I was planning to post this interview with Todd next Monday, but as usual, Todd has done a super job and providing insight into all things important about SEO. I first met Todd via email almost a year ago by commenting on a post at his Google search for my name will reveal more than they ever wanted to know. I think you write one of the best Thanks Lee. Your blog rocks too. I consider myself extremely fortunate that my site has been as well received as it has been. Your blog has been a daily check/ read for quite a while, and I was glad to meet you shortly after writing the "SEO club" spoof. It was about a year or so after my first search marketing conference in Orlando I think, and I thought I would take the idea of an industry get together to an extreme with the spoof. That was after my first conference seeing the wonderful irony that is all the people that go to an industry conference. The name stuntdubl started by having a brother in a band that I always teased that I'd be his stunt double if they ever hit it big - I think I was just a wannabe l33t haxxor and like the originality of the misspelling. I then used it as my Early last year there were a number of SEO firm acquisitions. What do you think the market looks like this year for SEO firms? Do you think there will be more aggregation or acquisitions? What do you think would be the biggest selling points for a SEO firm to be acquired? I think internet marketing is a fact of life for regular marketing folks. The migration of media distribution to newer forms will keep SEO a positive industry for quite some time. I really think we are lucky to be in such an exciting and lucrative field where there is so much demand and action. As long as there is demand for SEO services, there will be potential for acquisitions. The bigger companies want a piece of the action, and they're willing to ante up to get it. If I was a larger company there would be a handful of things I would want. The biggest valuation factor to any technology sector company (from what I've seen), has to be the future potential of the company. I would argue that the valuation should be based on things like:
- Human resources/ intellectual property (good people)
- Quality of Analytics
- Scalability of SEO process
- "Network" reach (content, ad inventory)
- Tools, code, and scripts for automation and information
- Client base value and future value
- Current and future expectations for revenue streams and profit centers
- Industry reputation
- Lead generation potential
- Sales process and potential
- Vision (good management) I'm sure there are plenty of things that I am missing, but I am certainly not a venture capitalist or business investor. To be a profitable SEO company, you need to have profitable and satisfied clients. This is a difficult thing to scale, that not many companies have done extremely effectively in the past. I think it will improve, and there is certainly an opportunity for those that can do so. Aaron has a suck up to, and a recognized find a GOOD SEO company, and get the most out of them. As far as being an "SEO B-lister", I have to congratulate Nick_W and others that Threadwatch was a perfect name for a community, as SEO's are about as gossipy as a sewing circle. Andy knew he was "stirring the pot" with that one, and it worked quite well. There was as much thought to what got left out as there was to what got put in, and it demonstrated just how well Andy knows the industry. There are LOTS of very qualified individuals in this space, and I would hate to truly make a list like that, but it got people thinking and talking. There is importance to the community of people that you surround yourself with was also a valid point that came from the article. The point of "sucking up" was made to an extreme, but a large part of understanding SEO is " of no hats, only goals, but your methodology for achieving them is how others will determine your "hat color". To me, using ethics as a unique selling point, or trying to use conservative SEO techniques to rank for highly competitive phrases is pretty questionable. Some people prefer a high risk, short term, "all-in" approach to SEO. Automation is a big part of this. I tend to think of the blackhat camp as the one with lots of great tools and very little concern to the industries from which they make money from. There are of course, low level spammers that fit the mold as well. Obviously pills, pr0n, and gambling are big business on the internet, and there are many very wealthy SEO's that promote these areas. The tools they use for optimization and promotion in these fields is really amazing. I don't work in any of those industries myself, but I am fascinated by some of the techniques that they use and applying them to less high profile, high risk ventures. There are some brilliant minds at work in what I would deem "ultra-competitive" industries, and they are consistently on the bleeding edge of search engine advancements. These are a good people to listen to on certain matters. I would consider white hats to be the business minded conservatives. They often try to suck up to the engines (the ultra-conservatives) thinking that this will somehow save them from having a site banned. What bothers me most is that they use their high and mighty ethics as their selling point. I certainly get questions from clients about our "SEO ethics". My response is usually something to the effect of - "SEO is an ambiguous field. We press the limits in higher competition industries at times, but risk factors are always disclosed to our clients". There are lots of interesting discussions about SEO ethics, and that's why this debate won't go away anytime soon. One of my fondest memories from a conference session was seeing David Naylor. Every time Dave opened his mouth, Shari's head started shaking "no". It was hilarious. Almost like a nervous tick from being allergic to anything that came from Dave or something. The discussion was fascinating as well, because it was represented by two people who had pretty much polar opposite views on life in general (from my best estimation), but were able to show each other enough respect to publicly agree to disagree. I think these two are among a handful of people who have become the poster children for this heated and often foolish debate. The ideas that come from two polar opposites is explosive and valid. When two people like this CAN agree on something, it is probably a very good technique worthy of consideration. While Shari's tactics and outlook on SEO drive me nearly to the brink tearing my own hair out (mainly her insistence on helping Google with spam reports), she is a very talented and successful SEO in her own right. I tend to lean more to Dave's side of the fence with regard to SEO philosophy, though I certainly wouldn't call myself a blackhat. The techniques I use are definitely on the very light shades of gray (I like a trick or two, but nothing that's going to get banned), but my philosophy tends to sway towards the darker shades of grey (I don't do spam reports, and I don't have moral objection to automated tactics as long as they are legal and non-destructive). I think that's a big part of the debate. Not so much good vs. evil or black vs. white, but the philosophy by which a person chooses to conduct their business with regards to customer disclosure, unique selling points, and relationship with the engines. You've been involved with WebmasterWorld as a forum moderator for several years. I've heard many seasoned SEOs say that information from forums should be taken with a grain of salt. What's your take on getting SEO information from forums? Webmaster forums are an integral part of the advancement of web technology. It is truly amazing that thousands of people from across the globe can share likeminded insights in a single place. I think the people are part of what makes this occupation so interesting. It is such an eclectic mix of people that practice this profession and its' variations. There is definitely a progression to the lifecycle of an SEO, and the lifecycle of forum participation. Most forums have a core group of knowledgeable members and newer folks showing up from time to time progressing through their lifecycle. I was lucky enough to run through a large part of my SEO/ forum lifecycle at Webmaster World . Most SEO's will spend time frequenting the forums to learn. Some will choose to actively participate by sparking dialogue or even just asking questions for their own benefit. A good member will re-contribute to the community by assisting other users, and in so be recognized as a person that is worthy of consideration or respect. Despite these forums being world wide entities, it is still nice to be able to do business with people you've met in person. There is LOTS of good information available in forums, but there is also a lot of really old misinformation floating around too. It's very similar to trust with links. You can trust the experienced folks with a track record with success and positive reputation on topics that they are qualified for. Timeliness of the information is a key factor. Even more important is having a network of people you can count on available on instant messenger (the SEO rolodex). As folks progress through the SEO lifecycle, they often disappear from public view as the value of forums has diminishing returns. After a while, there is not enough gained on a personal level to justify what one puts into the community. Even our friend has had a bit of a revelation on this front as of late even after doing things like Roger "Martinibuster" Montti a very similar question recently, and his answer was basically to the effect that personalized search is a ways from being fully adopted. There is very little incentive for the average user to spend the time it takes to understand and utilize personalized search. The buy in and loyalty level from users is quite low. The potential is certainly there, and I think it will certainly change the face of SEO, but it is not going to be an overnight thing, and we will have time to adapt to it and utilize new techniques to our benefit. SEO will looking back on the last year, it's amazing to see how things have changed. SEO must be a part of the corporate marketing strategy, just like it was a must that they had a website several years ago. At some level, SEO's are really just "meta-webmasters" that have a strong understanding of how each piece of the puzzle fits with the other pieces. I think you will continue to see LOTS of openings for "internet marketing project managers" at large corporations as they increasingly recognize the value of strong rankings. This is one of the reasons that I love the PPC disparity that you mentioned earlier. These folks are just getting their feet wet with internet marketing, understanding paid inclusion is a great prelude to a successful SEO campaign. As some of that budget (and other budgets) migrate towards optimization for organic search, it will be a great time to be an SEO (if it wasn't already). It's getting easier to accomplish the things that were considered SEO in the past like getting dynamic URL's spidered, but the demand areas are just shifting. Rather than needing LOTS of links, people now need the RIGHT links. They also need viral marketing which I think will be a large part of SEO in the future. Gray Wolf commented recently on the Matt Cutts, who has done an incredible job lately of communicating with webmasters. It's hard to have any argument with a barrage of posts on communication and webmasters in the last few weeks. He's really embraced blogging and has certainly used it to his benefit for soliciting quality feedback. I written several posts in the past Tim at subscriptions public, so it's easier to just mention it than it is to list folks (although for some reason it hasn't updated in a while). My daily reads would include: Search Engine Watch, SEOBook, Your site, SEW Blog, Graywolf, WebGuerrilla, Rockstars, . A couple of recent additions would include Web-Professor, and probably a few more that I forgot to mention. There's so many other good forums, personal insights available on the web it is overwhelming to just read and digest all day long. What search engines do you use most often? Do you use different engines for different purposes? I pretty much stick to Google and Yahoo. I would say a good majority of my searches are just for SEO research. When I am looking for something specific, I will use a targeted service like Truelocal, or other vertical, regional, or specialized search services. I use Google a lot for site searches. I was really glad to see Brett re-allowed spiders at Webmasterworld, as that is something I use quite often to find quality posts on a subject. Mainly I just use the search engines to test different queries to gauge the changes in results (and try to understand what may be causing them). Thanks a lot for the opportunity and great questions Lee. I wish you a wonderfully fulfilling and prosperous 2006! About Todd Malicoat: Todd is currently the We Build Pages Internet Marketing focusing on internet based marketing strategy and consulting. He has been creating websites since 1997, and started doing SEO and Internet marketing in early 2001 for his search engine optimization and internet marketing consulting journal at Search Engine Strategies and TopRank Online Marketing, specializing in organic SEO, blog marketing and online public relations. He's been cited as a search marketing expert by publications including U.S. News & World Report and The Economist and has implemented successful search marketing programs with top BtoB companies of all sizes. Odden shares his marketing expertise at
Suggest a Correction
Found an error or have a suggestion? Let us know and we'll review it.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!