Should you pay for SEO before you see any results?

[PeterHoggan]

SEO services can be expensive making many small businesses nervous about parting with large sums of money on promised rankings and increased sales that could very well be idle. Furthermore, the current economic climate has caused many marketing purse strings to tighten. Yet going dark during a recession often results in the loss of market share that is impossible to regain once things return to normal.

I think it’s a given that top search engine positions for the terms your customers search for will increase leads, sales, opt-ins and profitability. The problem is no professional SEO company will guarantee rankings. On the face of it this makes SEO appear a risky investment.

Thankfully, SEO has become somewhat democratised over the past few years and it’s no longer a mysterious art practiced by a select few. One of the biggest benefits to come out of this for website owners and the SEO industry in alike is Pay For Performance SEO or PFP. The PFP model means that website owners only pay for search engine results once they have been achieved.

While many SEO practitioners might see this as the worst thing that could happen to the SEO Industry, my opinion is the exact opposite. The long-term effect will result in the poor performing SEOs withering away leaving the ones who deliver to get on with it.

 

[Boxby]

I had a bad experience with an SEO company, who were recommended strongly by an SE consultant. And even PFP wouldn't have saved me from it.

PFP is an excellent idea, and it could be the thing to seperate the men from the boys so to speak. But a side issue is that it could result in "black hat" work, which gives the client the result they need long enough to part with the money, but long term at best does them no good at all. (All i'll say here is crappy/rented backlinks)

Choosing an SEO/SEM company has to be one of the hardest things to do. It seems to me that you need to have virtually all the knowledge yourself in order to be able to see/assess how an SEO works and the results they've acheived.

And i'll agree with you in that the good guys will never guarantee results, but the charlatans will. How good is that for the customer/industry?? Which is why I guess that the scam "i'll get you to no1 one one google" companies all go for the smaller, less aware, business owners.

 

[PeterHoggan]

It doesn’t matter what industry you are in or what regulations are in place there are always going to be cowboys who only exist to steal your hard earned cash. It’s not a disease limited to the SEO industry but we have managed to pick up more than our fair share over time.

Hopefully, Pay For Performance SEO will make it harder for the scammers to manoeuvre.

 

[Boxby]

It doesn’t matter what industry you are in or what regulations are in place there are always going to be cowboys who only exist to steal your hard earned cash. It’s not a disease limited to the SEO industry ........

Totally agree.

 

[Gordon N]

I agree with Peter in that it is the best way forward for the SEO industry (in my opinion). It seems that there are growing numbers of consultants out there and there is little regulation that I am aware of, not to say it doesn't exist (does it?).

PFP will enable businesses who wouldn't otherwise have gone to SEO companys to afford what is an expensive but important aspect of online business and marketing with more confidence in the knowledge they are only paying for proven results. If it weeds out the cowboys even better! It is a positive move to clean up a sometimes cut throat and rather mystical industry!

 

[Mike Lewis]

Peter,

You've raised a good question.

Personally, I would never expect a client to pay for any kind of professional service before they'v seen a result of some kind. If a client hires me to write some software for them, I would expect, at the very least, to show them a prototype of the finished project before I bill them. And even that would be a first stage payment only.

If a client is so dissatisfied that they refuse to pay ... well, I'd say that the service provider has a much bigger problem than the loss of payment for one job. It's never happened to me, but if it did, I'd go out of my way to do whatever's necessary to win back the client's trust. If I failed to do that, the last thing I would do is press for payment.

Also, I don't know much about SEO, but I'd be hesitant to suggest payment by results. It seem to me that no-one can ever guarantee any particular result with SEO. Even if you have intimate knowledge of how a search engine will rank a particular type of page, you don't know if it won't change its algorithm tomorrow -- or if an competitor suddenly arrives on the scene with a better-opmised site.

At least, that's my (not so) humble opinion. By all means, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Mike

 

[PeterHoggan]

Mike,

Search engines do change there algorithms, these changes are to keep the constantly evolving techniques of the spammer at bay. So, play by the rules and this won’t be an issue.

Gordon,

There is no governing body or association.

 

[PeterHoggan]

I would never expect a client to pay for any kind of professional service before they'v seen a result of some kind.

Should SEO be any different?

 

[PeterHoggan]

It seem to me that no-one can ever guarantee any particular result with SEO.

There is no guarantee implied, rather results are paid for once achieved.

 

[RedEvo]

This is an interesting debate and one in which I have a vested interest as we offer SEO services. Effectively what's being discussed is risk and reward. However, it's more complex than a simple PFP model.

For example, often when we are approached the website owners have no idea about SEO. There is a process of education, there is a process of keyword discovery, there is a process of creating a link building campaign, sometimes PPC and always a general strategy to get the website working for the business. This is all SEO in my opinion and something we expect to be paid to do, just like any other professional company.

Once this has been done you could then argue in favour of PFP. So moving on, is performance measured in terms of rankings or sales? If it's for rankings then you are again playing into the hands of the many 'SEO' companies who will 'get you onto page 1 of Google'. Getting onto page 1 is easy, getting onto page 1 for words and phrases people actually use is harder. Also, we've got clients who would never agree to PFP as one click could result in a multi-million pound order, they simply want to pay for services rendered.

If you then consider smaller companies, the ones who would perhaps favour PFP because on the face of it it's free you have another dilemma. Things cost what they cost. That is to say, to run a business costs money for offices, phones, salary, benefits etc. and all employees have a charge out rate to cover these costs and make some profit. Any professional services company will understand its costs and the need to cover them and make a profit.

So, given the simple fact that using white hat SEO techniques nobody can 100% guarantee a result then ipso facto there will be some failures. But all the companies costs and staff still need to be paid so employee 1 whose campaign isn't going so well will need subsidising by employee 2 whose campaign is going to plan. In short any company running white hat campaigns will encounter some failures so to stay in business they will need to take account of this and charge more so the winners cover the losers - a bit like spread betting.

At the bottom of this debate there appears to be a general mistrust of SEO companies. Any company doing SEO must be out to rip people off. Far from it. Any credible SEO company will be 100% transparent about SEO and what they do, SEO isn't hard, it's just hard work. Some companies want to pay another company to do that hard work for them, others are happy to do it themselves in the same way I employ a firm of accountants to run my VAT/Payroll etc where I fully understand I could do it myself. I'd rather pay someone else to do it.

The truth is perhaps, if you can't afford to pay for SEO services in the normal way then you can't afford to pay for SEO services full stop because those rankings won't guarantee profits but the SEO will still need paying at the going rate.

We are always happy to discuss risk and reward so long as the reward would leave us in a much better place than if we were simply paid for our time. We would never offer risk and reward if the best possible outcome was simply to be paid for the time we spent on the project. This is normal good business practice. There are simply too many variables involved to offer guarantees where white hat SEO is concerned. For every day you spend chasing a phrase a competitor could be spending 5 days. For every honest link you secure a competitor could be buying a thousand.

Just some out loud thinking to add into the mix.

d

 

[Employment Law Services]

I tried to resist posting but the taste of blood in my mouth resulting from biting my tongue became too much to bear............my comments below are based mostly on personal experience or knowledge of experiences people I know have had and aren't meant to 'offend' the companies offering these services......rather, they are aimed at gaining an understanding of why SEO/Web Design companies operate so differently to most other businesses, in terms of their payment terms.

RedEvo, you hit the nail on the head when you said its all about risk and reward.......the question I would ask is.......why should the client be the one to take all the risks?

If I go to a restaurant or a mechanic or even a doctor (private),I don't get the bill until after they've completed the 'work' (food, repairs, consultation) and so if I'm unhappy with the quality of 'work' they've done I have the opportunity to challenge them before paying the bill and, in instances where the work provided has failed to meet the required standard, I can reduce my payment accordingly........whereas with SEO/Web Design, I would have already parted with a substantial amount of money, perhaps even all of it and would then find myself chasing them for a refund if the quality of work completed was sub-standard and would be completely screwed if they simply refused to provide a refund / fix the problem and instead stuck two fingers up - which many of them do!

Given the fact that a website is a 'tangible' product and extensive aspects of SEO are equally tangible (new backlinks, tidying existing code for ultimate SERPS performance, LSI resource documents being written and added to an existing website, manual directory submissions, not to mention actual SERPS position movement week on week indicating things are working) why do the vast majority of these companies insist on payment up front or, 50% upfront and 50% upon completion, or in the case of SEO, require payments (usually large ones) monthly, in advance when the results aren't likely to be seen for at least 2 or 3 months?

When you combine an upfront payment with a lack of any sort of guarantees, the client is left completely vulnerable with virtually no comeback unless they've got thousands in the bank to pursue any sort of legal action if it all goes wrong...........the web design/seo companies have the deck stacked heavily in their favour!

I can't think of any other industry that sells tangible products or measurable services that demands substantial payments up front............If web designers/SEO companies are as good as they claim to be, why can't they simply secure a reasonable deposit (say 10-15% or at a level that mitigates the financial risk) then request final payment once there is clear evidence of results.

Companies will/should have in place a signed SLA with every client and should have completed a credit check before taking them on so if the 'work' being provided has clearly defined outputs (.eg. a fully completed, functioning website with no bugs, etc or SEO work comprising clear evidence of backlinks, LSI resources being added, appearance in XX directories, positive movement in SERPS over an agreed timescale) they will have the means necessary to secure a final payment...........risk vs reward but with the service provider NOT the client.

I would NEVER pay in advance to have a website designed from scratch or for SEO work ever again!!

 

[RedEvo]

RedEvo, you hit the nail on the head when you said its all about risk and reward.......the question I would ask is.......why should the client be the one to take all the risks?

I'd never advise anyone to pay upfront for web design or SEO services and I'm always amazed when people do. We work on projects based on nothing more than a phone call and an email (as many of our clients are spread round the world) and our clients never part with a penny until they have taken delivery of part or all of the agreed scope of work. Part if it's a large project, all if it's a small one, and we give them 30 days to pay on issue of an invoice.

d

 

[Employment Law Services]

RedEvo I applaud the way you do business but in my experience and the experiences people I know have had, the web design companies ALL asked for at least 50% up front and the balance immediately upon completion and prior to the site being uploaded onto a server.

As for the SEO, they ALL expect payment monthly, in advance, right from the start despite the fact SEO results won't and arguably shouldn't be seen for at least a couple of months (certainly as far as backlinks go).

The fact you operate differently certainly gives you a strong USP and if the quality of your results are equal to the quality of your approach I'm sure you won't struggle to find and retain plenty of business.

 

[RedEvo]

I'm sure you won't struggle to find and retain plenty of business.

That is the case but I'm genuinely surprised people are still paying up front for websites and would advise they don't under any circumstances. I've been in the web game since 1995 and I've never asked for an up front payment. Surely this is only one man bands or freelancers who ask for payment like this?

d

 

[Gordon N]

Surprisingly as a web developer myself I understand exactly where you are coming from, maybe I can shed some light on why the design/develop side of things usually charge a deposit of the scale they do. I don't sell myself as an SEO consultant so someone else will have to cover that one...

The main reason we charge so much up front is for security, so yes we are passing an element of the risk back to the client but for good reason. The early stages of design and development for a website are by far the most hour intensive. It can take days to arrive at a finalised visual design with a client, and depending on the structure of the site, the amount of content to be inserted, the purchasing of imagery, photos, specialist software and scripts it would be insane to fund that prior to gaining some sort of security (or commitment) from the client.

Should the client decide to change the goalposts halfway through a project (I use a contract to accomodate any mid project alterations, and milestones to monitor development) many if not all of these items especially licences are non-refundable and would cost the designer regardless. Surely nobody can expect a designer/developer to spend that amount of time and money on a project creating a solution unique and useful to only one customer to be told that they weren't going to get payment?

It is my belief that designs should never be re-used for other clients, otherwise you are paying for a template! Software licences cannot be sent back, stock photography cannot be refunded and hours spent cannot be undone. A restaraunt can cope with losing out on a few covers, car parts can usually be returned for refund (or at least used on another clients car) and doctors may lose a few hours earnings without it dramatically effecting their turnover or overall business.

One large project with non-payment can ruin or break a small design firm or freelancer, which is why they need to cover themselves from the start. Any creative based business will be similar, overheads need covered to house the project through the various stages until completion. It is very difficult to compare a service/product that is commissioned and unique to one client against a repetative or reusable alternative.

That is certainly my own take on this, I have no doubt there will be many differing opinions - but an interesting debate for sure.

 

[TomB]

Hi Intrepid,

I do find it hard to believe companies asking for money upfront for services, but it happens.

Myself personally i charge a 15% deposit for the job as security. I normally find that this deters the time wasters or those that think they are going to get the work for free.

After that i split projects into milestones, and when these are achieved then an invoice may become payable, however that is always negotiated with the client.

I wouldn't expect to call a plumber for bathroom and be asked to pay £1k before the even touch my bathroom.

Just shows that some people are taking advantage of people that don't know about these areas, and that really ticks me off!

But employing a seo company i would be happy to pay monthly for work that i know is ongoing.

I can see how some people would try and absue the pfp method though

Good points raised though!

Nice to see you as well Redevo, been a while!

T

 

[RedEvo]

The main reason we charge so much up front is for security......

I understand your view on this but it's not one we share. I believe it's better to build trust with a client from the outset and not asking for an up front payment helps. I do however insist on stage payments as the build develops.

We have just walked from a project worth £20k because the client insisted on paying on completion and refused to pay in stages, I think that's wholly unacceptable.

This thread has wandered a bit from PFP

d

 

[TomB]

I understand your view on this but it's not one we share. I believe it's better to build trust with a client from the outset and not asking for an up front payment helps. I do however insist on stage payments as the build develops.

We have just walked from a project worth £20k because the client insisted on paying on completion and refused to pay in stages, I think that's wholly unacceptable.

This thread has wandered a bit from PFP

d

understandly though £20k is a lot of money, i know i would wnat to pay that in stages rather than in one lump. I can see why you would turn it down!

You never know what could happen!

I'm in the the middle on this, i wouldn't charge nothing upfront, but wouldn't want to charge too much. I've been stung in the past by non-playing clients, which is why i introduced a 15% deposit, but i mean i don't charge this for every client, it does depend on the client.

I have to say having looked at a lot of seo's site lately, its not something that i noticed, is this a fairly new concept from seo?

T

 

[Employment Law Services]

Gordon, I totally understand where you're coming from and am not suggesting that web designers should over-extend themselves or that they should absorb additional costs for things like licenses.

However, if a detailed technical spec is agreed with a client before any work is actually started and, as you said yourself, milestones are identified wouldn't the need for licenses and therefore their costs have been called out at the beginning?

Therefore you could reasonably ask the client to pay for the necessary licenses upfront as and when they are needed but could still only ask for a reasonable deposit before starting any work.

As far as a client changing the goalposts goes, if both parties have signed off on a technical spec / project plan at the outset don't you have a clear and justifiable basis for requesting an additional deposit and/or increasing the overall job costs if this happens instead of insisting on a larger upfront deposit just in case it does? Surely this is creating a rule for an exception rather than the norm?

TomB your 15% sounds reasonable and depending on what the project milestones are, an additional payment at that time might be perfectly reasonable too.

My main point was I think any company that expects substantial payment upfront is taking the piss and for SEO why can companies simply apply the same due diligence as far as technical specs/SLAs and charge post completion for tangible work completed with only a small deposit upfront mitigate the risks from time wasters?

To RedEvo's point.........in the past I've personally had 3 different web designers, all limited companies insist on 50% upfront and the 50% balance prior to uploading a finished site onto a server.

Unfortunately I used 2 of them to produce websites that subsequently fell on their arse shortly after going live (one within a couple of days).

Both companies were paid (a lot) - both refused to accept responsibility for the issues that caused functionality failures - one was recoverable but at additional cost but one wasn't and will require legal action to recover funds.

Both sites in question are no longer live (one never worked and the other one was more hassle than it was worth) and I will never use a web design company to produce a website from scratch again when there are plenty of quality template sites available that I can customise myself at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Gordon N]

I understand your view on this but it's not one we share. I believe it's better to build trust with a client from the outset and not asking for an up front payment helps. I do however insist on stage payments as the build develops.

It is I agree, and I am sure that a business such as yours that is far more established and well known than the likes of myself has an easier job there - and more than likely a healthier bank balance to offset costs! One day I will hopefully be in the same position!

This thread has wandered a bit from PFP

Oops, your right sorry! But it is helpful for me to get a better understanding of how the bigger guns operate, and learn from their experience. Threads like this will definately assist in shaping the way I operate and manage clients and projects - thanks. This is one of the main reasons for me participating in forums.

Anyway - PFP...... someone save me!! :001_unsure: