About a week ago, my partner and I did a Hangout On Air with Jim Hedger, regarding this thought-provoking article on The SEM Post. The article prompted a lot of renewed discussion about the reputation of the SEO industry, best practices and ethics and even touched upon certification.
There’s a history
There have been several efforts to generate support for the idea of certification for SEO practitioners, but all have been met with indifference or outright resistance. At one point, in seemed that SEMPO might have had a chance to muster enough support for the idea, but that non-profit organization became so costly that it was economically exclusive to many independents. They missed the boat, and as a result, the path going forward has even more obstacles.
Many SEOs are rightfully indignant at the notion of others dictating how they should ply their trade. Every market, every client and every situation is different, so the tactics and acceptable risk will vary widely. And many of us are in business for ourselves because of our independent spirits.
What’s the real issue?
In my opinion, though, what it really boils down to is a question of business ethics… not so much SEO-specific ethics (the existence of white and black hat SEO practices is a myth – there are no hats). The ethics question comes into play in the way we handle our clients, not their websites.
So accepting for the moment that an agreement on best practices or certification is, at best, in the distant future, let’s think about a Code of Ethics. What might such a Code address?
We can leave SEO and marketing out of it, in fact… this code of ethics could serve any consultant in any field. It would simply deal with basic issues like honesty, integrity, trust and responsibility, like most published codes. It would involve such things as conflicts of interest, transparency, fiscal responsibility – essentially, the basic tenets of professionalism that any consultant or agency should already be practicing, regardless of their field.
It can’t address any specific best practices, because (a) best practices vary by niche and situation and (b) we in the industry often can’t seem to agree on the time of day. But voluntary commitment to a standard of professionalism could make it much easier for clients to select a consultant… and evaluate the quality of their service. Hopefully, that will gradually force the craphats to either find a new trade or clean up their acts.
Today, there exist many questions for clients that aren’t intimately familiar with the current state of the industry (and really, how many are?). Is keyword density important? Should we list ourselves on as many directories as possible? Should we buy links? Amazingly, perhaps, to those of us that stay abreast of the evolution of SEO, the vast majority of site owners live outside our bubble, and often have no idea that such questions shouldn’t even be asked.
And sadly, with the barrier to entry nearly non-existent, many so-called SEOs either have no idea, or just don’t care, as long as they get their invoice paid.
How might it work?
Hence, the primary topic of Jim Hedger’s article… our name is MUD, due to unscrupulous treatment, negligence and occasional malfeasance of some self-proclaimed experts, ninjas and gurus. His point, which I wholeheartedly agree with, is that it’s long past time to do something about it. If we can’t undo the damage immediately, we can at least stop the bleeding!
So I propose that we put our heads together and come up with a credible organization that can:
- Publish and promote some sort of Digital Consultant Code of Ethics;
- Make it very visible to site owners and webmasters, along with a published list of consultants and agencies that have pledged to employ it;
- Provide a simple validation that a consultant or agency is a member in good standing and has adopted the Code as a standard;
- Make membership readily available and affordable;
- Employ some sort of review process for substantiated complaints.
Imagine that site owner Jonathan Q. Innocent is considering hiring a consultant, and the We-R-Wondrous Agency claims to be a member, adhering to their published Code of Ethics. Jonathan visits the organization’s website and requests validation of WRW’s status. It is immediately confirmed to him that WRW is a member in good standing, with zero complaints.
What would it mean?
Does this mean that WRW is the most qualified to serve J.Q. Innocent’s needs? Of course not! It simply means that WRW has pledged to uphold certain standards of professionalism.
If WRW fails to live up to that pledge, will the CEO be horse-whipped or run out of town on a rail? Nope. But if Jonathan files a complaint with the organization, they’ll ask WRW about it, and if it’s evident that they didn’t live up to their word, then perhaps their standing in the organization might be affected.
There are a lot of details to be hammered out when trying to set something like this up. And in my opinion, it’s not likely to be widely accepted, unless a lot of people have an opportunity to offer their input. Crowd-sourcing is probably the best way to approach it.
I think it’s time to bring a lot of people together and exchange ideas, so I’m contacting a number of widely respected professionals in the SEO and marketing industries. I’m soliciting their support in an effort to reach a consensus on how such an organization should be structured and managed, what its goals should be and how to give everyone a voice.
I expect we’ll be announcing the first steps before long… we’ll likely start with some hangouts for a crowd-sourcing free-for-all. Hope to see you all there.
Latest posts by Doc Sheldon (see all)
- Just Another Pothole in an SEO Client Relationship - September 8, 2015
- Are You Your Own Worst Enemy With Marketing? - June 17, 2015
- Dear SEO Industry: Haters Don’t HAVE to Hate - March 31, 2015
- Separating the SEO Signal from the Noise - February 19, 2015
- Is SSL a Blackhole? Or is it the Event Horizon? - January 6, 2015
Stephane Hamel says
The Digital Analytics Association has a good Code of Ethic that could be used as a starter and several points are really close the the SEO field, see http://www.digitalanalyticsassociation.org/codeofethics
Doc Sheldon says
Thanks, Stephane.
Bill says
Thanks, Stephane. I like the focus of that Code of Ethics on working to improve the industry
Bharati Ahuja says
I think the SEO Code Of Ethics and the code of ethics for the medical profession can be more or less similar . For e.g read http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/PolicyPDF/PD04-06.pdf and instead of the patient we can refer it to the website.
As an SEO has a moral and a legal obligation to the client to keep the website fit and the web presence of the digital assets of the website owner grow healthily on the WWW.
Moreover, as the health of any patient depends on the doctor’s treatment and the love , concern and care extended by his family and friends similarly the SEO can do justice to the website and the overall web presence of the client’s business when he gets due cooperation and understanding from the client for the SEO efforts he/she puts in.
I had written an article on the MOZ blog in 2011 regarding the reputation of the SEO Industry http://moz.com/ugc/the-question-about-the-reputation-of-the-seo-industry-12060 wherein I had expressed this sentiment.
But, in 2014 I see that the attitude of the business owners is changing and they are willing to accept the fact that SEO is an ongoing process and the results take time to accrue. This message has got passed very clearly to especially those people who went to SEOs who offered quick fixes and faced the Penguin and Panda penalties. I see all these people coming back to us and are willing to have the patience to revive their search presence.
Thanks to the changing scenario of the industry and thanks to Google for striving to improve search results and combating spam continuously . I think this is by itself making the spammy SEOs exit the industry and the genuine SEOs know that the real boom time has arrived for them and they have a promising future if they follow the WWW norms and work ethically. http://blog.webpro.in/2013/06/advanced-seo-means-adapting-to-www.html
Mike says
I think the idea of a code of ethics – one that deals with, as you say Doc, how we treat our clients is a great idea! I especially like the idea of it being almost a ubiquitous code of conduct for a broader section of the service industry rather than just ‘SEO’. Designers, freelance devs, offline marketing agencies even to some extent.
I don’t know or have much knowledge of SEMPO, however from what I’ve seen during the Twitter chats with Bill, I’d personally be concerned about an organisation (all-be-it a not for profit) having too big a stake in such a code, with concerns about it being something predominantly developed by, and for, members for that ‘paid inclusion’ organisation, rather than by & for the industry as a whole.
What I mean is, I can see why and how it would be a great marketing angle for such an organisation to be an integrate part of an industry code of conduct – and perhaps this could be a beneficial thing in some ways (budget etc), however my fears would be that it would be somewhat exclusive, rather than all encompassing.
Certainly if any org wanted to propose itself as the ideal vehicle for something like an industry-wide code of ethics, they should be more than happy to stand up in a public arena and talk about what they’ve done for the industry over the years and how them being a key stakeholder in the creation of such an agreement would be advantageous to all involved (both members AND non-members)… Otherwise I’d worry it was just a marketing vehicle dressed up as a code of ethics!
NONE of what I’ve said above is really dismissing SEMPO’s possible involvement, it’s just that as someone who is also in the industry, who would LOVE to see a code of ethics, BUT who doesn’t know much about SEMPO honestly like to know what they’ve done to date for the industry, and why them being involved in a pivotal role would be of benefit to all.
Just my thoughts!
Doc Sheldon says
Hi, Mike- Unfortunately, SEMPO destroyed its own credibility, from the beginning. It WAS exclusive, communication was nearly non-existent and in the end, I don’t think it accomplished anything for anyone outside of the Board. On top of that, as a failed attempt to bring some sanity to the table, it made future attempts to engender adoption of some sort of “common good” effort even more difficult.
What it DID accomplish, sadly, is provide us a pretty good roadmap of how NOT to do it. For instance, their failed attempt indicates, in my opinion, that what we’re talking about MUST be a grassroots effort, MUST be totally transparent, very affordable and its management MUST NOT be controlled by any individual or company with business interests in the industry.
Jennifer Slegg says
Just to play devil’s advocate… the problem with being controlled by an individual or company with business interests outside the industry, then it could also fall victim to those flashy SEO companies that talk a good talk but in practice do nothing much more than charge $$ for crappy backlinks that boost the site temporarily before it gets banned. I do think you need to have knowledge on board to police who is doing what ethically and who is not.
Doc Sheldon says
Certainly, there would have to be people within the industry having input – many of them.
But I think the key thing is the word “control”… I don’t see this association exercising any sort of control… simply a standard, drafted by members, not a company or a small group of individuals, saying how consultants should treat clients,… a standard that is publicly available and endorsed, and voluntarily adhered to. What I hoped to spark is some public discussion of what everyone can agree upon as such a code’s theme and content. What it may someday evolve into, who knows.
Bill says
How do I +1,000 your comment, Doc?
Doc Sheldon says
I just want to clarify something again, since comments are surfacing in many venues that indicate that some people don’t understand what I’m proposing we do…
By “code of ethics”, I am not talking about any mention whatsoever of practices like buying links, cloaking content or providing valuable content to users… I’m talking about a generic code of ethics (the common sense sort that many of us already use in our business dealings) like being transparent with our clients, avoiding conflicts of interest and making your client aware of the risks/rewards of any action they (or you) propose. No mention of SEO or SEM techniques or strategies there. Generic. Common sense. Business integrity.
William Harvey says
At last, some common sense. I wholeheartedly agree Doc and something we discuss with clients every month.
The first areas to cover would be insurance, insurance companies need guidance on how and what to insure which is why it’s so difficult to get full cover that client businesses would find acceptable.
There needs to be an idependent despute resolution or mediator to step in when there are fundamental disagreements between clients and provider.
There needs to be a standard all encompassing contract of services that could be hooked up to receiving full insurance cover.
A code of ethics as covered by Doc.
A trade body should vet a service company, where they are based, do they have insurance, do they publish their code of ethics on the site, do they have an acceptable contract etc.
Every day on Webmaster Central I see SEO companies with US po box & tel numbers, offering services that would clearly break clients rankings, and when I look deeper they nearly all turn out to be offshore scam companies.
This is what most clients see both on the web and mainly by email every day and view the industry as such..