Should you pay for SEO before you see any results?

[Adventurelife]

Peter

My problem is managing growth, if that is indeed the direction I want to go in.

I could outsource work or employ people with a view to building the business, then I would need to revisit payment terms possibly the whole structure of the business. The trouble with this will always be the working standards of others and having trust.

The hassle of growth is something that concerns me, of course I could earn more money, but the hassle factor would be multiplied. In my previous job I managed over 100 people, I seemed to spend most of my day sorting out rubbish, it has been nice working by myself, with no worries other than providing a good service and keeping clients well briefed.

Sometimes I think I don't ant the hassle of growth, I certainly earn enough as it is, I guess it helps that I am financial secure without working, so it comes down to quality of life balanced against challenging myself, something I often ponder.

Managing growth is really quite easy if the systems are put in place. Much like yourself I decided a few years back just to live with a small company and a small team to run it so I could kick back.

Trouble was it is not in my nature to kick back so off and running again chasing high growth and building something that can be sold on.

Managing people is only as difficult as you make it. I have had teams of 20 to several hundred but I have never managed more than a small handful of trusted managers and it is their job to deal with the rest of the team. I am the worst manager in there is, but I can lead so I just employ good managers

Like I said though everyone to their own is what makes the world go round, your system works for you and your clients and at the end of the day that is all that matters.

Sorry to OP for going of track:blush:

 

[peteark]

I have never understood the 'keeping on topic' rule many forums advocate. The reason is fairly simple.

Most forums have a limited number of regular posters, if they are forced to keep their posts on-theme threads will quickly lose momentum and die off.

I often say, unique content is like virtual money as far as the Internet is concerned, to that end a forum really should advocate that people post as much as possible, (there's a little hint there in regards to the word association thread) If you have a chat in real life it's only natural for the conversation to move around a little, as long as it's business related is there a problem?

In other forums I frequent, this thread would have stopped as soon as the house rule was broken, the net result...the follow content would not have been added (lost value). Look at the thread now, some fantastic points raised by so many.

People need to grasp the Internet is a global community where the givers benefit, the difficulty will always be understanding this and working an ecommerce project around it, not visa versa

Great thread that has certainly opened my eyes

 

[polr]

Wow, this thread has created a lot of responses! I gave up reading after the first few pages and began skimming so hopefully I'm not going to repeat too much!

I think it's a shame that the web industry is looked on with such suspicion. Yes, there are bad companies out there but that should not give everyone a bad name. I think the bad feeling comes come rougue companies "guaranteeing no 1 in google for just £5 a month" - you know the kind of mails..we get them all the time! They are unrealistic and I've heard horror stories of people getting burnt by this.

We're a web design company and we charge SEO on a monthly basis from day one. The reason for this is that from day one we are working on the optimisation whether it be editing the site, link building etc. Not everything is immediately visible as giving an immediate result for example validating a website - it won't give a quick fix but will have long term benefit. This work is being carried out regardless of whether an immediate jump in the SERPS happens or not and costs a company staff hours etc - I'm sure no one will say that this does not deserve paying for.

What we do is provide reports on a monthly basis of the work that's been carried out and what's planned, any difficulties etc - we keep our clients 100% informed (and can provide happy SEO clients to prove it!)

On the flip side of this argument, we have had real difficulties chasing some SEO payments that were very successful and in this current climate, the risk of bad debt is too high, no company (on either side) can afford to find themselves 100% out of pocket.

When and if you are looking for SEO then get testimonials, ask for case studies and always, always meet the SEO to make sure you trust them. You should also be able to do a month-on-month SEO contract and not be tied into 12 months - that will always make us SEO's work hard, we want you to stay with us after all!

 

[andrewburnett]

I've not posted here for months, literally. This thread is an exceptional example of why:

1.Kazza's post although overly personal against one particular person on this forum has one very pertinent point (all the other points are open to discussion and I pass no judgement either way):

No SEO should put affiliate links on their clients site without an opt-in.

Seriously, that is just a no-no whether or not you have made any money from it. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to get corroboration from any SEO forum such as SEOmoz.


2. Unfortunately there are, as on any business forum, people who have "SEO" in their signature links whose own sites clearly show they know not the first thing about on-page optimisation. (I'm not naming any names, but those who DO understand on-page optimisation know who the charlatans are.)


3. There are people calling themselves SEOs, as on any other business forum, who run link farms to promote clients sites. Again, I will not name names - either you know who you are or you don't realise you are jeopardising each and every client you have.


As to the question posed at the beginning of the thread, personally I charge for my expertise and time. You wouldn't expect to only pay for medicine once it had worked would you?


Yes, SEO has a bad name with many people who have been burned by charlatans.
No, name calling on indexable forums will not help this situation.


Anyone wanting to see my own results is more than welcome to do so, under NDA to protect my clients. Anyone wanting to hear names and see proof of charlatanry can come and see me in person with a bottle of Ardbeg.

 

[NorthSouthMedia]

Wahaay, at last I get a chance to comment, been honing on this post since Sunday, but thankfully finally got my account off the ground and I have found the time to comment.

As Peters (OP) point was about PFP as someone who does delve in this side of the market I thought I would add my tuppence.

I only run PFP's with eCommerce clients, for which I take a percentage of sales via the shopping cart. I'm not interested in PFP with any other type of client on the grounds that :

A) Organic SEO is a pay-up-front method which I highly stand-by ... its a trust factor between the client and the seo company.

B) Even with pay-up-front SEO contracts which I run we set KPI's (Key Performance Indicators) at adjustable time periods within the contract. If the KPI's aren't being reached then we have a problem. Now, sometimes the KPI's may be, initially, set too high, but this is something which must be worked out honestly by both client & seo - again, this help builds the trust factor between client and company.

However, getting back to the original Q : PFP's are damn hard work, you spend more time on a PFP campaign than a normal pay-up-front scenario, if done correctly the return is always higher for the company than a normal seo contract and also for the client.

 

[PeterHoggan]

Welcome NSM, good to see you here.

 

[Adventurelife]

I've not posted here for months, literally. This thread is an exceptional example of why:

Hi Andrew nice to see you back.

I do not understand the above comment, I am exceptionally thick at times though.:blushing:

I thought the thread would prove helpful to potential SEO clients. In a industry as mistrusted as your own, not by me by the way, I would argue that thread such as this help potential SEO clients make better informed judgements.

Peter

 

[stuarty]

Andrew - in one of your first posts you say...

I am one of the aforementioned SEOs

OK. So you come on here and you cast damming aspersions about other companies on this forum and call them charlatans...

people who have "SEO" in their signature links whose own sites clearly show they know not the first thing about on-page optimisation....

Oh really? When I looked at your website I couldn't for the love of me find any on-page optimisation relating to SEO.

If you knew anything about on-page optimsation then your page titles (the most important tag) would relate to SEO - which they don't.

However - if you knew anything about SEO the you'd know that off-page optimisation (via quality links) will out perform anything on-page related.

Even your website doesn't factor because I couldn't find your site ranked in Google for any term related to SEO and you only have 1 inbound link.

Most top SEOs on the major forums will tell you this and there is untold proof that you don't need to do any on-page optimisation to rank. Proof - google "click here" or "website" or "twitter pages". In addition there are countless flash only websites that have no on-page optimisation at all - but they still rank. Rank incase you didn't know forms the major part of SEO.

On your website you say "There is no smoke and there are no mirrors in what we do" but you come on here and say....

Anyone wanting to see my own results is more than welcome to do so, under NDA to protect my clients.

If that's not smoke and mirrors then I don't know what is.

I'll happily give you the name of any of our clients without an NDA because...

a) We're proud of our results
b) We've nothing to hide

ps - I understand on-page optimisation (very well) and I also have SEO in my signature.

 

[andrewburnett]

Hi Peter,

You're not being thick at all

I find myself having to really bite my tongue in forums such as this. There are a number of self proclaimed SEO companies who, I am sorry to say, do not have the foggiest idea of what constitutes proper good ethical SEO.

There are comment spammers, linkfarmers and parasite linkers all right here (BUT There are also a couple of GREAT SEOs here!!)

So the reason that this thread is a great example is because of *some* self called SEOs having a "whose one is bigger contest" in order to look cleverer than the next. They'd better spend their time learning the trade they are selling and stop risking their client's sites - whether or not they take payment in advance or indeed at all.

Cheers,
Andrew

 

[Adventurelife]

Hi Peter,

You're not being thick at all

I find myself having to really bite my tongue in forums such as this. There are a number of self proclaimed SEO companies who, I am sorry to say, do not have the foggiest idea of what constitutes proper good ethical SEO.

There are comment spammers, linkfarmers and parasite linkers all right here (BUT There are also a couple of GREAT SEOs here!!)

So the reason that this thread is a great example is because of *some* self called SEOs having a "whose one is bigger contest" in order to look cleverer than the next. They'd better spend their time learning the trade they are selling and stop risking their client's sites - whether or not they take payment in advance or indeed at all.

Cheers,
Andrew

There is nothing like getting you SEO lot together on a a thread that takes your interest. It is like cats in a sack

I have always found " biting my tongue hurts, a lot" so I tend to say what I think in any given situation, this has not always been the best plan in life I give you that as it has produced some sticky situations!

But come on this is just a forum say what is on your mind, you will feel better and it is always good for us non SEO people to watch and learn:001_rolleyes:

 

[andrewburnett]

Stuarty,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to set some things straight.

Yes I did post that "I am one of the aforementioned SEOs" - I'd like to point out that "alas," preceeded that. The reason that I said "alas" is exactly because of the stigma that is attached to SEO. The stigma is there because of the charlatans.

OK. So you come on here and you cast damming aspersions about other companies on this forum and call them charlatans...

I stand by that statement 100%. Some ARE charlatans. What I did not do and what I refuse to do is to point the finger at anyone.

Oh really? When I looked at your website I couldn't for the love of me find any on-page optimisation relating to SEO.

If you knew anything about on-page optimsation then your page titles (the most important tag) would relate to SEO - which they don't.

You're assuming I want to rank for SEO related terms, an assumption that is wrong

However - if you knew anything about SEO the you'd know that off-page optimisation (via quality links) will out perform anything on-page related.

While this is true if your on-page optimisation is done well any off-page optimisation will have a much greater effect. It's like fixing the puncture before inflating the tyre.

Even your website doesn't factor because I couldn't find your site ranked in Google for any term related to SEO and you only have 1 inbound link.

Again, you're assuming that I want to be ranked for SEO related terms. As for the inbound links, you're out by about 1,242: https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=http://www.andrewburnett.com&bwm=i&bwmo=d&bwmf=u

On your website you say "There is no smoke and there are no mirrors in what we do" but you come on here and say....

I offer full disclosure to all my clients - no smoke, no mirrors. I am more than happy to show anonymised results to anyone without NDA. The reason I insist on NDA is to protect my clients and their sites. Ever heard of silver bullets?

For what it is worth you were NOT one of the people or companies I was referring to as a charlatan. Your response does not change that stance either as I base my judgement on facts alone:

• If an SEO company cannot control duplicate content they dilute any off page efforts - fact.
• If an SEO company doesn't understand how to use an h1 tag they're not worth the oxygen it costs to utter their name - fact.
• If an SEO company runs a link farm where they link all of their clients sites from they are risking all of their clients sites - fact.
• If an SEO company links back to themselves from prostitution websites you really don't want them linking to you - fact.
• If an SEO company posts comments on Matt Cutts' blog using "SEO" as their anchor text they're daft to say the least - fact.

There are companies present on this forum who do ALL of the above, I'm sure you'll agree that they are more than worthy of the charlatan tag.

 

[andrewburnett]

Biting my tongue does hurt Peter!

But to explicitly state what is on my mind would mean naming those to whom I refer. I've neither the time nor the desire to be sued, as happened to one of the UK's top SEOs when he outed charlatans by name.

So I try to give people the ability to spot these dangerous providers instead

Cheers,
Andrew

 

[stuarty]

Stuarty,

1. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to set some things straight.

2. I offer full disclosure to all my clients - no smoke, no mirrors. I am more than happy to show anonymised results to anyone without NDA. The reason I insist on NDA is to protect my clients and their sites. Ever heard of silver bullets?

3. For what it is worth you were NOT one of the people or companies
4.

• If an SEO company cannot control duplicate content they dilute any off page efforts - fact.

5. There are companies present on this forum who do ALL of the above, I'm sure you'll agree that they are more than worthy of the charlatan tag.

1. You're welcome and good response to the other points. I made assumptions as you correctly point out.
2. Silver bullet apart - I really don't understand why you would do this and I don't know what protection it affords your clients. It's the very fact that we are open (with client approval) that makes us successful. Showcasing our clients gives them publicity, linkjuice, sales etc for their own sites. You no doubt have your reasons which I respect.
3. Phew! TBH I know I'm not
4. I'm not sure I understand this? ecommerce websites for example have unavoidable multitudes of dup content. Google's dup content penalty has been officially declared a myth according to their blog. BUT...I'm sure there are still instances where it will count.
5. I'll have to take your word for this as I haven't actually looked at anyone elses website TBH. Maybe a Highland park will persuade disclosure.

ps - site-explorer was only showing 1 link without the www - my bad.

 

[bsfweb]

Great topic.

The answer is NO, but you try getting anyone GOOD in SEO (very very few who are...I know one, email me if you're really interested) to work for nothing in the meantime.

The trick about SEO is TIME.

It takes time.

Solutions

PAY.
With exclaimer/exclusion detailing AGREED targets. (Trouble here is that the minimum g'tees are TOO low, so the customer still takes the risk).

Find a good SEO expert (still very few..as I've said)
Then
Ask him to show you sites that he has worked on......
THEN check how much the competition is for these search terms...

Example....one of my websites is 'car parts sector'.

The term car parts is allegedly searched for 5m per month.
If an SEO expert can get you to be in the TOP 3 organic listings for such a HOT term. THEN HE / SHE REALLY DOES KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

Do not be fooled by local search terms e.g. car parts Middlesbrough - not in the same league.

I'd appreciate any feedback on my views.

Thank you for your interest.

 

[peteark]

Why would an SEO provider not want their site to rank highly, especially for sector relevant keywords? Is the positioning of an SEO's website not the best way to openly display skills?

It's like chatting to a designer who owns a 'slap dash' website, would he ever say, I have no interest in the appearance of my own site? No of course not.

Generally speaking designers make sure their own site is well presented and easy to navigate they have to if they want to be taken seriously

There are many web design companies that provide SEO services, most cannot get their own site to rank highly, so what chance for their clients? Type 'web design' into Google, start at the back of the index and view 50 websites, well over 90% of them will offer SEO as a core service, what a great advertisement sitting at page 98 on Google. Admittedly some of these businesses will be start ups, certainly nowhere near 90%.

An SEO company should have numerous contactable clients.

SEO providers who dont have a good portfolios or positioning are left to trawl forums, hence we see them

Involved in pissing competitions
Attempt One-upmanship
Creeping around the forum owner and long standing members
Work on become a moderator
Type in a very technical articulate manner
Take praise but never give it
Undermine their peers
Talk about un-named ex clients and blue chip companies they have worked for
Talk about big organisations they previously worked for
Never answer questions about their own site
Never back up their posts with factual evidence


The game never stops, it just gets bigger

 

[NealeGilhooley]

You need to look at an SEO programme in the same way as hiring staff or re-branding, it is going to take months before you get a ROI. If you decide to go into a long term arrangement with a recognised SEO company or a consultant then you should not even be having this conversation as you ought to recognise that sufficient resource and time are committed by you the Client as well as the SEO agency/Consultant.

I don’t agree that you should only pay by results as the SEO company does need to spend time at the front end and really why should they take an equal risk as the business owner? I would be wary of such offers as they might tend to push the heavily motivated SEO person to do anything to deliver the short term results sufficient to meet the SLA (service level agreement) and you may find that soon after the positions fade. I feel that they should state a cost, tell you what they will realistically achieve and also agree on the evaluation. Such ‘no win no fee’ offers may tend to rope in inexperienced Clients who see it as nothing to lose but will be unwilling to part with the cash unless they see a huge increase in financial return and to be honest a lot of SEO work will never be able to sell some products companies or websites.

We agree that our SEO company provides site traffic benefits from more than just a higher click through rate. We also recognise that we benefit from page impressions. We use an external SEO company and they have given us very good results, I have to be honest and say that I do not really know what they do for their monthly fee but we are still up there where we want to be for many not all terms of interest to us. Maybe SEO companies do need to tell us more about what they are doing as it is an obvious question especially in times where every expense is under the spotlight.

Also some SEO companies – and in this I also include the numerous cold callers alleging that they are ‘with’ Google or Yahoo Local should have the integrity to say that some services just will not benefit financially from SEO, some services just do not sell off the page (screen).
Regards
Neale Gilhooley
Evolution Design
W: Web Design Edinburgh - Graphic and Logo Design - Evolution

 

[PeterHoggan]

Coke, Anheuser-Busch and Procter & Gamble Push For PFP Model

Read more here

 

[RedEvo]

This seems to be suggesting firms costs are covered and the PFP is linked to their profits. It's just like traditional risk and reward. I'd be happy to risk my profit so long as my costs were covered, no problem with that.

d

 

[Employment Law Services]

My company provides professional services so I can certainly see your point but I have to say that there is growing pressure for providers such as ourselves to be held more accountable against results opposed to simply paid for 'time' and this definitely applies to the likes of PCW and Accenture. If you look at the basic principals of Six/Lean Sigma (something which we utilise during consultancy project work we do) it is based on delivering measurable, tangible cost benefits as an output.

SEO may be slightly different but as I mentioned many posts back, there are certain aspects that are clearly measurable/tangible so surely it makes sense that this should be paid for in arrears and NOT in advance and the 'performance' aspect could easily be measured against the original commitment.......eg. over 2 months SEO company will secure X amount of quality backlinks to Client website - you do the work I pay upon completion.

Nice to see the big boys are on the same page..............love it, PFP and guarantees, is that the winds of change I feel??

 

[peteark]

With most design teams are advertising search engine friendly websites, should they also fall into this category and how could it be implemented fairly?