4 ms·
The funny thing is that anyone can rebut Chris just by citing some examples of companies that started post-2008 and got traction through SEO. But the only compa
by trevelyan 16y ago
The funny thing is that anyone can rebut Chris just by citing some examples of companies that started post-2008 and got traction through SEO. But the only companies cited in that entire thread are: OKCupid (2005), Mint（2006), Github (2008) and Stack Overflow (2008). So right away we're down to two examples, neither of which was founded in the last two years and both of which arguably bootstrapped off large existing communities rather than organic web traffic.
Chris is right -- anyone doing a startup better have another way to acquire users than focusing on SEO and organic traffic. The alternative is being black hat and throwing user experience out the window, which is his point.
- a5seo 16y agoFeeFighters is doing a bang up job with link bait. They will start to reap the rewards in 12-18 mos. It seems like the people who dislike SEO either a) high a high burn rate and can't wait 18 mos to get a payoff, or b) have investors who can't stand putting money into a marketing activity with such high uncertainty. Bottom line-- it's no different from PR. High initial expense, uncertain payoff, but sometimes you get monsterous ROI.
- trevelyan 16y agoI like the company and agree that SEO has value. But do you really think "high initial expense" and "uncertain payoff" are characteristics of good marketing strategies for startups? I'd say it's exactly the opposite, and don't think it's a good idea for startups to be doing PR either.