument that all the work carried out in SEO terms by your SEO has a longer longevity. For example, the SEO expert could easily remove the campaigns he’s set up from Google Adwords – but all the leg work such as building links, improving your authority etc can not be as easily removed.
#12 by frank at October 18th, 2011
| Quote
Hi Tom
yes you are right my model is oversimplified as SEO cannot be obtained from one dollar and then in small increments but it is useful for people thinking of seo to try to get some assessment of costs and benefit. Say the minimum spend on SEO is $1000 ( as there are set up issues etc) it still allows the purchaser too think about possible outcomes
2. if they assume say 3 search terms will end up with page 1 results they can estimate the likely benefit eg the return per month. if they multiply that by say 36 ( assuming staying on page 1 for 3 years) the resulting extra net profit can then be compared to the $1000 outlay. if searches were 10000 per month and net profit $100 per sale then for 3 search terms achieving this (8th place) i see as returning $158 X 3 X 36= $17064 or $16064 after the $1000 outlay. it also says the $1000 outlay is paid for in just 2.1 months.
if search terms are only 1000 and profit only $40 then the figures are $6 X 3 X 36 = $648 or a loss of $352 after the $1000 outlay and the payback period is 55 months (4 and a half years).
the first scenario you would go for SEO without hesitation. but the second one might make a business think about what the costs and benefits of adwords would achieve.
No matter the resulting figures much still depends on the clients attitude to risk (and their cashflow ) when asked for upfront outlays for SEO. if the $1000 is say no more than the cost of 3 ads in their local newspaper which has been their historic spend pattern and place even scenario 2 may be relatively attractive to replace that spend ( as well maybe as exploring adwords).
#13 by smek2 at February 15th, 2012
| Quote
Short answer: Yes! Absolutely.
SEO bitches are the scum of the world. I’m glad you see it the same and show the world what a big lie SEO is with your great article.