Seo Dilemma...need Some Input!, Site Created Using All Images... Options

[squibbs11]

Ok hold on everyone, this might get a little interesting...

We were recently contracted by a professional legal firm to perform SEO on their website. Here's is where the problem begins. They hired a professional marketing firm to do a complete marketing campaign for their firm, including the design of the website. The problem being that this marketing firm designed and developed their site using probably 90 percent images, even the majority of the copy is an image.

The firm that they hired to do their website has won numerous industry awards for their marketing campaigns, but the awards are in print, not web. Our clients have paid thousands of $$$ on this campaign and the website is very informative, contains excellent copy, is well layed out, and is astetically pleasing. The problem being, is how can we fully optimize this site w/o sacrificing the integrity of the site? (Our clients are very happy with the site...and outside of SEO, I have nothing bad to say about the site either)

Now this may sound pretty easy, we could simply take the pertainent copy that is an image, turn it into text, and then optimize the remainder of site w. the proper tags and such. However, the image copy is not a standard web font, but rather is used to coincide with the overall look of their brand. The firm hired has used the alt tag on all the images, but in some cases have used the alt tag as a way to write a short synopsis of the copy. For example, this is the alt tag for the homepage copy...

"Every lawyer at 'Law Firm Name' strives to resolve issues fairly, nimbly, and with the best outcome for our clients in business law, health law and other practice areas."

Now clearly this is not the intended use of the alt tag, and I'm also reasonably certain that the search engines would penalize such a long alt tag. I have done some preliminary keyword searches and the site does rank, but has much room for improvement.


So, we have come up with the following options as to how best optimize this site w/o a major redesign:

1. Simply replace the relevant image copy with text copy and optimize the site from there

2. Create a duplicate optimized html website w. an automatic 301 Permanent Redirect to the respective pages that have already been created. We would place a robot.txt no index on the current pages, so only the duplicate site would be indexed. ***Not really sure if the search engines would view that as a bad practice - - ????***

3. Determine the font that the copy is in, create a CSS for that font and do a forced download for people viewing the site (I've heard you can do this, but not sure how or how well it works)

or

4. Leave the use of images instead of text alone and simply optimize the site w. the proper tags, knowing full well and informing our client that this option will leave the site unoptimized to its fullest potential


If u have gotten this far, I thank you for your time and would greatly appreciate any input. The option that we are most intrigued by is #2, but we are unsure if the search engines view this as "sneaky" and thus devalue the site.


Cheers,

Rick

[nethy]

You are in a bit of trouble. You agreed to 'optimise' a site without determining what 'optimising' actually means. So either the client didn't know what this involves/costs up front or you did not.

For me, the ideal case is when internet marketing is a complete process, with web design, seo, ppc, analytics, conversion optimisation, etc. all managed by a single department/consultancy. Besides, making sure that all things are accounted for, this helps prevent some conflicts of interest in where to invest.

I suppose I am biased towards what I am used to, but I think this is a problem intrinsic to the concept of an 'SEO agency.' Not to say that there is no room for specialist 'SEO agencies' but I think that their market is limited to those IM efforts that already have competent & complete management - basically the bigger savy organisation & other IM firms that may want some specialist 'high level' SEO work done. Or training for inhouse staff etc.


My 2 cents about what to do about your problem
Honestly, I would say redoing the site in a way that is esthetically acceptable to the firm while complying with web design best practices. Standard fonts, textual context, etc. is the way to go. The current website is a problem that will continue. into the future.

Consult with their Marketing company. Try to get them on board. Your dealing with a diplomatic issue. It a question of what they really promised/charged for the website.

I have found that many 'marketing firms' that are in fact largely design & print houses do (did) this sort of thing - create an online 'brochure' that is basically an online copy of the normal print brochure. But many of them didn't sell it as an ultimate IM solution.They sold it as a simple, easy, cheap, 'for now' solution. They offer a website together with the normal logo design, letterheads, brochures, signs, & business cards package. They are aware that more robust IM efforts will require more investment/effort in internet marketing & they may be prepared to work with you or at least give their blessing to the project. It may even be an oppurtunity for some sort of relationship with the marketing agency.

But, that brings us back to the original problem. Is there any real value to the client in exposing more we searchers to this website? Currently, does itget any traffic? Does this traffic produce leads, measurable brand awareness, increaased confidence of their existing client community, etc.? In other words, what good doe this website do them from a marketing perspective. The reason I ask is that Internet Marketing focused around a website that is a few images is not really very robust internet marketing. It is very likely that there are things other then SE indexing to fix. If the website isan online brochure what value is sending traffic to it?

In short, my advice is don't do anything just yet. Don't do an SEO 'patch.' (Which is what all the options you are presented with at this point are). But this is generic advice. What you should do depends on the particular client.

From what I gather, many law firms and such are not really focused on marketing to generate leads, they have enough clients. They invest in marketing because they can afford it, and because their image is their ability to charge more. So they may not want to invest the time and effort to have an effective IM campaign. They will have a 'just do what you can' approach. If that is the case, tell them what to expect, and tell them what is possible with time & resources properly allocated, do what you can. And give them a call in a year or two. Maybe they will be ready then for IM proper.

This post has been edited by nethy: Dec 13 2007, 06:56 PM

[Jill]

Your best bet is absolutely, positively option 1, in my opinion. Everything else is simply putting a band-aid on a broken arm. #2 is most definitely the worst option. You'll want to avoid that one at all costs, again, in my opinion.

It's unfortunate when companies hire designers first and look into SEO second, and now they are unfortunately learning that lesson the hard way.

These days, I certainly wouldn't worry about the fonts. They can't really be using one for body text copy that is so crazy that a typical browser wouldn't have it, could they? Perhaps for a headline or something, but for all the text copy? I'd be very surprised at that.

I'd actually be interested in taking a look at the monstrosity if you'd like to pm me the URL.

[nethy]

It's unfortunate when companies hire designers first and look into SEO second, and now they are unfortunately learning that lesson the hard way.
I'd actually be interested in taking a look at the monstrosity if you'd like to pm me the URL.

Its not their fault. They have no idea about IM, they just want a website. They want it towork, and they might want it to do something for them. But since many companies do a fragment of IM- design, seo copywriting, many clients have a fragment of a campaign.

These days, I certainly wouldn't worry about the fonts. They can't really be using one for body text copy that is so crazy that a typical browser wouldn't have it, could they? Perhaps for a headline or something, but for all the text copy? I'd be very surprised at that.

Well you could use a font family with their crazy font first (installed on all their computers) and a normal font second. might be an ethical issue.

[Ahmed]

I would simply explain to them that other than SEO.. having copy in images is just WRONG in terms of usability. They will lose many potential clients if:

1) The images just don't load. Or the images might load very slowly and people will get impatient.
2) People have disabilities and are using screen readers.

People should have the option of adjusting the font size as well and if you can get a usability expert to look at the website they can probably find a million things wrong with it. I think this needs to be clear to the client.

[piskie]

Jill is absolutely right.
Unfortunately, to get this accepted will need tact and diplomacy plus a combination of common sense and receptive minds. This is a difficult position to be in, but if you choose any other option, it will be doomed to either failure or very limited and probably unnacceptible improvement.

I imagine part of your contractual terms is to analyse then producing a report with reccommended actions. If so produce it and if it is not accepted, then you will know where most opposition comes from plus (hopefully) the reasoning behind the objections. Then you can judge how best to tackle it.

[Randy]

I agree that you really do need to get the text into text format. Jill makes a good point above re: band-aid's and broken arms. Ahmed raises another good point with the spector of usability concerns. It's a ticklish situation I'm sure, but one that needs to be broached since it really does need to be corrected.

You may be able to use your #3 option of forcing or embedding the font currently being used in the image to make it text. But there are a few t's that must be crossed and i's that must be dotted before even considering it. Starting with, does the author of the font allow embedding. If it's a proprietary and/or commercial font you may not be able to do this at all without breaking copyright, and you don't want to do that ever. But at least it's a way you can show a spirit of cooperation with the marketing firm. Doing so may break down some walls for you in the negotiation, showing that you're trying to be flexible yet still do what's best for the client.

Understand too that there are other issues when embedding fonts. It's far from a perfect solution. To begin with, as far as I know Firefox does not support embedding at all, and FF is becoming a more popular browser for people to use. So you absolutely have to give users a fallback font or (better choice) font family to use. IE does support font embedding. Netscape does. FF doesn't, for some very valid security reasons.

In fact, if memory serves the CSS specs have even been a bit wishy-washy on font embedding. The 2.0 specs had font embedding in there, the 2.1 specs dropped support. The proposed CSS 3 specs (not widely supported by any browser yet) do have font embedding back in there, however there are still some security concerns that need to be overcome by the browser manufacturers.

The client --and probably the marketing firm-- need to be made aware of these issues. Howver at least it'll show you're trying to be flexible in case the marketing firm or client are set in their ways.

There is one very legitimate argument you can use that I have had to pull out of my bag of tricks more than once. This being that ultimately a web site should be built to serve Users, not the site owner, not the designer and not the SEO. Any time you do something with any web site that is solely for anybody but the Real Users, without even taking into account how it's going to affect these Real Users, it's a mistake. Pure and simple.

To do anything otherwise is to turn the web site into something akin to a Vanity Plate on an automobile. Which is a bad, bad thing if anyone involved expects real users to make use of the web site.

I've found over the years it's too easy for the people involved in creating a web site to forget who it's actually being built to serve. Reminding everybody of the ultimate goal and ultimate target audience can sometimes help bring about change.

[torka]

If necessary, since this is a law firm, you could always remind them of the litigation history of the National Federation of the Blind and the Target.com website... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

--Torka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mf_prop.gif)

[1dmf]

oh, nasty case that was, but it certainly made me stand up and take notice over accessibility!

like the beard Torka, have you thought about joining the circus?

[torka]

oh, nasty case that was, but it certainly made me stand up and take notice over accessibility!

AFAIK, it's still in process. Last I remember hearing, it was certified for class action.

Offtopic

like the beard Torka, have you thought about joining the circus?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/giggle.gif) I'm afraid it's only a seasonal thing. It'll be gone in a few weeks. In the meantime, just call me Torka Claus. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/giggle.gif)

--Torka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mf_prop.gif)

[SEOreports]

Yes, #1 Option is the best.

I do understand that this is a forum and an exchange of ideas is important. However, I just dont understand why the SEO firm would take on this project without first knowing what work is involved.

I think firms like that just give the industry a bad name and make it more difficult for everyone else in the industry. If you are unsure about what to optimize (or even how) and cant get the client some kind of results, then you should definately not take the work.

[squibbs11]

I just wanted to make a quick correction, I've been catching come flack from some people for this post and was wondering why?? So, I read my post and see why now...I put contracted instead of contacted (simple typo, but changes the whole dynamic of the post). We have not been contracted by this firm, only contacted to take a look at the site and submit a bid for the project.

My intentions were not to create a firestorm, just gather some input on a unique situation. I apologize for the confusion and thank everyone for their input.

[Randy]

like the beard Torka, have you thought about joining the circus?

Offtopic

What makes you think she's not already in the circus? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/jester.gif)

[torka]

Offtopic

What makes you think she's not already in the circus? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/jester.gif)

And the name of that circus is High Rankings... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/giggle.gif)

Squibbs11, no problemo -- if we were held responsible for all the typos we make here, I'd be in big trouble myself. And we would have run projectphp out of town on a rail years ago... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You're right, it does somewhat change the dynamic of the question, but I think the basic advice stays the same. If they want that site optimized (not to mention ADA/Section 508/etc. compliant) I think they're going to have to make some fundamental changes. There just isn't any good way to do an end run around a design that's flawed at such a basic level, IMO.

--Torka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mf_prop.gif)

[Hank Cowdog]

Yes, #1 Option is the best.

I do understand that this is a forum and an exchange of ideas is important. However, I just dont understand why the SEO firm would take on this project without first knowing what work is involved.

I think firms like that just give the industry a bad name and make it more difficult for everyone else in the industry. If you are unsure about what to optimize (or even how) and cant get the client some kind of results, then you should definately not take the work.

That makes a big difference - now you have the option of passing up the job (IMG:style_emoticons/default/kicking.gif)

Seriously, though, you need to communicate with the customer and clearly explain that in order to optimize the site for SEO, you will need to be able to provide food for the spiders (e.g. text on the page), and if they are unwilling or unable to do so, then SEO is doomed to failure.

You might consider getting a text browser view of the home page/internal pages (you can use the Google Cache's "cached text" option for an approximation) and show them what little the spiders can see of the site.

If they won't agree that the site needs to (and will) change to succeed at SEO, you could always pitch PPC to them instead.