Which one of these methods is the most effective when it comes to search engine marketing? Is it a "one or the other" technique or is a successful SEM campaign dependent on prudent utilization of both techniques? These questions have been brought to the forefront thanks to a brewing disagreement between parties supporting each side.
an article appearing in DMNews.com questioned whether or not SEO techniques were a legitimate need of the prospective search engine marketer. Dave Pasternack of response was posted a couple of days ago and in it, he indicates such articles are merely self-promotion ploys in an effort to get people to notice the initial writer's brand:I agree with Richard Ball that the genesis of this thread of commentary is an effort to gain attention for the purpose of self promotion than one that offers any real insight. It doesn't really serve client interests to bash one tactic over another when both are powerful marketing tools. And like any other tool, there is a right time and place for them. I've always believed that a tool is only as good as the expertise of its user.
Odden goes on to say a robust campaign makes use of both techniques, even though getting the expected results to coincide can be difficult:
Is it really worth spending a ton of time debating that SEO is not rocket science and that PPC is simple? I think not because these are not accurate characterizations. SEO and PPC initiatives can be as simple or as difficult as the situation warrants. It's different nearly every time.
While getting PPC and SEO to work together can be challenging, the results of a cooperative strategy can far exceed of any tactic on its own.
latest search news 
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!