PPC vs. SEO - No Contest

[dvduval]

I can't bite my tongue on this one...

There seems to be an initial draw toward PPC when people are first getting started. PPC campaigns can be quite rewarding.

BUT if PPC pays 10 to 1 . SEO pays 1000 to 1 or greater and it keeps paying with no investment needed. You can take all your PPC money and invest it in technology and design and content building and the your ROI will go thru the roof!

Sure, PPC is an OK way to get started and it can pay off. Heck, I've been using Overture for over a year now (just not as agressively as I once did).

BUT, SEO has brought far greater reward. I have dealers across the USA in the same game. I can sit there and look at the SERPS and see who's bringin' home the bacon. As I watch our dealers develope, there is a natural tendency for them to depend less and less on PPC. I've seen the same trends with other vendors of similar products.

And a couple of side notes:
1) The FTC is starting to pressure on Search Engines to more clearly mark advertised listings
2) PPC companies have proven themselves to be extremely unpredictable, changing their deal without your permission
3) Reading posts about Overture's new MAX BID tool, here and elsewhere, the consensus seems to be that the new tool actually makes bidding more expensive.

[Black_Knight]

I'm always amused at the idea of PPC versus SEO. You see, I view PPC engines as just another aspect of SEO.

Just as Web Directories are different from Search Engines yet still completely within the field of SEO, so are PPC Search Listings just another type of search listing that can be either used as is (like just submitting a URL to a search engine) or else can be optimised for effect by someone who understands the effects of good keyword selection, eye-catching titles, and a click-inspiring description.

I offer optimization of PPC campaigns, just as I offer other aspects of SEO, and as just one of my services as an Internet marketing consultant. I optimize for ROI.

My skillset for optimizing PPC is that I have a deep understanding of search term usage, of the effects of a well-worded description, of how to minimise idle clicks while maximising the appeal to those who are actually commited to buying - not just browsing, and most importantly, I have experience and understanding of how to run any PPC campaign for specific objectives.

I can take on most clients' PPC accounts and get them the same amount of traffic for just 1/2 of the costs (or less), for example. Alternately, I can usually double their traffic, without putting up the overall costs per month. Most importantly, I can increase the targetting in such a way as to put up the overall conversion rates they'll see from their clicks, meaning a significant (five-fold or greater) increase in Cost per Sale, and that is pure increase in ROI.

Those are SEO benefits. It is a search resource, and I optimize for maximum effect. If you can't, then I might assume you're one of the SEOs who focuses only on volume, and thinks stats like Hits, Uniques and other raw-volume metrics matter. They don't. There is only one metric in any business, whether its ecommerce or offline: Profit.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate and put the other side of the argument (My own position is that there are no sides, just perceptions).

Traditional SEO

No guarantee of any ROI in real terms. You can spend a fortune on SEO only to have the search engine change its algorithm the day before the effects would have been seen, and negate most of the optimization work.

In fact, you can even find your domain has been banned for things ranging from using doorway pages (or something a search engine detected as doorway pages - the SEs offer no refunds or apologies if they were over-zealous) to linking to another site that the SE doesn't like.

SEO may well require significant changes be made to the design of a site (which may not go down well when the client paid a famous design firm $50,000 for a site perfectly tailored to the corporate image). It will almost certainly mean changing the copy in the pages (again, not an easy decision for corporate clients), and all of that still carries no absolute guarantees.

You can be listed #1 on Monday morning and be #8 by the afternoon, and disappear altogether for a month when they switch to a backup database on the Tuesday. When you do reappear, you could be #1 or #100, and you pay the same regardless.

Sure, some SEOs offer a guarantee of a top-ten listing. Seen many that refund you entirely and put the site back as it was at no charge if after 2 months you slip down into page 3? :)

Traditional SEO has no reliability from the POV of a traditional advertiser. When you pay for an advert to run in the commercial break of 'Friends', you don't expect the channel to just suddenly decide their going to show it only during 'Ted's Farming Breafast News' instead. :D

While dvduval states that "PPC companies have proven themselves to be extremely unpredictable, changing their deal without your permission", has anyone really got the temerity to say that PPC companies are any less predictable than say a Web Directory (LookSmart or Snap) for instance, or a search engine (Excite, Go, or Northern Light to name but a few examples)?

Pay Per Click Listings

You get what you pay for. (This is advertising rather than hacking and exploiting weaknesses in a public SE. :) )

You get complete control of your Title, Description and placement, without having to change one bit of code on your page. No messing with your corporate image, no undoing the work of specialist copy-writers.

You choose exactly what search terms you will be listed for (within easy editorial guidelines), how you will be listed, which page the visitor will arrive at, etc, etc.

You can choose to be listed for "Stop evil hackers" without running the risk of also being #1 for "evil hackers" for example. Sometimes that maters to the client's branding managers. ;)

Think about it.

[ihelpyou]

Hey Ammon, while I do agree with much of your post, it is mostly talking about a large business site. For most small business that I deal with, the ppc thing gets very much expensive. They all do start out with it but quickly forgetaboutit when we get the good ranks on targeted keywords.

I can see both arguments for and against, just that I prefer the traditional way and have been successful. Of course, my market is the small business owner and not the large corporate types with many layers of chiefs to go through.

Also, Looksmart is a ppc agency now and not a directory. :)

[Black_Knight]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Hey Ammon, while I do agree with much of your post, it is mostly talking about a large business site. For most small business that I deal with, the ppc thing gets very much expensive. They all do start out with it but quickly forgetaboutit when we get the good ranks on targeted keywords.

I can see both arguments for and against, just that I prefer the traditional way and have been successful. Of course, my market is the small business owner and not the large corporate types with many layers of chiefs to go through.

I've always found that no business is too small to buy dollar bills at ten cents a go. ;) Provided PPC is used properly, and that means tied directly into ROI, it is actually better for small businesses.

I charge by the hour. many other SEO firms and operators have a fixed price or 'package deal' too. That is a higher entry level to small businesses. PPC is easier to get into, especially on a tight budget.

Do you have an effective entry level of under $50? I sure as hell don't. :) Many PPC engines do though. Businesses of any size are very happy to spend $300 per month to make $3,000 in sales profits. Its the ROI that is the key factor. Making sure the ROI is good is what my role is as an SEO.

Yes, the extremes of corporate image I used apply to larger businesses and not smaller ones. But I chose that to show that PPC matters to larger clients as well as smaller ones. That PPC is perfectly suited for small businesses is a given, and not least for the lower entry-level costs I stated above.


Originally posted by ihelpyou
Also, Looksmart is a ppc agency now and not a directory. :)

Yes, they are now which is exactly why they make a prime example if just how incredibly far a web directory went in "changing their deal without your permission" :) From Web Directory with a one-off payment to PPC in under a year without asking any of the people who'd paid if they minded.

[peter_d]

I agree with much of Ammons post that PPC is an integral part of search engine marketing.

I've worked on a number of sites in the $250,000 - $1M range and I've found that marketing managers want both serps results and guaranteed, measurable (ppc-style) placement. "Look and feel" changes to these sites are certainly not an option but, as you know, there are technical solutions to all design challenges.Poor SEOs often subjugate all elements (brand, look and feel, build) to search engine optimisation requirements which is a mistake, IMHO.

The "art" of SEM should be to provide appropriate marketing strategies that fit with a clients overall vision.

[Kal]

What Pete said :thumb:

[sanity]

The "art" of SEM should be to provide appropriate marketing strategies that fit with a clients overall vision. I'll second that.

Sophie