Ad Agencies Battle Search Engine Optimization With Branding Argument
There's a new blog called Tribble Ad Agency, spoofing ad
agency (lack of) knowledge of search engine optimization that
has SEO community chuckling and traditional advertising types
fuming. www.tribbleagency.com The spoof site takes on
ad execs by suggesting they are wasteful of client money with
the tag line, "We look cute, but boy do we consume
resources!"
The reference, for non-trekkies, is to a classic Star Trek
episode about furry little adorable aliens that reproduce at
an unbelievable rate and threaten to destroy the crew of the
Starship Enterprise. More at:
www.badmovies.org/tvshows/startrek/tribbles/
The Tribble Agency site takes a jab at traditional
advertising by suggesting that the industry is clueless when
it comes to the web and especially organic search engine
visibility and ranking. The following quote comes from the
main page of the new site:
"Our Business Model is simple, never build something that
could really help your company without our billable fees ...
Tribble Ad Agency got the rug swept out from under us and we
never realized it until it was too late. The entire planet
moved to Google, Yahoo and MSN organic results and we were
making print ads for magazines and our online marketing
efforts yielded 100% unspiderable Flash websites that
generated no traffic."
A traditional advertising and branding apologist has posted a
rant on the comment section of the Tribble Ad Agency blog.
The post featured two jabs from the advertising supporter
showing precisely the lack of understanding of SEO the spoof
site is poking fun at when he says, "The only thing you
SEO/SEM clowns know is how to add text to web documents."
Which is true at the end of the day. This is clear proof he
doesn't understand the value of text. He downplays the
importance of search with the comment, "Search engines are
pretty much a big generic network hub that focus on keywords,
not branding."
Showing no understanding of the value of text in web pages,
nor any clue about the importance of search engines, er
"generic network hubs", (which do billions in business each)
he amplifies the schism between advertising and search
oriented minds. He clearly doesn't understand the value of
ranking well at search engines for generic keywords, which
can't be achieved by traditional print or broadcast
advertising. People search for keywords online, and if a
business web site ranks well for generic keywords which
describe the brand, they'll sell more products, both online
and offline.
Danny Sullivan, of Search Engine Watch, created a blog post
on June 16 discussing the branding vs. search tug-of-war.
blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060621-112240
Sullivan points out that he believes that branding DOES occur
due to search when a particular brand shows up time and again
for any particular generic search phrase. Sullivan gives a
couple of examples in his comments to another blog where
Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 has taken an anti-branding
approach for search. (Sullivan comments are partially quoted
below and the Karp post is linked from Sullivans post above.)
"What do you think made Zappos a brand name when it comes to
buying shoes online? Those magazine ads you saw for them?
That TV spot? Wait - I don't think they do that stuff. What
they do is a lot of spending to show up in search engines
when you search for "shoes" and related terms. You did a
generic search, you keep seeing a particular provider, and
you learn about that brand."
I heartily agree that excellent search positions for generic
searches can lead to one sort of branding for savvy online
businesses. With the billions of searches done at the top
search engines in a typical month, if one brand comes up in
results for generic phrases more often for your product, you
have achieved the type of branding that Sullivan refers to -
at least among web savvy searchers.
While the advertising spoof site is fun and causes a lot of
chatter in the forums and blogs, it points to a real issue
and a glaring shortcoming in online work by many advertising
agencies. That issue is that most ad agencies lack SEO
capability and often downplay the importance of SEO to their
clients rather than hiring an in-house agency SEO or SEO
consultant. It is about looking good, rather BEING good. A
good website performs on both branding and on search levels.
The SEO process for ad agencies, marketing firms and web
development companies often runs into a twofold difficulty.
1) Visually oriented designers often insist on image-laden
(or flash) sites with little or no text on the web pages. 2)
Database programmers (php, cgi, asp gurus) rebel at any
process that can NOT be automated - like SEO. The image heavy
(or flash) site has almost no hope of gaining good search
positioning without text, while the dynamic, automated site
actually holds out some hope. Page titles and important page
elements can be automated if original data entry into content
management systems is done by someone with basic SEO
understanding.
Content management systems don't, by themselves, offer any
obvious automated method of intelligently titling and tagging
new pages of content - especially if those routinely adding
content via those systems are not trained in basic SEO
techniques. There are clear and simple methods of properly
titling pages effectively for best search engine visibility
that can be taught to those charged with adding web site
content. The In-House New York Times' SEO, Marshall Simmonds,
recently offered guidelines to reporters and editors for
headline writing using keywords in place of being cleverly
obtuse as they have been taught for print versions of their
headlines. That headline SEO effort is discussed in a
SearchDay article by Danny Sullivan & Chris Sherman at:
searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3613561
Marshall Simmonds' NYT in-house SEO advice was taken to mean
boring to one particularly uncreative reporter at the New
York Times when he penned a piece titled "This Boring
Headline is Written for Google." I wrote a piece about that
story titled a bit more creatively, "Google SEO Sleeping
Pill: Yawning at Dull News Headlines" snipurl.com/sbmq
(Pandia Search Engine News)
Branding does occur through search. Organic search ranking
for generic search phrases is critical to online success. Web
page titles can include important keywords and still be
creative and interesting. The same is true of titling company
web site news, product web site information, web site press
releases, or even everyday web site product descriptions on
ecommerce sites selling widgets. The problem is that keyword
titling requires more knowledge than guessing at important
keywords and using them in the titles. Keyword density, page
placement of keywords, word order, along with some structural
details of HTML are all part of a basic formula for
determining best titles.
Content management systems post those titles to the page when
new pages are created. Ad agencies need to train their web
development arms in the above-mentioned basics of SEO.
In-house content managers should be trained in SEO basics for
major national brands. Content creators and managers will
determine the future of branding in search. Ad agency
branding stars who refuse to use actual text in non-image
based words on client web sites are robbing those clients of
search visibility and search branding.
Mike Banks Valentine operates SEOptimism, Offering SEO
training of in-house content managers as well as contract SEO
for advertising agencies, web development companies and
marketing firms.
http://seoptimism.com/SEO_Staff_Training.htm
|