16 replies to this topic

[Scottie]

The latest edition of the Marketing Experiments Journal (which you should be getting- it's free after all!) rates High Rankings articles and forum as a top resource with 4 stars (which in their own words, means it is indispensible!)

This edition is interesting, covering what they call "Natural Search" as augmenting paid search. We get used to thinking of it the other way around!

Overall, the article does a good job of laying out an optimization plan but I found the comparison of natural to paid search to be very interesting. They don't say what positions the natural and paid search appear in for this particular client, which makes it hard to draw conclusions overall, but interesting nonetheless.

[Jill]

Don't we have a forum member associated with this? Is it Jeremy?

Hey! How come the High Rankings® Advisor has only 2 stars!

[Haystack]

Hmmm, the HR articles and forum both get high ratings, so what is it about that darn newsletter?

[McFox]

Hmmm, the HR articles and forum both get high ratings, so what is it about that darn newsletter?

Having the newsletter in text-only format would knock a star or two off the advisor newsletter, imho.

McF

[BrianR]

Having the newsletter in text-only format would knock a star or two off the advisor newsletter, imho.

But isn't text-only the more efficient format?? - ie. you get less bounces from over-zealous spam filters than you would with an html formatted version.

BrianR

[McFox]

But isn't text-only the more efficient format?? - ie. you get less bounces from over-zealous spam filters than you would with an html formatted version.

Of course.

However, people like shiny things, and html newsletters are 'shiny' in comparison to a text-only one.

[JamesW]

Catch-22 it is then.

Is the criteria that the review uses "good" or "bad"?

Cheers

James

[Scottie]

Alright Jeremy, fess up! Why the low rating for the Advisor?

[OldWelshGuy]

I think that what should be done is that Jill starts up another few newsletters, then refers to HR newsletter from all of these, kinda like a vote for the HR newsletter.

God I am smart, bet that sort of thing has never been done before

[Jill]

I think 2 stars was still "Good" so I'm really not complainin'!

[Jbrookins]

Wasn't me, I swear!! :halo: I think I jacked up the rating to a 3 or 4 in my review, but it might not have gone through since I think I'm the only one here that actually gets it.

It may be also that we have some differences of opinion amongst those of us who deal with the SEO portion of our work. Nothing bad, but it definately keeps it interesting around here. (:

And yes, getting mentioned at all is good. If we don't like the resource, it doesn't get a mention at all.

[Jbrookins]

Overall, the article does a good job of laying out an optimization plan but I found the comparison of natural to paid search to be very interesting. They don't say what positions the natural and paid search appear in for this particular client, which makes it hard to draw conclusions overall, but interesting nonetheless.

Part of the problem was that we realized that we'd gotten too ambitious for just one brief. This is going to be just the first SEO brief that we plan to do. We will be more specific about it as we cover more.

As for the PPC primary approach, we've observed that companies who rely primarily on natural search for their business models tend to have a 'house of cards' scenario going on. You just cannot depend on natural position, especially in acompetitive market against established competitors.

Our general philosophy is that you build your business on a solid, dependable foundation of that which you can control. SEO should be an ongoing effort, but by no means should it be the foundation of your entire company as it could all go *poof* in a single update. PPC, on the other hand, is largely under your control and can be tweaked and changed. While you should always aim for the top, you have to found yourself on what you do when you're not there! The rest is just icing.

[Jill]

Scottie mentioned you guys today in her presentation here at SES SJ!

[Jbrookins]

Scottie mentioned you guys today in her presentation here at SES SJ!

yay!

now I'm especially peeved that I didn't get to go.

PS. I asked Dr. McGlaughlin about the difference and he didn't think it made any sense. Editorial oversight, all fixed. High Rankings® Advisor ****

Edited by Jbrookins, 05 August 2004 - 10:49 AM.

[Jill]

Yay Jeremy, thanks!

:yay: