It's the conversation, stupid

by Darren Ravens

Last week, on the Social Media Systems blog, Solomon Rothman was pretty critical of Seth Godin’s advice in a post called, “Famous Marketer Seth Godin Gives Bad SEO Advice.”

This week, with a post entitled, “Mike Levin from HitTail is the Reason I Don’t Call Myself an SEO” he responds to Mike’s post in support of Seth.

All round, these are some good posts that make some interesting points. I’m not writing this to get involved directly in the debate. Suffice to say, they all make some good points and the answer lies somewhere in the middle ground. Go read all of them and make up your own mind.

So why am I posting if not to add my two cents to the argument?

I want to comment on the conversation.

Taking a swipe at one of the blogging elite is a link baiting strategy that has its benefits. For one, it’s likely to elicit a comment on your blog from your target, who’s probably employing some form of ORM.

In Solomon’s case, his posts are also carefully named to rank for certain phrases, like “Seth Godin SEO advice” – he’ll attract links and he might get some search traffic.

So far, so good and the first step taken towards opening the conversation. But that’s where the Rothmans, Israel and Solomon, start to come unstuck.

Rather than engage in real conversation, they try to self-promote too aggressively and when their comments and follow-up post are viewed in context, the overall impression is one of arrogance and antagonism.

So what starts out as a pretty clever “look at me” strategy, ultimately fails because when everyone *is* looking, all they see is someone looking to blow their own horn.

A conversation means your listening to the other side of the story. You’re trying to understand their viewpoint and ultimately, once all sides of argument are put on the table, letting everyone make up their own minds.

I think what this whole debate proves is that SEO, linkbait and other traffic driving techniques are only part of the big picture.

Having something worthwhile to say is worth nothing if no-one hears you say it. Likewise, there's no point getting people to listen if you can't tell them anything of value.

2007/04/03 | permalink | comments (4) | trackbacks (0)

Comments

post a comment

Hi Darren,

I enjoyed reading your post, even the parts critical of me. I do want to say something though, from a third person perspective it may be easy to view my comments and my blog articles as bit arrogant or self promotional, maybe I could stand to tone that down a bit.

But there is also a point where you have to understand that people treat me badly, insult what I do for a living, and misinterpret things based off bad advice they read from other marketers. I spend many hours devoting my life to search marketing, 60-70 hour weeks are common.

When famous bloggers / writers talk negatively (or more importantly write posts that naïve readers take the wrong way) about my profession, it fills me with disappoint among other emotions. Blogs are a great to express that passion and put forth my perspective. Sometimes it becomes difficult to separate emotions when the person I was purposely slamming their advice, comments and further negativity ensues.

I was a bit antagonistic, because I really wanted to bait Seth in to taking me up on the challenge. Even he hates me, if he would have let me do any SEO on his site he would have realized (or his visitors) the value in what I do. I don't need everyone to like me, they can hate me if they want to, but I am going to write what I believe.

In retrospection I may have been able to do a better job at opening up more conversations when he commented, but I definitely don't consider it a failure by any means. My blog is growing; the comments and subscribers are growing at a fast pace. I expect a lot of people to be critical of what I write, and of self promotion, but I'm working myself to death at this company to benefit my clients and my readers and of course myself.

I have a lot more content coming into my blog, including original video blog segments that I've been trying really hard to get ready, (video is a lot of work). I hope you continue reading and I 'm glad you were compelled to write this blog post. I'm just getting started.

Solomon Rothman

Posted by Solomon Rothman on 2007/04/03

I find the whole conversation to be somewhat funny.

Even funnier when another online marketer writes another "look at me" post.

The whole idea of link-bait and conversation is valid, but the overall idea that most marketers forget is that the social part of the blogosphere does not stop with comments. I have a phone and e-mail for instance- and they usually both function in unison with my online commentary.

I've told some of my best associates they are idiots online, only to drink a cup of coffee with them the next day. The idea of being social means that one must poke and prod, give the friendly jab, and laugh at the same when it comes back.

Posted by Barry Hurd on 2007/04/04

Every marketer wants to get that "look a me" shot in. It's irresistable to us. It's in our DNA. And all becomes funny and circular.

D'Ohhhhh.

Congrats, Darren, on a successful baiting. Now how do you reel us in? I wonder if virtual fish hooks are patented.

Posted by Mike Levin of HitTail on 2007/04/04

Solomon, I know exactly where you’re coming from. SEO is my day-job too, so when someone as high-profile as Seth Godin calls it “a shortcut”, I sit up and take notice.

The key is not to take it personally, but to try to properly understand the other person’s position, so that your rebuttal can address the flaws in their argument directly. I thought your original post was pretty good and made your case well. My criticism related to what followed.

Barry, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here: “the overall idea that most marketers forget is that the social part of the blogosphere does not stop with comments.”

Comments are just the start of the conversation, and the conversation is just the start to what could become a relationship, which is where the real value lies.

Mike, you ever go fishing? As any decent fisherman will tell you, they key to successfully reeling in your catch is to keep the line tight enough so that your hook “engages” yet not pull so hard that you break the “connection”

Posted by Darren on 2007/04/04

Visit our Website

Post feed
Comment feed

RSS to Email

Get our latest blog posts delivered straight to your inbox.

eMarketing News

Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter which is packed with interesting eMarketing news, views and other quirky titbits.

January

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

« Dec

Feb »

Recent Comments

Kat on Engaging as a Company

I agree with you. There are some things that should ideally not be discussed by an employee in the public sphere.
Would a communications policy have stopped the said journo from speaking out? He/she must have known a huge risk was being taken? I suppose it's also an incredibly difficult thing to predict. The lack of control can be alarming.
I'm definitely interested in seeing a more specific list, so if you find it do share.
Thank you for your comments :). Here's hoping there's a good coffee shop close to you..
vincent on Engaging as a Company

I guess the mark of a well crafted brand starts at HR policy for new recruits - ensuring that they fit the brand's/corporate's persona. So in that sense yes you could argue that left to their own devices employees would, regardless of an online communications policy, communicate in a style the sponsor would approve of. Not sure if that's always the case but I'm inclined to agree with this generalization.
I think what is also important is that the individual writing within the bounds of a sponsor's site does so in a restricted locale. You can police your own domain if you're a corporate, you can't necessarily control the individuals mouth outside of it. For instance on twitter, personal blogs and forums. Owing to the nature of niche stardom you could argue that the employee comes to represent the brand, more so than that personifies the brand in organic conversation with consumers and would carry significant weight both within corporate sites and externally. Making some individuals very wary to write for their companies at all.
For instance in our not too distant past a prominent journo got the boot for publishing his gripes with his employers and their professional ability - he was promptly fired...He would no doubt have been policed on a company blog but owing to the fact that he chose to represent the company elsewhere he took his brand and the papers brand with him - dragging both through the mud as traipsed on towards epic-failuredom...
So to come back to a point, there is definitely a sense that the policies as listed above are quite ambiguous. Even you yourself suggest that requisite legalese is absent, and I have to assume that such legalese would include a fairly long list of do's and dont's. I have a list somewhere laying about which dictates in a very bland corporate fashion how to represent the brand in public - if I find it I will share it with you.
Perhaps its worthwhile to enforce points like "don't tell secrets" and my own favourite, "for the love of god don't gripe about the boss who you've publicly named online"...
That's my mental-riff for the day, I'm afraid I veered rather uncharitably off course but such is the nature of thought.
Now if only the company I worked for had some decent coffee!!
Kat on Engaging as a Company

Transparency is a key issue - as is allowing people to carve their own niche.
My thinking is that people engage with a personality - an individual personality - in conversation more than with a collective. It's just easier. A company personality surely reflects the people who work there as well as a crafted (constructed?) image that the stakeholders choose to present. While you want engagement it's not the same as speaking to an individual.
There are definite risks involved - but I would lean towards allowing people to carve a niche.
vincent on Engaging as a Company

Couldn't have said it better. Nice post, it is most certainly something corporates are going to struggle with. How much transparency is too much? Who should be allowed to represent a brand and to what extent should the individual be given the opportunity to carve their own niche rather than extol the virtues of the mother - brand?
Who knows. We shall soon see as this year pans out and we find out how the big media players tackle the rise of the cost effective digital media channel.
Kat on Engaging as a Company

It is a tough issue, and I can understand why you've never published. I would encourage you to do so though - you probably have a feeling for when your writing reflects your voice and when it doesn't - and the rewards are worth it.
Thanks for reading Wendy. :)

More photos of the QuirkStars At Play

Name:
Friends of Quirk
Websites:
www.quirk.biz

Skribit: Social Suggestions

Name:
E-mail:
Url:
Comments:
Markup guide: makes text bold // makes text italic // -- creates a link -- (two dashes, no http://)
Remember personal info?
Notify me of follow-up comments?
SPAMCHECK:
Captcha:

It's the conversation, stupid

by Darren Ravens

Comments

Subscribe

RSS to Email

eMarketing News

January

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments