SEO Whoa.
SEO has for most, if not all, of its existence faced a trust and integrity issue. SEO faces this issue not because the genuine practitioners of SEO are untrustworthy. However, with a low bar to entry and the ability for anyone to say they know what they are doing ‘hangeroners’ come with the territory. We know this, accept it and do our best to educate clients on what SEO (on digital marketing) really involves and some listen, some don’t. Often however, it can take a rough encounter with a penalty or two for some to get it, but eventually they all figure it out.
Low Bar to Entry.
Unfortunately, the low bar to entry really cannot be helped. With hundreds of major changes to the algorithm every year and thousands of minor ones there is no certification test that would be valid the day after it was published. As for other types of controls people have suggested, like a Code of Ethics, this would do nothing to stop the Snake Oil Salesmen and everything to cause great division in an industry that relies on getting along to succeed.
Fortunately though if a company does its due diligence they realize pretty quickly they cannot get a successful marketing services for cheap or free. When you pay for SEO you are paying for a knowledge base, not just a service. So when you apply common sense the Snake Oil Salesmen becomes readily apparent. A field that requires so much expertise would not have cheap service practitioners unless those practitioners are either cutting corners or have little to no idea what they are doing.
If you are unsure, one of the quickest ways to know is to do a quick check on whom they know? Who are they connected to and who do you see them exchange communications with in public spaces. Snake Oil Salesmen, they tend to swim alone.
Well that was until recently. Two recent incidents elevated this issue to new prominence. The first is a US based situation where the very esteemed “Moz” wound up legitimizing a rather disingenuous gentleman with their Whiteboard Fridays. Throwing out unproven theories, attacking those who requested information and proof then calling people doing legitimate work Snake Oil Salesmen, Moz gave credibility to the very type of “SEO” we are challenged with explaining away every day. However, this is nothing compared to the issue those in the UK now face, with The Apprentice winner Mark E. Wright.
Welcome to SEO Apprentice Style.
A Lord Named Sugar.
For those stateside, The Apprentice UK winner Mark E. Wright was awarded the job and £250k for his “newly minted idea” for an outsourcing Online Marketing Agency. His USP (Unique Service Proposition)? Setting up Small Businesses with assigned Project Managers and Consultants at the grand price of £400 a month*. And therein lies a potentially enormous problem for the SEO industry in Europe and possibly across the Globe. In one fell swoop Lord Sugar (the UK version of Donald Trump) legitimized everything that is wrong with our industry.
*(Up to £3,000 for a truly custom plan)
Our SEO product is unbelievable….!! It will change the way SEO is done in the UK. White Hat, ethical techniques that get page 1 results.
— Mark Wright (@Mark_E_Wright) January 4, 2015
Mark’s Climb Online.
During the finale of The Apprentice Mark was asked how he intended to execute his business plan. He first suggested outsourcing and then potentially SEOs in-house that he would be paid around £20k-25k a year. He then states his price point would be £400 a month and for this the client would get concierge level service. Not only were they going to get hands on one-on-one service, but also they were going to “change the way SEO is done in the UK”. The issue is there is nothing to suggest Mark has any real experience with SEO other than a stint as a sales agent for one company that lasted less than two years. There is also no reason to believe he has hit on some magic SEO methodology that will allow him to perform these services for the suggested rate and in the show he offered up methodologies that are likely to get your site in hot water with Google or the algorithm.
In addition to this very sketchy plan of outsourcing poor SEO which in the SEO community generally indicates less than specialized services at best and spam at worst, all indications post show are that the company is being set up as a shell call center with little understanding of Digital Marketing, if their own efforts are any indicator.
Climb Online?
If the launch of the agency is any indicator of Mark’s own understanding of how Digital Marketing works his potential clients may want to wait to see the success of others before investing their money.
Disclaimer: Until Mark does launch the website we cannot be sure he won’t get some intermediary advice and change course, however at this writing that does not appear to be the case.
Climb Online is actually a rock climbing business, you moron. #TheApprentice
— Elizabeth Windsor (@Queen_UK) December 21, 2014
(not really the Queen ;))
So what do we know about Mark from the launch of Climb Online?
Well just to start Mark never checked that his site name was available when he named his company. The name ClimbOnline.com is already taken by a rock climbing site and they are not looking to sell, so Mark was left with Climb-Online for his moniker and as anyone in SEO knows this is a much less desirable site name than the combined.
So let’s look past the fact that he never checked the domain name for availability. What about the site itself?
Where is Climb-Online?
The domain Climb-Online.co.uk was registered in June by Lord Sugar’s holding company (no other contestant’s names were), which shows that they knew the outcome of the contest well before the December airdate. Yet as of today, January 12th 2015, 7 days past the official launch date and seven months past the registration date Climb-Online.co.uk has no site. It has a badly coded holding page (uses tables) with no lead capture that doesn’t use SEO in the title tag, but no site. When asked about the site Climb-Online mentions its holding page. Ok, so far not off to the best of starts. (For more information on the website issues, read Dan Barker’s The Apprentice: 5 Basic Digital Marketing Errors from @Lord_Sugar’s New Company and Ghost Marketing’s Climb Online – The Apprentice My Rant).
No site, bad domain, and missed the launch by a week (at writing) wasting many link and traffic opportunities. Even someone in SEO 101 would know each one of these are big misses, together they show a certain lack of understanding typically reserved for those NOT in the business.
We also know that Mark only registered his Twitter page last month and though he personally has many followers due to the show his actual company is not faring as well.
In comes the POO!
As many close-knit communities can be, SEOs are protective over the integrity of SEO. Much of SEO relies on peer review more often reserved for academic environments. With the sheer exposure this agency and site has received there is the potential for clients to think this is how SEO is done further sullying the reputation of the legitimate persons who do the work and do it very well.
What’s the POO?
“#POO” is a satirical term meaning Pecking Order Optimization made popular by Mark’s Twitter Parody Doppelganger “Mark Always Wright” @SEOWithSugar. (Sugar referring to Lord Sugar not the unparalleled Sugar Rae (a legend in her own right)) If you are not already following this account, I suggest it for the humor factor alone.
#POO and @SEOWithSugar are using humor to highlight what is a real and some might say, very serious issue for the SEO community. But why all the concern?
Self-proclaimed expert SEO consultants are dangerous! Stick with agencies with a proven track record. Climbonline Trading since 5th Jan 2015
— Mark Always Wright (@seowithsugar) January 12, 2015
The Danger.
The sad truth behind this effort is it appears no thought has been given to how this might impact the many who already do business. Lord Sugar and Mark Wright appear to have seen dollar (or really pound) signs behind a call center lead generator where experience and expertise are seemingly add-ons.
Yet, Mark Wright and Climb Online are receiving the type of exposure that few SEO agencies or individuals will ever hope to receive in their lifetimes. With this type of exposure is inferred a responsibility to effectively and properly represent that industry. However as we have seen, the company appears to have little understanding of even the most basic SEO premises. A little uncharacteristic for a company that is going to “Change the way search is done in the UK”.
With the already rocky start, the fear is this could become a full-scale disaster and could not only reflect badly on Lord Sugar and Mark Wright, but SEOs as a whole. If Lord Sugar and Mark Wright get it wrong, how many are less likely to trust the unknown individual or agency with a service they truly need yet don’t understand?
Now SEOs are reasonable people. If the site comes out, the propositions are reasonable and the company appears to be seeking out expert advice while offering proper services the @SEOWithSugar account will likely fade into the background and the SEOs currently en garde will step back and move on. However, if Climb-Online continues on this path they might find they wished they moved into an industry that does not care as much about itself as this one.
Latest posts by Kristine Schachinger (see all)
- What Webmasters Should Know About Stagefright - August 20, 2015
- The Penguin Algorithm: An Issue of Ethics - June 2, 2015
- Analyzing the UK Apprentice Winner’s Climb Online Website: Killer SEO or SEO Fail? - March 11, 2015
- Is Lord Sugar Legitimizing Everything Wrong in the SEO Industry? - January 13, 2015
steve plunkett says
funneh.. will make it easy to do negative SEO on their clients as they pick the spam path?
Jackie Hole says
I would like to think that a lot of this is spin to lull us all into a false sense of security but there have been some elementary schoolboy errors in the whole process to suggest otherwise
I have been surprised at the public appearing to be desperate to work with Climb or with the new celeb Mark without actually even knowing what it is yet… which just goes to show that TV publicity and PR really does stop people from objectively looking at how their SEO service may be run and just want the product.
The problem with this product is that if it fails, you can’t just go and replace the batteries or buy a better one – once your site is booted out of the index with penalties – that’s a major loss of business as well as having to start again or pay another not quite so cheap agency to clean up your links.
I personally think that given that already there is a push towards Adwords that the initial offering will be a promise of positions via paid means and what sounds like cheap outsourced SEO. Which might not be something the industry needs right now!
Mark seems like a charming chap but let’s face it – a relatively new to the scene sales guy is selling SEO services that he has not been hands on with (presumed) so therefore may not be fully understood (based on current performance with his own site) – but I don’t think it’s doomed to failure as in theory there is a smart business team behind the final product – it may just end up not being what they intended it to be or what the potential customers are expecting it to be.
As with everything online – check your sources and credentials before embarking on something that could also have a negative impact on your business if implemented irresponsibly.
Looking at today’s tweet from @climb_online – they may only just be getting round to actually getting a proper SEO expert on board who may struggle to live up to promises they have made before suggesting prices to the unsuspecting public…
https://www.twitter.com/Climb_Online/status/554972278656888833
Ralph Tegtmeier aka fantomaster says
Good piece – loved reading it. As for that clueless Wright dude: reminds me of Jason Calacanis. Who, to his credit, at least had a verifiable track record in network building before his Mahao venture. Which only proved that he was (is?) great at conning investors into pumping money into his offerings. Seems that Sugar (who really should know better…) has fallen for something similar. One short-lived pleasure, I’d assume. Not to great for SEO’s general reputation, perhaps, but we’ve survived worse – including, while we’re at it, the likes of Calacanis, heh.
Frank Watson says
very well written article Kristine – you have to wonder about the sheer lack of real knowledge about SEO and online marketing and what people will pay for without knowing
the numbers don’t work – if the 24k guy has 10 clients he brings in 4k a month of which he gets half – take out office costs and tools and maybe there is 1500 left and client gets 4 hours a week of work??? what content, on page work and link and social building can that get??
Earl Grey says
“This too shall pass”
(Persian: این نیز بگذرد, pronunciation:īn nīz bogzarad,
Arabic: لا شيء يدوم
(“Nothing endures”), Hebrew: גם זה יעבור)
Mark Wright says
Hi.
Thanks for writing such an eloquent article and highlighting the issues. I was indeed setup to help alleviate some of the concerns of the SEO Industry and I am glad that people have found me useful.
It is concerning that given the majority of my comments people don’t realize I am a parody and my advice is not real. It’s probably what Mark would advise but that’s just my hypothesis and can not be substantiated.
Great read and look forward to seeing the fall out of how the real me effects the industry.
Now, Top TIP… Article submissions like this one. You need more links in this girl. Plus you don’t link to your Google Plus ( see what I did there). How do you expect to rank on page 1 by not linking to your Google+ !!
Also, you have used enough keywords, you need that key word density up, get it increased to around 12%.
I’m off to buy you some fiverr gigs for links and social shares. Don;t you worry little lady, we will get this article on Page 1. Trust me, I’m a twitter, seo, social media guru ninja wizard expert..
Time for #POO Power.
Yours
#ThePooFather
Doc Sheldon says
Great piece, as usual, Kristine. This is definitely concerning, as some ill-informed site owner is probably already digging into the coffers to engage this artificially inflated wannabe.
The only good news is that it’s highly doubtful that he’ll be able to get his own “service” to rank organically.
Terry Van Horne says
“Unfortunately, the low bar to entry really cannot be helped. With hundreds of major changes to the algorithm every year and thousands of minor ones there is no certification test that would be valid the day after it was published. ”
Well because collectively as an industry we have not tried…. all talk of such ends in the unrealistic arguments about algorithmic change. Sorry many facets of technical SEO are based on Internet protocols and HTML specifications/syntax so knowing how and when to implement them is very doable and do set a realistic bar for the skills of someone working in those parts of SEO! This part of SEO has not changed in the roughly 20 years I’ve been doing this.
**Spam** and the changes to accommodate the knowledgegraph based on entities is what most of those changing algos are about, so….. structured data (another certifiable element based on a specification) could easily act as a way to set the bar and set it to a standard that is meaningful and actually will help consumers make decisions about at least some elements of SEO. The links and spam part never did belong in the conversation because they are only quantifiable by the results they produce so the knowledge to do so is not really testable nor could you set a standard as there are far too many ways to do the same thing and get the same results.
Phil says
This post really sounds like it was written from a position of fear/ jealousy.
I understand how this would make you feel and want to shine a light on what’s going on.
I can see how this would get any experienced Seo wound up.
I prefer to take the stance that it is a positive endorsement for the industry (At least I like to see it that way). Sugar is an experienced billionaire entrepreneur and knowing that he’s going to invest 250k into a digital marketing agency was immensely validating to me.
When I set up my agency- I had some doubts personally that even entering a space with so many cowboys was the right thing to do.
But it gave me confidence that Sugar invested in climb online.
Yes there is an incredibly low barrier to entry in fact that is one of the reasons I personally started selling Seo.
Ultimately with more competition you must learn how to position and market yourself better.
Don’t worry about climb online getting nationwide coverage before they even have a live website. On that subject 1) a lot of successful web/ tech businesses do have awfully basic first websites.
2) because they’re not marketing much online doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re not actively and successfully marketing their services offline.
I think we would all like to believe that only we offer the whitest whiter than white hat ultra premium Seo service that is superior to everyone else’s. This causes us In our heads to have completely fictional arguments in our heads with our competitors (often when we’re In the shower) about why our closest competition is just a cowboy offering an inferior service to ours.
The only way to move past this is to acknowledge that you are a good honest, hard working Seo that stays up to date with best practices, looks out for the interests if their clients and wouldn’t ever wish to take advantage of anyone.
That’s how you gain peace of mind.
We all need to stop worrying so much about this stuff.
Just Think about YOUR customers that’s all that matters.
Kristine Schachinger says
First, it was not written in jealously or fear. It was written as genuine concern for the legitimization of bad SEO practices that are likely to get websites in trouble with Google. Business owners will think this is a legitimate source of good SEO for cheap and will later find out it was not in all likelihood given Mark’s suggestion of using penalized methods for SEO.
As for the rest, SEO’s in the UK are already receiving pushback from clients that their services are too cheap because Mark said they could be done for 400 a month (which they cannot). So it seems there is something to be concerned about as we are only a month into this situation.
Thank you for you comment.
Kristine Schachinger says
Excuse me mistyped. That their services are too expensive.