3 ms·

The argument that web designers, web developers etc. should understand everything related to their work is fine at a small scale eg. creating a personal blog/sm

The argument that web designers, web developers etc. should understand everything related to their work is fine at a small scale eg. creating a personal blog/small website. But it's a stretch to say that nobody should focus on just one area. To be an expert at something normally requires that you specialize in that area. For a start-up you need to be a jack-of-all-trades but as a company grows it makes sense to have staff that specialize in different areas. My background is in pay-per-click marketing and a lot of companies do very well managing their own Adwords campaigns. But for large companies or small companies that don't want to deal with learning a new skill, the cost of hiring/outsourcing to someone who specializes in that is justified by the time saved and the improved ROI. This applies to SEO as well but also to any area where the work involved has a significant impact on the business.

blasdel 17y ago
Except that you're a drop-in replacement for an existing middleman -- the broadcast/print media ad-agency. Companies weren't really doing the low-level management of their ad campaigns before. SEO is a bit more of a novelty, especially since the 'SEO professionals' aren't middlemen between you and Google.
- sekizaru 17y ago
  Point taken. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy is the PR industry. I know the PR industry gets almost as much criticism as SEO. But the argument that we shouldn't use specialists in whatever field because we could do it ourselves is very damaging. Here's another example. If I run a coffee shop and 50% of my customers are walk-ins from the street, it makes sense for me to hire a sign-writer to attract more people. Even though my coffee might be the same as always I get more customers because people can find my shop. I could paint the sign myself but hiring an expert to do it will likely pay for itself. If I run a website and 50% of my customers come from search engines then it makes sense to invest an appropriate amount in making sure those customers can find me. If I have a small site, that investment might be of my time or I could outsource it. So the important thing is that we need to invest in what brings new customers. If you think that an SEO professional doesn't deliver enough value that's a perfectly valid decision but I think it's a big mistake to extend this to not investing in SEO itself.

blasdel 17y ago

Except that you're a drop-in replacement for an existing middleman -- the broadcast/print media ad-agency. Companies weren't really doing the low-level management of their ad campaigns before. SEO is a bit more of a novelty, especially since the 'SEO professionals' aren't middlemen between you and Google.

sekizaru 17y ago
Point taken. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy is the PR industry. I know the PR industry gets almost as much criticism as SEO. But the argument that we shouldn't use specialists in whatever field because we could do it ourselves is very damaging. Here's another example. If I run a coffee shop and 50% of my customers are walk-ins from the street, it makes sense for me to hire a sign-writer to attract more people. Even though my coffee might be the same as always I get more customers because people can find my shop. I could paint the sign myself but hiring an expert to do it will likely pay for itself. If I run a website and 50% of my customers come from search engines then it makes sense to invest an appropriate amount in making sure those customers can find me. If I have a small site, that investment might be of my time or I could outsource it. So the important thing is that we need to invest in what brings new customers. If you think that an SEO professional doesn't deliver enough value that's a perfectly valid decision but I think it's a big mistake to extend this to not investing in SEO itself.