SEO = Sun Emanating from (_O_) : SEO Ranking Questions – A Bad Practise?”
posted in Affiliate Marketing |
Why should the intent of SEO’ing for a brand be a taboo area of discussion, when there is just as much intent via SEO, if not it’s more visible to rank for a brand then that by way of PPC? PPC is not always obvious or deliberate to “appear” for a brand or hybrid phrase, where with SEO it’s pretty much in black & white before your eyes.
Much of this PPC stuff has stemmed from knee jerk reactions when the single display url was introduced by Google. It seems that PPC has mistakenly been tarnished as a dirty word for purists or practise, when SEO for a merchant brand does essentially the same thing, both having elements of costs.
Now I am not suggesting there should necessarily be draconian restrictions applied to SEO too, but something has been lost in translation in affiliate marketing, In my opinion the mind set towards PPC is a somewhat wrong.
If you are inclined to think that imposing restrictions on SEO is a bad thing, then by the same token it’s a bad thing to impose on PPC too. Also would a merchant prefer proactive affiliates representing them positively on both marketing strategies or instead negative consumer reviews & competitors occupying the space?
There are too many mindless sheep around who find it easy prey to finger point at PPC affiliates, because they are easy targets.
The recent discussions seem to be around a plethora of voucher code sites adopting old school / old style title tag stuff to extreme limits ie “Argos Promotion Voucher Code Argos.co.uk Discount Voucher Codes …” then keyword stuffing as much as possible on that page. Is that quality? Is it right to SEO for something that doesn’t exist, but still probably win the last cookie because the consumer is now on that merchant specific page. It seems to me that are are plenty enough practises in SEO which might be considered as poor too. That’s if it is?
“29th February 2008 : Stop thinking SEO & Paid Search are different entities, preventing a merchant from appearing in organic search to a certain degree is just as easy or hard. So why aren’t SEO affiliates having the same restrictions imposed on them, ranking reasonably on Paid Search or Organic Results has their own elements of individual skill.
Why not turn to a SEO affiliate and say no more meta tags or name=”robots” content=”index,follow” or forcing javascript or images to be used for wherever the merchants name, variation or misspelling is mentioned.
Totally unreasonable isn’t it! Then in the same manner so is forcing negative keywords on paid search affiliates!” and to push the envelope still further perhaps restricting brand bidding too could be argued “When it seems there is lack in equality of who is receiving all the slaps by the happy-slappers, when perhaps neither paid search or seo affiliates should be be getting slapped at all.
Part of the problem is the training & perception of many network employees & merchants” … even affiliates … “was incorrect from the start, so much so that it becomes ingrained as a bad habit, which needs to be reprogrammed, as bad advice was originally being given out. “
I have to disagree about enforcing negatives on brand name in a generic campaign as there are too many permutations. If there are 1000 merchants with restrictions does that mean you would have to put everyone (mispellings & variations too .. even those they don’t actually hold trademarks for, I bet your bottom dollar most merchants don’t hold marks for the variations) in every single campaign / adgroup you run, no matter who or what you are promoting. Impractical & impossible.
Put the boot on the other foot, would any merchants put 30,000 affiliate websites & names as negatives in all their campaigns and adgroups. Then we can come onto the discussion on whats the difference between ppc’ing for a brand & seo‘ing for a brand or appearing on a hybrid term becuase of the generic element. Absolutely ludicrous and doesn’t worth entertaining the 5 minutes of my life wasted in writing this paragraph.
Any merchant which tried to enforce “appearing on” , personally I wouldn’t be keen to be part of that program.
Yet again this could get really impeding to industry growth & draconian if networks started going down this route of trying to enforce the “appearing” avenue.
Basically any restriction placed on PPC (barring display url) can be applied systematically to SEO = Sun Emanating from (_O_) … the objective & intent is essentially the same … which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
The industry really does need to be careful, part of affiliates skill sets are SEO & SEM, restricting either or both is restricting the growth of the industry , if merchants are unhappy with that then let them find another performance marketting channel as efffective & transparent as affiliate marketing, there are plenty enough merchants who are willing to play ball, whilst the others can be educated or left to fester if they are uncompromising.
At the end of the day, ranking well or bidding for good generics is more valuable than ranking for the brand.
What makes me laugh or rather bemuses me are merchants who introduce heavy handed T&C’s on “brand”, and there are lots of them … you know the ones where the number of searches for a very obscure longtail term which might get a couple of searches a month yields more searches than the merchants “brand”, why have I quoted the word brand as “brand”, simple they are not a brand yet, yet they wish to suffocate the program from outset and thus less likely to aspire to one.
