Why Organic SEO Beats PPC

[MSGeek]

While I mostly agree, there are few points where I tend to differ:

1. I've seen cases when some users (generic non-computer type) completely ignored organic results and went straight to PPC on the right because they were SHOPPING. You cannot beat that, that's when conversions are the highest. Reason: they don't want content, they want to buy, and they know that's on the right side of the search.

2. PPC has great uses, for example, for quick tests of a niche or a product.

3. Each time Google changes it algorithms, you may find yourself at the Step One.

And yes, it may be free, if your time is free. But that's not what time management people teach. Of course, I still love organic traffic. Who does not?

[Steven Carl Kelly]

All of my current PPC campaigns are profitable. If they aren't, I improve them quickly or drop them fast.

If I can spend a dollar on PPC which returns me two dollars, you can bet I'd do it. Why wouldn't I?

Unless you just don't have any money to invest in PPC, to choose one method solely over the other just doesn't make any sense. Anyone who spends time working intelligently at both SEO and PPC can combine both of those into a very successful revenue stream.

If SEO is good, PPC can make it better. If PPC is good, SEO can make it better. I'd guess the only folks who would try to minimize that point would be those who make money solely teaching or consulting on one or the other.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

All of my current PPC campaigns are profitable. If they aren't, I improve them quickly or drop them fast.

If I can spend a dollar on PPC which returns me two dollars, you can bet I'd do it. Why wouldn't I?

Unless you just don't have any money to invest in PPC, to choose one method solely over the other just doesn't make any sense. Anyone who spends time working intelligently at both SEO and PPC can combine both of those into a very successful revenue stream.

If SEO is good, PPC can make it better. If PPC is good, SEO can make it better. I'd guess the only folks who would try to minimize that point would be those who make money solely teaching or consulting on one or the other.

I'm not saying PPC is not profitable, I'm just stating that the ROI of SEO is superior. Once you place them against each other in split tests.

Why? In short, the results are similar, but the cost of PPC is 6-7 figures higher (under the levels of traffic I handle at least).

I do teach both of them, like I said, I know how to reach a QS of 8-10 with every single one of my PPC campaigns.

In post #44 of this thread I outlined how you can combine both methods effectively.

But anyway, I will not continue this debate until someone brings their own rankings to the table.

All I've seen so far is preaching on how PPC is better because they believe so, but no one has brought any valid points of substance to the thread, at least none that can be backed up succesfully (except Mac).

No one can really debate against my point unless they have similar or better rankings than me. You can't even begin to draw such conclusions until you reach keyword rankings such as mine.

Unless you have some other way of backing it up like Mac did (on his deleted post).

By the way, Mac's last post was quite good, but it got deleted for some reason. It was about OneBox/LBC listings. Where are you Mac?

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

No one can really debate against my point unless they have similar or better rankings than me. You can't even begin to draw such conclusions until you reach "impossible" keyword rankings such as mine.

I apologize for expressing my opinions. Before I posted I didn't realize you were able to do the impossible.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

I apologize for expressing my opinions. Before I posted I didn't realize you were able to do the impossible.

Which is precisely why "impossible" is under quotes.

Go ahead and ask any 'SEO expert' to tell you in how long can they achieve top 5 Google rankings for a keyword such as business consulting.

300,000 monthly searches according to the Google Keyword Tool - 40,000,000 competing sites - 4,500,000 competing sites under quotes. Competing sites/domains have years, some even decades of antiquity. And the incoming links to the competition are absurd, they have tens of thousands literally (Micro Niche Finder SoC is Red 45,000).

All the ones I've asked have told me it's "impossible" or "will take years".

I did it in under 1 month, with a 4 month old site and domain. I've even openly challenged everyone to try and beat my rankings.

So I'm just quoting the industry.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion of "millions" of competing sites, and using quotes to identify actual competition really isn't effective. In my decades of SEO experience, I can never recall myself ever referring to any target as "impossible".

I'm not exactly sure which "experts" are using the words "impossible" to rank, but if they are then they really don't seem very "expert" at all, now do they?

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion of "millions" of competing sites, and using quotes to identify actual competition really isn't effective. In my decades of SEO experience, I can never recall myself ever referring to any target as "impossible".

I'm not exactly sure which "experts" are using the words "impossible" to rank, but if they are then they really don't seem very "expert" at all, now do they?

Use any of your techniques to identify the competition of that keyword, by any angle it's extremely competitive. I've mentioned 3 other competition measurements other than quotes that you seem to have ignored in your reply.

And if you're so good, why don't you show me one of your rankings that can match mine?

Or even better, that is the keyword that made me $125,000 USD in 1 day. I challenge you to outrank me.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Sorry, apparently I've touched a sensitive nerve in regard to faulty methods for defining competition and experts claiming that ranking for a particular term is "impossible". I really don't recall any expert claiming that ranking for any term is impossible -- if it were, there's no reason to consider them an expert.

Frankly, I find all these over-hyped notions like ranking #1 out of 500,000,000,000 pages to be way too much unsubstantiated sales crap and way too little on the reality of what goes on with SEO.

Google only returns 1,000 results for a keyword search. Period. But like I said, it does make for a compelling sales pitch to tell potential customers that a certain expert can rank their pages #1 out of eleventy-billion pages.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

300,000 monthly searches according to the Google Keyword Tool ... Competing sites/domains have years, some even decades of antiquity. And the incoming links to the competition are absurd, they have tens of thousands literally (Micro Niche Finder SoC is Red 45,000).

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

I've mentioned 3 other competition measurements other than competing sites that you seem to have ignored in your reply.

I quote myself above. Go ahead and enlighten us about your measurement techniques.

And why are you evading my questions?

Why don't you show me one of your rankings that can even come close to matching mine?

Or why don't you attempt to outrank me for my 7 figure keyword?

We can use your own standards of measurement for the comparison, I don't mind.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

And why are you evading my questions?

I'm not evading your questions, I'm simply pointing out that simple quantity is not a useful measurement of competition, and it hasn't been for quite some time now. The progressive parts of the SEO industry have moved past pure quantity as a valid tool for identifying competition because it has become obsolete.

STRENGTH of competition, not quantity of competition, is what the true SEO experts gauge when determining what efforts are necessary to rank for a term.

Saying I can rank a page #1 out of a gazillion pages makes for compelling sales copy. It doesn't hold much value in the real world, where Google limits results to 1,000.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

I'm not evading your questions, I'm simply pointing out that simple quantity is not a useful measurement of competition, and it hasn't been for quite some time now. The progressive parts of the SEO industry have moved past pure quantity as a valid tool for identifying competition because it has become obsolete.

STRENGTH of competition, not quantity of competition, is what the true SEO experts gauge when determining what efforts are necessary to rank for a term.

Saying I can rank a page #1 out of a gazillion pages makes for compelling sales copy. It doesn't hold much value in the real world, where Google limits results to 1,000.

Steven, I did provide you with the strength of competition as well.

Micro Niche Finder has a feature that will measure it based on several variables such as incoming links/backlinks, PageRank of backlinks, page PageRank, antiquity, and several others. The feature is called Strenght of Competition (SoC) itself...

Other keyword tools provide similar functions.

The point is, # of competing sites aside, all strength of competition variables demonstrate that my 7 figure keyword business consulting is an extremely competitive term.

And the only reason I still use the quotes and # of competing sites as a form of measurement, is because there is a direct correlation between strength of competition and # of competing sites.

The most competitive keywords, by strength of competition standards, also have millions of competing sites under quotes.

So it's not obsolete.

If you disagree, show me just one competitive keyword that doesn't correlate.

[Treborrevo]

Boy, nothing like a good SEO Death Match to make a Friday interesting.

If Daniel did win on a weak competition term that was worth 7 figures, then I would not choose to mock his skills - but admire his strategy of finding under-exploited SEO keywords and making a million bucks off them. And next I'd ask him to PM me how he did it.

That's just me...

Daniel, is the "HOW" of what you've done inside your Newbie Blueprint?

On a side note: the only real way to see who's web-fu is strongest is to have a panel pick a competitive, valuable search term and have the two contestants go head to head with their methods for ranking. That would pretty much end the discussion.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by Treborrevo

Boy, nothing like a good SEO Death Match to make a Friday interesting.

If Daniel did win on a weak competition term that was worth 7 figures, then I would not choose to mock his skills - but admire his strategy of finding under-exploited SEO keywords and making a million bucks off them. And next I'd ask him to PM me how he did it.

That's just me...

Daniel, is the "HOW" of what you've done inside your Newbie Blueprint?

On a side note: the only real way to see who's web-fu is strongest is to have a panel pick a competitive, valuable search term and have the two contestants go head to head with their methods for ranking. That would pretty much end the discussion.

The Newbie Blueprint only has the most basic SEO. So no.

My strategy is actually in ranking for the most exploited and competitive keywords, not the under exploited.

I haven't made a million yet, but I'm not far from doing so in sales.

The "HOW" of how I'm doing this is in my fully sold out for 2009 - $7,500-$50,000 USD coaching/mentoring program. I just can't handle any more clients this year.

But you can always apply to the 2010 waiting list, it's currently at March.

(Do you really think someone would reveal such information for $37?)

Anyway, I would be glad to compete for a random keyword.

My SEO team is getting bored.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

I'm not evading your questions, I'm simply pointing out that simple quantity is not a useful measurement of competition, and it hasn't been for quite some time now. The progressive parts of the SEO industry have moved past pure quantity as a valid tool for identifying competition because it has become obsolete.

STRENGTH of competition, not quantity of competition, is what the true SEO experts gauge when determining what efforts are necessary to rank for a term.

Saying I can rank a page #1 out of a gazillion pages makes for compelling sales copy. It doesn't hold much value in the real world, where Google limits results to 1,000.

Strength of competition is measure by:

1. Quantity of competition
2. The page rank of your competitor site(s)
2. The back links of your competitor site(s)

Unless you can outrank Daniel, I am pretty sure he is right! It doesn't matter how many results Google is limited to show, Google already tell you the number of pages competing for that keyword!

So, what is your measurement of competitiveness? Care to share?

[LookItsMeTerryG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

Steven, I did provide you with the strength of competition as well.

Micro Niche Finder has a feature that will measure it based on several variables such as incoming links/backlinks, PageRank of backlinks, page PageRank, antiquity, and several others. The feature is called Strenght of Competition (SoC) itself...

Other keyword tools provide similar functions.

The point is, # of competing sites aside, all strength of competition variables demonstrate that my 7 figure keyword business consulting is an extremely competitive term.

And the only reason I still use the quotes and # of competing sites as a form of measurement, is because there is a direct correlation between strength of competition and # of competing sites.

The most competitive keywords, by strength of competition standards, also have millions of competing sites under quotes.

So it's not obsolete.

If you disagree, show me just one competitive keyword that doesn't correlate.

It seems this argument is actually over the perception of "competition".

Daniel, when you use quotes to check a term, what Google is doing is showing you the sites that have that exact phrase somewhere on the page. While these can be seen as competition because they DO rank, they're not necessarily optimizing for that term and thus may not be actual SEO competition. By taking that perspective, all the results showing without quotes are also the same type of competition.

Steven is right, as it relates to SEO efforts, the better way to assess competition is to look at what efforts are needed in order to produce results. Afterall, the goal is to exceed their current efforts.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Strength of competition is measure by:

1. Quantity of competition
2. The page rank of your competitor site(s)
2. The back links of your competitor site(s)

Quantity of results in Google should never, EVER be the #1 factor in defining the competition for a keyword phrase. It's misleading and, in the end, practically useless information. Unfortunately, that line of thinking has been over-taught and over-used as a method of promotion because it sounds impressive to the uninitiated.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

Steven is right, as it relates to SEO efforts, the better way to assess competition is to look at what efforts are needed in order to produce results. Afterall, the goal is to exceed their current efforts.

Thanks, you summed it up much better than I did in my clumsy way.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by greff

Daniel,

Looks like you entered the lion's den.

Sometimes SEO works, sometimes it doesn't And it's not always dependent on how knowledgable the SEO "expert" is.

This shouldn't be the case, if it doesn't work, it means Google is changing the rule of the game, we must figure it out...

I find that Google is much consistent these days, what is working for me now, will probably be working for a long time, if you have a long term strategy.

Originally Posted by greff

I do SEO but more often than not when I take on a client I advise him/her to do some serious PPC until the SEO catches up, if it ever does. I know this costs more but most clients I have want to make progress quickly and most have some money to invest.

There are short term plan, long term plan, and fast traffic plan for SEO, it depends on how you setup the strategy!

You can drive a lot of fast traffic with long tail keywords, and yes I know PPC will give you instance traffic, but it cost you to get the traffic too.

If I use the 2 weeks PPC budget and invest in my campaign, I can easily get the same amount of traffic in 2 weeks time, while saving the cost to pay for it, every click!

Originally Posted by greff

So, yes, I would love to have the time to allow good SEO to mature. Problem is that it can take a lot of time. As you know, it takes months to get Google to trust a website and take down the barriers (sandbox). You also must know that one of the algorithms is how long a website has been on the web.

There are many ways to gain "trust", letting it age is just one.

Originally Posted by greff

Also, most PPC is under $10 per click and I think the majority is under $5. That's my experience anyway.

Good luck to you!

Wow, that is expensive... I love those kind of budget for my SEO campaign

Originally Posted by ricsale

In my book SEO and PPC have their place and I use both to great effect for my clients.

I don't see how/why SEO should provide better conversion rates over PPC because it's the same keywords.

It's just the fact, but Google is trying hard to make PPC worth to click by the user, that's why Quality Score and Google Slap came into play!

Originally Posted by ricsale

So even if you are at #1 on the organic (SEO) results you can still get more traffic and sales by complementing this with PPC. OK yes you are paying for the clicks but in my experience it does not reduce the traffic from the organic (SEO) search engine listing. So the net result is a gain.

Does anyone else see this?

Rich

Yes, you are right, if you have gazillion keywords, like 20,000 keywords in your campaign...

[MacFreddie]

I'm with you on this. I have trained personally under Perry Marshall and paid him thousands, worth every penny. Perry is one of the best trainers, and not just for Adwords.

Perry was trained by Dan Kennedy and was a Platinum member, he knows Marketing. Frank Kern, Yanik Silver, Jeff Paul, Mike Filsaime, Jonathan Mizel, Rosalind Gardner, Michel Fortin, were trained via Dan Kennedy and many others including myself.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, seems all of us have something in common. We know "How to Market."

Driving Traffic via SEO or PPC is just one of the many components to a good campaign.

I have attended several small group meetings (less than 15) with Perry and his students, and let me tell ya, some of these guys are making SERIOUS bank. I'm talking Millions, and many of these people were in there 20's, amazing.

Yes, they all had SEO in place, but they realized PPC is where the real money was. Easy to test, get in and out, more reliable, steady income, etc...

Many of these students had the #1 PPC spot but were paying the same price as the lowest spot on Page 1. Perry is also big into using Drip email campaigns and Conversion via your site once the person hits your landing page.

When you know how to use PPC properly, 99.99% of all IMers don't know how, then the real money can flow.

PPC used properly, with a great landing page, a drip campaign, compelling Call to Actions and a Sense of Real Urgency can drop your PPC cost to almost nothing.

Mac

P.S. Why do you think Google is constantly changing algorithms, like 400x a year? Very few changes via PPC (mostly to rid spammers, CPA/Affiliate crap) new tools, analytics, etc... Guess where Google makes their money?

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

All of my current PPC campaigns are profitable. If they aren't, I improve them quickly or drop them fast.

If I can spend a dollar on PPC which returns me two dollars, you can bet I'd do it. Why wouldn't I?

Unless you just don't have any money to invest in PPC, to choose one method solely over the other just doesn't make any sense. Anyone who spends time working intelligently at both SEO and PPC can combine both of those into a very successful revenue stream.

If SEO is good, PPC can make it better. If PPC is good, SEO can make it better. I'd guess the only folks who would try to minimize that point would be those who make money solely teaching or consulting on one or the other.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

It seems this argument is actually over the perception of "competition".

Daniel, when you use quotes to check a term, what Google is doing is showing you the sites that have that exact phrase somewhere on the page. While these can be seen as competition because they DO rank, they're not necessarily optimizing for that term and thus may not be actual SEO competition. By taking that perspective, all the results showing without quotes are also the same type of competition.

Steven is right, as it relates to SEO efforts, the better way to assess competition is to look at what efforts are needed in order to produce results. Afterall, the goal is to exceed their current efforts.

There is still a direct correlation.

Take any competitive keyword by your SEO efforts standard, or by your strength of competition standards, place it Google under quotes and it will have millions of competing sites.

If you disagree, then like I said before, show me a competitive keyword that does not correlate.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

Steven is right, as it relates to SEO efforts, the better way to assess competition is to look at what efforts are needed in order to produce results. Afterall, the goal is to exceed their current efforts.

Can you be more specific about the "SEO Efforts"?

What makes your site rank? Here are some factors that I know:

1. Backlinks
2. Your site structure (SILO and LSI)
3. On page optimization

Is these the factors you are referring? Care to share more...

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Quantity of results in Google should never, EVER be the #1 factor in defining the competition for a keyword phrase. It's misleading and, in the end, practically useless information. Unfortunately, that line of thinking has been over-taught and over-used as a method of promotion because it sounds impressive to the uninitiated.

Quantity of results is a good measurement for almost all long tail keywords, while more competitive keywords, you need to consider:

1. Quantity of results
2. Your competitor's backlinks
3. Your competitor's ranking
4. On page factors

Anything that is missing here?

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Thanks, you summed it up much better than I did in my clumsy way.

m... are you sure?

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

Perry was trained by Dan Kennedy and was a Platinum member, he knows Marketing. Frank Kern, Yanik Silver, Mike Filsaime, Jonathan Mizel, Rosalind Gardner, Michel Fortin, were trained via Dan Kennedy and many others including myself.

A lot of big name here, where is Jeff Johnson?

Jeff had all the properties he need to rank for any product keywords, and he don't have to pay for it.

I must agree PPC is relatively easy to learn and mastered, that's why all these big names are using it!

Don't forget Ryan Deiss and Perry Belcher, they are my favorite "PPC guys"!

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

PPC used properly, with a great landing page, a drip campaign, compelling Call to Actions and a Sense of Real Urgency can drop your PPC cost to almost nothing.

Please enlighten me, because I still don't buy it.

The most competitive keywords (1,000,000+ monthly searches) will cost you at the very least $1 USD of CPC, even with a QS of 10.

Position #1 in either PPC or Organic will bring you roughly 400,000 unique visitors per month.

That's $400,000 USD per month of PPC, under the lowest cost possible for that keyword.

And the same results cost $500 USD per month via SEO.

Therefore, provided a great landing page, a drip campaign, compelling Call to Actions and a Sense of Real Urgency. SEO just costed you $399,500 LESS than PPC, for the exact SAME RESULTS.

I don't doubt your experience Mac, but I believe those conclusions come from the assumption that 1,000,000 monthly search keywords cannot be achieved via organic SEO, or that they will take years.

My model has proven that assumption wrong, because I can pull them off in under 1-3 months.

And what about LBC/OneBox rankings? You said yourself those beat PPC, that's also organic SEO.

[LookItsMeTerryG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

There is still a direct correlation.

Take any competitive keyword by your SEO efforts standard, or by your strength of competition standards, place it Google under quotes and it will have millions of competing sites.

If you disagree, then like I said before, show me a competitive keyword that does not correlate.

It simply can't be quantified by that. A competitive term in regards to seo, could be several things. It depends on the seo metric, specific to the term, that is considered competitive, and is completely relative to that term.

IE: (this is just an illustration of this idea)

1. Term A requires greater link velocity to rank
2. Term B requires a great amount of authority and trust to rank

So, what I'm saying is saying a term is competitive because of sheer amount of results in Google, isn't actually accomplishing anything or helping you get farther up in the index.

Also, ranking number 5 for a 'competitive' term, isn't exactly something I'd be bragging about. Calling out other SEO's to beat you for a result is simply a poor argument, as it requires resources and time to engage in SEO efforts... and you want us to do it for no other reason than beating you, with no promise of compensation?? You're clever at illustrating your point, but not because you're correct.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

Also, ranking number 5 for a 'competitive' term, isn't exactly something I'd be bragging about. Calling out other SEO's to beat you for a result is simply a poor argument, as it requires resources and time to engage in SEO efforts... and you want us to do it for no other reason than beating you, with no promise of compensation?? You're clever at illustrating your point, but not because you're correct.

Do you have a better way to quantify the competition? I would like to hear it from SEO guy... please?

Is there anyway we can tell how competitive is a keyword, and how to outrank it?

I beg you for answer, please...!!!

[LookItsMeTerryG]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Do you have a better way to quantify the competition? I would like to hear it from SEO guy... please?

Is there anyway we can tell how competitive is a keyword, and how to outrank it?

I beg you for answer, please...!!!

Apparently you're not comprehending what I'm saying. There isn't a single "one size fits all" way to gauge competition for keywords. It's specific to the particular keyword. What works in local or geographically targeted plumber keyword isn't going to be the same thing that works on an international scientific query.

Also, per your post a few posts above, LSI refers to an indexing method, not a SEO technique.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

It simply can't be quantified by that. A competitive term in regards to seo, could be several things. It depends on the seo metric, specific to the term, that is considered competitive, and is completely relative to that term.

IE: (this is just an illustration of this idea)

1. Term A requires greater link velocity to rank
2. Term B requires a great amount of authority and trust to rank

So, what I'm saying is saying a term is competitive because of sheer amount of results in Google, isn't actually accomplishing anything or helping you get farther up in the index.

Also, ranking number 5 for a 'competitive' term, isn't exactly something I'd be bragging about. Calling out other SEO's to beat you for a result is simply a poor argument, as it requires resources and time to engage in SEO efforts... and you want us to do it for no other reason than beating you, with no promise of compensation?? You're clever at illustrating your point, but not because you're correct.

I was actually in position #2 for that term druing the past 4 months, beating the 30 year old domain IBM, this week I dropped to 5.

It's just a dance, I'll be back by next week.

I'm #1 in Caffeine Google.

Anyway, back on topic, by any measurement of competition in existence, that is a competitive term.

Either way, what really matters is the targeted traffic provided by the term and how much profit it generates.

That is the only logical aspect we should be measuring when it comes to a "competitive term".

Under that assumption, every single term that has more than 1,000,000 monthly exact searches, has millions of competing sites under qutoes.

And therefore it is a valid measurement point.

Compensation? That's my $125,000 USD in under 24 hours keyword phrase.

How much more compensation could you possibly want? It's a 7 figure term.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

Apparently you're not comprehending what I'm saying. There isn't a single "one size fits all" way to gauge competition for keywords. It's specific to the particular keyword. What works in local or geographically targeted plumber keyword isn't going to be the same thing that works on an international scientific query.

Nothing I don't already know; I though there are something new here, sorry for wasting your time...

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

Compensation? That's my $125,000 USD in under 24 hours keyword phrase.

How much more compensation could you possibly want? It's a 7 figure term.

I like that number...!

[Universal_Soul]

Daniel,

I thought you basically should do both?

I don't really understand the point of whole this, it's as you got do EITHER Seo OR ppc, and as there is only 100 000 potential visitors, and if you'd get 30 000 through ppc, it would somewhow take from you seo acquired 100 000. It's opposite to what I learn (ie Stompernet, A. Wall etc). If you get 100 000 from seo, then if you'd add 30 000 from the ppc you'd have 130 000 visitors. Plus there are much more keywords then business consulting alone I bet. your alexa rank is 135 as I see (100k visitors a month) mine is 1,3 mln (8k a month) - so I really don't have too much argument power, and am total beginner. What I notice though is that the number of unique visitors from Seo actuall ADS to ppc, and if you use both you get best results.

So 100 000k from seo will cost you 1k, and make you 50k (making you ie 20k clear profit), and another 30k from ppc will cost you 5k clear profit.

It's just a suggestion.

Best

JJ

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

I'm with you on this. I have trained personally under Perry Marshall and paid him thousands, worth every penny. Perry is one of the best trainers, and not just for Adwords.

Perry was trained by Dan Kennedy and was a Platinum member, he knows Marketing. Frank Kern, Yanik Silver, Mike Filsaime, Jonathan Mizel, Rosalind Gardner, Michel Fortin, were trained via Dan Kennedy and many others including myself.

Yes, thanks.

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

I have attended several small group meetings (less than 15) with Perry and his students, and let me tell ya, some of these guys are making SERIOUS bank. I'm talking Millions, and many of these people were in there 20's, amazing.

Yes, they all had SEO in place, but they realized PPC is where the real money was. Easy to test, get in and out, more reliable, steady income, etc...

Right. Where PPC has a huge advantage over organic SEO is the ability to be nimble. Immediacy can be a huge competitive advantage.

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

Many of these students had the #1 PPC spot but were paying the same price as the lowest spot on Page 1.

I can personally attest to that. I have a campaign now running which for particular keywords cost me 50 cents per click just to get on page one. I honed, honed, honed and tweaked and tweaked and tested and now (I just checked, as I do each day) that campaign is ALWAYS #1 in Adwords for my keyword phrases, it has a 34.04% CTR as of today, the conversion rate on my offer page is considerably higher than from the organic SEO pages, AND I'm now paying 13 cents per click.

When I started in PPC (way back in the days of Goto.com!), I threw literally thousands of dollars away. Now I'm a lot smarter, having learned a lot through a whole bunch of mistakes.

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

PPC used properly, with a great landing page, a drip campaign, compelling Call to Actions and a Sense of Real Urgency can drop your PPC cost to almost nothing.

Spot on. Great post, MacFreddie.

[Universal_Soul]

I was supposed to say:
"...will cost 10k and make you 5k clear profit."

[LookItsMeTerryG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

Either way, what really matters is the targeted traffic provided by the term and how much profit it generates.

That is the only logical aspect we should be measuring when it comes to a "competitive term".

Under that assumption, every single term that has more than 1,000,000 monthly exact searches, has millions of competing sites under qutoes.

And therefore it is a valid measurement point.

Compensation? That's my $125,000 USD in under 24 hours keyword phrase.

How much more compensation could you possibly want? It's a 7 figure term.

Yes, I do agree with that. 2 caveats though:

1. Just because a term is money term, doesn't mean it's competitive. That's the entire point of niche reseach... I'm sure there are still some keywords/phrases around that are worth millions of monthly visitors and fantastic revenue. It's just a matter of finding those. So, in that respect, you're right until someone comes out and gives us a "golden keyword" as an example.

2. While you may be able to make 7 figures from that keyword, most of us SEO guys wouldn't be able to. We aren't in that line of business and don't have the infrastructure or expertise to be able to actually provide the services for that term. I'm sure there are some big time law/medicine related queries that have the intent of hiring an expert in that space, but I wouldn't be able to directly monetize that either. So, it's not exactly compensation for "me".

[MacFreddie]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

And what about LBC/OneBox rankings? You said yourself those beat PPC, that's also organic SEO.

I wouldn't say LBC is Orgnanic. Most of it is currently Black-Hat, including myself.

LBC places a lot of emphasis on the business that is dead center of the city, kind of hard to organically change that. Most do it with UPS mail boxes.

Right now, LBC is the Wild-Wild West of Google searches.

I would argue LBC is better than PPC and SEO. Especially with all the Black-Hat that is going on.

Ask TerryG he knows LBC better than anyone.

Mac

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

Apparently you're not comprehending what I'm saying. There isn't a single "one size fits all" way to gauge competition for keywords. It's specific to the particular keyword. What works in local or geographically targeted plumber keyword isn't going to be the same thing that works on an international scientific query.

Also, per your post a few posts above, LSI refers to an indexing method, not a SEO technique.

You're making SEO a lot more complicated than it really is. A lot of the stuff you have claimed has effect, does not make any difference at all.

In terms of global competition, the determining factors are all the same.

Incoming links, authority of source of incoming links, antiquity, anchor text, on site SEO, etc...

And the variables for local searches are indeed different, but can also be measured objectively.

In fact, by simply knowing what some of the variables in the Google algorithm are, you can measure the competition objectively for any niche, at any level, using exactly the same variables.

Speed of backlinks needed? Where did you get that from?

The first thing one of my mentors told me, who also happened to be a search engine algorithm developer and ex Google employee was (paraphrase):

"Don't pay attention to all the advice found in those 'reputable' SEO forums, sites and provided by the so called 'SEO Experts' is 90% BS. I should know. Those things will only hurt your rankings."

Looks like he was right on the money.

Want to prove me wrong? Bring your rankings to the table and make sure we can verify they are yours.

I'm not questioning your expertise, you do seem to know a lot on the subject. But there's things you mention that have simply little to no effect.

[Mike Anthony]

Totally agree with you Daniel. What you left out as a point is that SEO when done properly is sustaining. A site that develops authority continues to be linked to in an organic way maintaining its advantage.

Now to some a huge part of SEO is in fact buying links or link packages. For them it may feel alot more like PPC but if you are building content and have a natural link plan in place then PPC can be ignored.

Now that said there are times when SEO is overkill and a waste of time. If your plans are short term and you want to be in and then out of a product or niche then thats the way to go.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

I wouldn't say LBC is Orgnanic. Most of it is currently Black-Hat, including myself.

LBC places a lot of emphasis on the business that is dead center of the city, kind of hard to organically change that. Most do it with UPS mail boxes.

Right now, LBC is the Wild-Wild West of Google searches.

I would argue LBC is better than PPC and SEO. Especially with all the Black-Hat that is going on.

Ask TerryG he knows LBC better than anyone.

Mac

I agree that the LBC/OneBox is amazing.

But how is it not organic? It follows essentially the same process as organic SEO, except certain things such as additional meta tags, registration, reviews etc...

Anyway, organic or not, when I started this debate I did it under my perception that the OneBox is organic.

So that's SEO+OneBox Beats PPC.

And you didn't reply to my cost analysis:

Therefore, provided a great landing page, a drip campaign, compelling Call to Actions and a Sense of Real Urgency. SEO just costed you $399,500 LESS than PPC, for the exact SAME RESULTS.

I don't doubt your experience Mac, but I believe those conclusions come from the assumption that 1,000,000 monthly search keywords cannot be achieved via organic SEO, or that they will take years.

I want you to explain me to me the logic of how PPC can be more profitable than that? Because that's an analysis made based on the lowest PPC cost possible for such a term.

[LookItsMeTerryG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

You're making SEO a lot more complicated than it really is. A lot of the stuff you have claimed has effect, does not make any difference at all.

In terms of global competition, the determining factors are all the same.

Incoming links, authority of source of incoming links, antiquity, anchor text, on site SEO, etc...

And the variables for local searches are indeed different, but can also be measured objectively.

In fact, by simply knowing what some of the variable in the Google algorithm are, you can measure the competition objectively for any niche, at any level using exactly the same variables.

Speed of backlinks needed? Where did you get that from?

The first thing one of my mentors told me, who also happened to be a search engine algorithm developer and ex Google employee was (paraphrase):

"All the advice found in those 'reputable' SEO forums, sites and provided by the so called 'SEO Experts' is 90% BS. I should know. Those things will only hurt your rankings."

Looks like he was right on the money.

Want to prove me wrong? Bring your rankings to the table and make sure we can verify they are yours.

I'm not questioning your expertise, you do seem to know a lot on the subject. But there's things you mention that have simply little to no effect.

Why do you always turn everything into a pissing contest?

In regards to listing my clientele and their placements, no thanks. There are plenty of members here that can vouch for me.

You've never heard of link velocity? Do you read the patent applications at all? United States Patent Application: 0050071741

Essentially via link velocity and decay anomalies can be used as a flag for closer inspection in this case the intent being to artificially inflate a link profile.

Here's a patent on this filed by microsoft:

United States Patent Application: 0080147669

Edit: I replied to this before you edited your post to include the "I wasn't insulting you". I mean no hostile intent in any of my posts towards you, just trying to offer my input on this matter

2nd Edit: Also, can we stop with the ad hominum attacks and just agree to disagree on some of these matters? I believe that intelligent debate enriches the forum and in the end, it's up the reader who benefits from all of this to make his or her own choices based on what he/she has read. Obviously there isn't a single answer to the SEO question.. what you do works, what I do works... let's keep it at that.

[MacFreddie]

Daniel,

I may go after the #1 position for "business consulting" next week.

I have never gone after that term, yet I am confident that I can bump You, IBM, and Entrepreneur magazine in less than 24 hours.

Not kidding!

My problem is that you and others will see how I did it and it will no longer be my secret. I rank #1 to #3 for ANY keyword via SEO in less than 72 hours, and I keep that position.

Let me ask you this. How upset would you and all the other SEO guuurus be if I could Dominate any keyword in 24 hours? I'd like a serious answer.

Mac

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Totally agree with you Daniel. What you left out as a point is that SEO when done properly is sustaining. A site that develops authority continues to be linked to in an organic way maintaining its advantage.

Now to some a huge part of SEO is in fact buying links or link packages. For them it may feel alot more like PPC but if you are building content and have a natural link plan in place then PPC can be ignored.

Now that said there are times when SEO is overkill and a waste of time. If your plans are short term and you want to be in and then out of a product or niche then thats the way to go.

You are right! SEO is not free, the point here is - using SEO cost you a lot less and converts better (most of the time), but takes time.

Unless you are planning on short run, then PPC is the way to go... if you have all the budget for SEO and PPC, then you might choose to do SEO or both the same time!

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

Yes, I do agree with that. 2 caveats though:

1. Just because a term is money term, doesn't mean it's competitive. That's the entire point of niche reseach... I'm sure there are still some keywords/phrases around that are worth millions of monthly visitors and fantastic revenue. It's just a matter of finding those. So, in that respect, you're right until someone comes out and gives us a "golden keyword" as an example.

I think there are no simple way to measure competition, I wonder how you do keyword research? There must be a way to quickly figure out the value / competition so that we can filter and pick the best keywords for our purpose...

I guess you just need to analyze each and every keyword in details, how well each competitor site rank for every keywords... what is the backlinks of each competitor, is it High PR or low PR, and finally analyze the site structure of top 10 competitors...

or is there a simpler way?

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

2. While you may be able to make 7 figures from that keyword, most of us SEO guys wouldn't be able to. We aren't in that line of business and don't have the infrastructure or expertise to be able to actually provide the services for that term. I'm sure there are some big time law/medicine related queries that have the intent of hiring an expert in that space, but I wouldn't be able to directly monetize that either. So, it's not exactly compensation for "me".

Why not? Just find a profitable keywords and sell stuff or services? Build your business infrastructure, create your own web properties and sell stuff!

Business consulting is not a bad business... you should be able to make some great money too.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

Daniel,

I may go after the #1 position for "business consulting" next week.

I have never gone after that term, yet I am confident that I can bump You, IBM, and Entrepreneur magazine in less than 24 hours.

Not kidding!

My problem is that you and others will see how I did it and it will no longer be my secret. I rank #1 to #3 for ANY keyword via SEO in less than 72 hours, and I keep that position.

Let me ask you this. How upset would you and all the other SEO guuurus be if I could Dominate any keyword in 24 hours? I'd like a serious answer.

Mac

Via organic SEO 1-10 rankings? I would call bull****, and if it was possible yes everyone would be extremely pissed.

But I know it's not true.

Because in your deleted post back on page 1, you said no one would want to mess with me when it comes to global SEO rankings. And that no one would want to mess with you when it comes to local rankings.

You had already acknowledged my superior global SEO skills.

You even said you had not achieved what I had, and pointed to what you did indeed achieve (impressive local rankings).

That's why I wanted to continue debating with you, because you certainly know what to do when it comes to LBC rankings.

What happened to that post?

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

Why do you always turn everything into a pissing contest?

In regards to listing my clientele and their placements, no thanks. There are plenty of members here that can vouch for me.

You've never heard of link velocity? Do you read the patent applications at all? United States Patent Application: 0050071741

Essentially via link velocity and decay anomalies can be used as a flag for closer inspection in this case the intent being to artificially inflate a link profile.

Here's a patent on this filed by microsoft:

United States Patent Application: 0080147669

Edit: I replied to this before you edited your post to include the "I wasn't insulting you". I mean no hostile intent in any of my posts towards you, just trying to offer my input on this matter

2nd Edit: Also, can we stop with the ad hominum attacks and just agree to disagree on some of these matters? I believe that intelligent debate enriches the forum and in the end, it's up the reader who benefits from all of this to make his or her own choices based on what he/she has read. Obviously there isn't a single answer to the SEO question.. what you do works, what I do works... let's keep it at that.

I had not seen those patents, and I don't think I would ever like to see the upcoming ones. Over analyzing SEO like that would lead to potential suicide.

My model is based on parameters, variables and factors that have worked in the past, work now, and will work in the future.

It relies on the parts of the algorithm that Google will most likely never change, because changing them would cause an immediate loss of market share to the competition.

But yes, I agree to disagree. What we're doing is obviously working and it's not the same thing. So I guess there is no absolute truth on the subject.

[LookItsMeTerryG]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

I think there are no simple way to measure competition, I wonder how you do keyword research? There must be a way to quickly figure out the value / competition so that we can filter and pick the best keywords for our purpose...

I guess you just need to analyze each and every keyword in details, how well each competitor site rank for every keywords... what is the backlinks of each competitor, is it High PR or low PR, and finally analyze the site structure of top 10 competitors...

or is there a simpler way?

Yeah, let's say a client called me today and wanted to rank for "widgets".

Here's my initial thought process in terms of competition:

1. Look at the top 10 sites, are they sub pages or root domains? Are they brands I recognize?
2. Look at the age of those 10 sites. What is the average age?
3. Look at their backlinks. Use MajesticSEO or similar to see backlink quantity and growth over time. Good for figuring out how aggressive the competitors are.
4. What type of links is this property acquiring? 80% blog comments? Are all of the links from the same few sites? Is the competitor actively, obviously buying link placements? This helps me gauge the relative amount of trust and authority the site has in Google and how robust their linking efforts are. Are they getting very high quality links from universities and professional organizations... wall street journal etc?
5. What type of social media/networking penetration do these competitors have? Is there a lot of brand buzz or brand related queries?

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

Daniel,

I may go after the #1 position for "business consulting" next week.

I have never gone after that term, yet I am confident that I can bump You, IBM, and Entrepreneur magazine in less than 24 hours.

Not kidding!

Well I'd like to see this. As an onlooker to this back and forth it sure would be interesting. You did say you weren't kidding right?

Let the games begin!

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by MacFreddie

Daniel,

I may go after the #1 position for "business consulting" next week.

I have never gone after that term, yet I am confident that I can bump You, IBM, and Entrepreneur magazine in less than 24 hours.

Not kidding!

My problem is that you and others will see how I did it and it will no longer be my secret. I rank #1 to #3 for ANY keyword via SEO in less than 72 hours, and I keep that position.

Let me ask you this. How upset would you and all the other SEO guuurus be if I could Dominate any keyword in 24 hours? I'd like a serious answer.

Mac

Mac, I will do whatever to find out your secret! And frankly I don't believe you, do it or you are a liar!

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Mac, I will do whatever to find out your secret! And frankly I don't believe you, do it or you are a liar!

He can't do it.

Anyway, I need to go work a bit. Talk to you guys later.

[MacFreddie]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Well I'd like to see this. As an onlooker to this back and forth it sure would be interesting. You did say you weren't kidding right?

Let the games begin!

I may give my method to TerryG, we've spoken on the phone before. Terry shared some good info with me. I'll let Terry and Daniel duke it out. With Terrys background it will be like Lesnar vs Mir, yup.

Terry is probably the best SEO guy I know. I'm afraid he may take over the World if I show him this secret that very few people know.

Mac

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by LookItsMeTerryG

Yeah, let's say a client called me today and wanted to rank for "widgets".

Here's my initial thought process in terms of competition:

1. Look at the top 10 sites, are they sub pages or root domains? Are they brands I recognize?
2. Look at the age of those 10 sites. What is the average age?
3. Look at their backlinks. Use MajesticSEO or similar to see backlink quantity and growth over time. Good for figuring out how aggressive the competitors are.
4. What type of links is this property acquiring? 80% blog comments? Are all of the links from the same few sites? Is the competitor actively, obviously buying link placements? This helps me gauge the relative amount of trust and authority the site has in Google and how robust their linking efforts are. Are they getting very high quality links from universities and professional organizations... wall street journal etc?
5. What type of social media/networking penetration do these competitors have? Is there a lot of brand buzz or brand related queries?

Thanks for the detail reply, I've learned a lot here!

I am guessing that SEO expert do these kind of detail analysis for highly competitive keyword, and plan their attack strategy accordingly?

I prefer to keep thing simple - Just do the best on page and off page optimization to my site, and start kicking ass...!

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Mac, I will do whatever to find out your secret! And frankly I don't believe you, do it or you are a liar!

Hehehe

Meanwhile we get ready to scan his site for all tweaks and links

[LookItsMeTerryG]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Thanks for the detail reply, I've learned a lot here!

I am guessing that SEO expert do these kind of detail analysis for highly competitive keyword, and plan their attack strategy accordingly?

I prefer to keep thing simple - Just do the best on page and off page optimization to my site, and start kicking ass...!

Yep, the results that I get from that analysis helps me plan my attack and really figure out how much time I'll need to spend on the project, thus, estimate the cost to the client. That's my personal method though, not sure how everyone else does it. It works for me.

The biggest tip I can give to be successful in seo... is just to do it. And keep doing it.