65 replies to this topic

[Michael Martinez]

All I'm saying is if you do good branding, you'll be found for your name. It's a given. But it's not SEO as you don't typically have to optimize your site for your brand name.

Of course it's Search Engine Optimization when you're building a query space. No one is searching for your name/brand so teaching people to do that clearly impacts the amount and quality of traffic you receive from search.

This is, in fact, one of the fundamental principles of SEO and you yourself have advocated it in different words in the past: build value into your site that people want to find and to trust when they see it in the search results.

It cannot be distinguished or separated from SEO because it's intrinsic to the nature of our work. We are creating visibility for our sites in search results. THAT is optimization.

[Michael Martinez]

But branding isn't just about your brand name. If you do a really good job of branding (and SEO is now a part of this process), your name can be associated with the product or service you provide. If you take that too far, you run the risk of genericization -- your brand becomes so well associated with your product that the brand and the product category become synonymous in the minds of consumers.

This isn't about Xerox marketing a copy machine -- this is about building a very specific type of visibility (search visibility) for a Website. I'm explaining a micro-application of a well-established principle.

And as I just now noted in my reply to Jill, it's a fundamental aspect of search engine optimization that people have applied for years. People are just not used to talking about it in these terms ("building a query space", "building brand value", etc.).

It's no different from people talking about the cool new search engine "Google" and searching Yahoo! for it (which is essentially what happened).

The grass roots response to any new development is to search for information about that development.

All I am pointing out is that I have made Websites "the development" through the years so that I don't have to rely on link building.

Just a couple of months ago I launched a new blog that reached up to 3500 daily visitors simply by being something worth reading. People found that blog through all sorts of search queries but the most popular query was its name.

[qwerty]

Right. I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you. Branding is name recognition, but it's considerably more than that as well, and SEO is part of the branding process.

[PatrickGer]

@Michael Martinez:

Me:

Did your me-too competitors for 'seo theory' really just fail because of a lack of passion? Personally, I was thinking that the greatest thing about creating a new query space might be that b/c of the cycle of 1. queries 2. content 3. links ...in combination with the first mover advantage (or what mike grehan calls filthy linking rich) you get if youre the one to create that new query space.....you can float to the top w/o building links actively (but getting them passively) and then competitors trying to break into the space having a hard time catching up with you if they choose to compete (as in theyll have to build links actively, which you didnt have to being the first). Am I wrong about this part?"

You:

"A lot of people write about SEO theory without calling it "SEO theory". Bill Slawski's patent analysis is deep theory, for example. Some of Michael Gray's articles are deep theory, too. Even Aaron Wall has been sharing some interesting theoretical stuff on his SEO Book site over the past year or so.

Those guys all have their own niches. They're not trying to be "SEO theory". But those are the kind of people who, if they set their minds to it, could charge into that query space and set up some visibility. The only real intruder is a listing for a book that I would say is light on real theory and heavy on lots of marketing."

(Sorry for the possibly annoying quotes, dont mean to be annoying lol)

What I was wondering is why does the effort of building a new query space pay off ROI-wise.

After all, you might simply create a new query space (seo theory) a nd then everyone else could fill that need and in the end youre not better off than if you had leveraged existing query spaces.

It is all about the first mover advantage you have in that new market (you referred to it as market building (which i agree with)), right?

Even if bill slawski, aaron wall, etc. tried to break into it youd probably remain one of the existing players to be found for those search queries? ..and overall the ROI should pay off for you because building that new market and getting to the top of it (without any active link building simply because you were the first to deliver the content..which gives it a good shot to get linked at) can, in your opinion, often be a higher ROI strategy than looking at existing queries and putting all your money and time into link building to get to the top for those (overheated..as in lots of link building necessary) queries..

Sorry for the blabla - what Im wondering is actually simple:

The reason why (many times) building new query spaces rather than going after overheated queries...long term...can be a higher ROI strategy / better way of allocating your resources...is the first mover advantage you get in that market, right?

[Michael Martinez]

@Michael Martinez:

Me:
You:
(Sorry for the possibly annoying quotes, dont mean to be annoying lol)

What I was wondering is why does the effort of building a new query space pay off ROI-wise.

If you build converting traffic, the newly generated sales can be measured against the expense of the building process. If you build non-converting traffic, and you're LOOKING for converting traffic, then the building process is probably the wrong strategy (or was not implemented correctly). If you're looking for NON-converting traffic (such as building brand recognition) then you have to deal with those intangibles that are so popular in the "brand building" concept.

After all, you might simply create a new query space (seo theory) and then everyone else could fill that need and in the end youre not better off than if you had leveraged existing query spaces.

I find it unlikely that a query space founder would be easily knocked out of the top search results. I suppose it has happened but I have never seen that happen. Being first means you get the early recognition and eventually the major recognition. Now, I suppose someone could identify a newly formed query space, launch an off-search marketing campaign that reaches out directly to the media, and generates a lot of interest. But unless you actually top the search results first you're creating visibility for the query space founder. I don't know anyone who has tried to take over a newly developed query space through indirect marketing. However, from time to time your trends data may reveal that one query space loses traffic (and content) as another grows up and takes on greater value.

It is all about the first mover advantage you have in that new market (you referred to it as market building (which i agree with)), right?

Yes. Of course, that's not a magical advantage. It can be squandered. But I believe it takes a reasonable amount of effort on a competitor's part to take away a dominant position in an active query space, even a new one.

Even if bill slawski, aaron wall, etc. tried to break into it youd probably remain one of the existing players to be found for those search queries? ..and overall the ROI should pay off for you because building that new market and getting to the top of it (without any active link building simply because you were the first to deliver the content..which gives it a good shot to get linked at) can, in your opinion, often be a higher ROI strategy than looking at existing queries and putting all your money and time into link building to get to the top for those (overheated..as in lots of link building necessary) queries..

I am no longer writing for the SEO Theory blog. If 10 other people launched SEO theory blogs and published articles every day, I would bet that their sites would eventually move the original site down to page 2 simply because of the fresher, relevant results.

Sorry for the blabla - what Im wondering is actually simple:

The reason why (many times) building new query spaces rather than going after overheated queries...long term...can be a higher ROI strategy / better way of allocating your resources...is the first mover advantage you get in that market, right?

Not so much because of the first mover advantage as because of the reduced level of competition. Your costs of traffic acquisition should be lower (although offset by the marketing expenses). It comes down to where you can get the most bang for your buck AND where you feel less frustrated. I mean, if your ROI is higher in the competitive query space but your frustration/stress level is also higher there, if you get a good ROI in building a new query space with less stress, maybe that's the best business decision to make, too.

[PatrickGer]

thanks for the reply, again. dont really have to add anything because I would agree with pretty much all of what you said in that reply.