Marketing Pilgrim Published: “Is a Little Shine Coming Off the In-House SEO Model?” plus 4 more

Link to Marketing Pilgrim - Internet News & Opinion

Is a Little Shine Coming Off the In-House SEO Model?
Internet Ad Revenue Bounces Back, Second Only to TV
Under 1 Percent of Web Visits Comes from Social Media
Rise in Mobile Spurs Growth in Search Marketing
Is It A Case of ‘What Goes Around, Comes Around” for Zuckerberg?

Is a Little Shine Coming Off the In-House SEO Model?

Posted: 14 Apr 2011 05:53 AM PDT

The recent 2011 annual report from SEMPO (Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization) and Econsultancy gives some data that can make one wonder a bit. The survey is of mostly North American companies and agencies in the search game.

The question I have is about the use (or dare I say popularity) of the in-house SEO model. In-house SEO's are just that: staffers on a company payroll that have the job of search engine optimization for an organization's particular needs. SEO agencies ran the show for the start of the SEO era but as more and more people became skilled in the SEO arts more companies decided to bring that function in house. The chart below, however, shows the cycle might be possibly changing again.

The number of companies polled using less than 10% of their SEO budgets for agencies (which is virtually a complete in-house play) dropped from 62% to 50% from 2010 to 2011.

So does this mean that the in-house model is dead? Not by a long shot but it could indicate that the cost of carrying an in-house team has been a focus of cost conscious companies during the recent economic times. Companies may be willing to give up a lot of control (and many would argue quality) by going back to agencies because carrying pay rolled employees is bigger than just a salary and supplies. Most companies add at least 35% of an employee's total salary to get the total cost of carrying that person with the extra money representing benefits etc.

Marketing Pilgrim’s SEO Channel is sponsored by SEOmoz, the leading provider of SEO tools and resources. Take a 30-day free trial, and see why over 10,000 marketers currently use SEOmoz PRO

Everything in life and business is cyclical so maybe this is just the natural order of the SEO game. We really have so little history of the industry to make any conclusions about how these cycles might play out but in the hyper accelerated world of the Internet maybe we are there already.

One other thing the report pointed out is what SEO's of all stripes consider to be important with regard to doing their jobs.

The rise of the mobile net is on the mind of the most search marketers with nearly 80% saying it is significant to their efforts. The biggest 'non-issue'? The Bingahoo alliance with 55% of the respondents saying that it was not significant to them. Looks like Bing has their work cut out for them.

So what is your take on the in-house SEO vs agency issue? Is the cost of the in-house play worth the return one can get from having dedicated resources for the mission critical SEO play? Should a company look at just the cost of having staff or should they be a bit more discerning about what the value is as opposed to just the expense? Is it that maybe in-house teams aren't returning the results that were promised? Is it that the sample for the study is not representative (in your opinion)?

Let's hear your voice on this one.

You can get a sample of the report or purchase the full report here.

Internet Ad Revenue Bounces Back, Second Only to TV

Posted: 14 Apr 2011 03:50 AM PDT

The Interactive Advertising Bureau has released their 2010 IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report for the full year of 2010. The survey was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the findings don't show any shocks. What they do show is that the Internet space has rebounded from a tough 2009, which saw a drop in overall revenue. It also shows that the Internet is ready to take over the top spot among media choices for advertising dollars.

Overall ad revenue for the Internet in 2010 reached $26 billion which is a 15% increase over 2009.

In breaking down the advertising revenue on the Internet, search is still the leader by far with display making some gains. Interestingly enough, sponsorships showed a significant amount of growth last year although they still represent a relatively small piece of the overall Internet picture.

Once again, there is little if any surprise here but at least it's nice to be able to report some positive news. While we have officially been out of this recession since sometime in 2009 (do you really believe that?) the economy is still stumbling around like a fighter trying to get his legs back after a vicious shot to the head.

From the ad revenue point of view, though, the Internet is poised to give TV a run for its money as the top dog.

As for industry information, retail leads the pack.

You can get a full copy of the IAB report here.

Under 1 Percent of Web Visits Comes from Social Media

Posted: 13 Apr 2011 02:59 PM PDT

What are you hoping to gain out of your social media efforts? If it’s a rise in traffic to your website, you better come up with a new plan.

According to a new report from ForeSee Results, fewer than 1% of website visits came directly from a social media URL.

Their report also says that 18% of site visitors reported being influenced by social media, which would mean that 17% of those folks visited the site in some way other than clicking on a social media link. This plays into the idea that social media is best used for brand awareness, but still, 18% isn’t that great.

In yet another attempt to measure social media ROI, ForeSee developed their “Social Media Value Benchmark,” which ranks web visitors based on how the customer came to the site, how much they spent, how they felt about the experience and whether they’re likely to return.

ForeSee’s initial results, after surveying nearly 300,000 consumers, is that people who were influenced by social media spend more and are more satisfied and loyal customers than those who aren’t influenced by social media.

This is all well and good until you go back to the top and the stat that says only 18% of visitors were influenced by social media and only 1% came in on a direct link.

Even if those customers spend more money than the average customer, is that worth the time and effort invested in social media? Could be, is the wishy-washy answer. Many small business users see social media as a “free” source of marketing. That’s true and false. It may not cost you a monthly fee but it costs you time and time is money, right?

ForeSee admits that some companies pull in as much as 5% of their customers from social media, but email is known to influence 32% of customers. Hmm. . maybe it’s time to go back to basics?

The bottom line is that there isn’t a clear answer. Sorry. But that doesn’t mean this report and others like it aren’t useful. They are if they make you think.

Here’s the takeaway I want you to get from all of this. Remember when your mother used to say, “if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump off, too?” Well, listen to her. Just because Facebook works for a ticket company doesn’t mean it will work for a lingerie store. Email may work for a company with an older customer base but if you’re after teens, mobile is going to knock email out of the water.

Think about what you’re doing and why you’re doing it. Figure out metrics that define your success, then go from there. It won’t matter if only 1% of people follow your link from Facebook to your website, if you can sell them that music download from Facebook itself.

Rise in Mobile Spurs Growth in Search Marketing

Posted: 13 Apr 2011 01:19 PM PDT

When asked which trend has had the biggest impact on search marketing, 40% of business surveyed said it was the rise in mobile internet usage. Following closely behind that was the personalization of search results and behavioral targeting.

New tools aplenty, and yet 95% of the search marketing dollars are still being spent with our old friend Adwords. The Bing / Yahoo combo got 70% of the vote and a respectable 47% of respondents said they run PPC campaigns on Facebook.

The info comes from the new State of Search Marketing Report 2011, which is produced by Econsultancy. The results indicate a rise in social media marketing to the point where it’s nearly equal to that of paid search (74% vs 79%). Facebook usage alone has risen from 73% to 84% (that’s general Facebook for marketing, not just PPC).

Other key findings include:

More companies are outsourcing search and social media. Only 44% of companies are now carrying out search engine optimization in-house, compared to 51% last year. Only 55% are doing social media marketing in-house, compared to 62% a year ago.

Companies and agencies are increasingly using third party bid management technology for paid search marketing. Just under half of responding companies conducting search engine marketing rely on basic tools.

Overall, Econsultancy is predicting 16% growth in search marketing which is slightly higher than last year’s prediction. If the number is right, we’re looking at 19.3 billion in North America.

Where do you stand with search marketing? Are you spending more, less or about the same?

Is It A Case of ‘What Goes Around, Comes Around” for Zuckerberg?

Posted: 13 Apr 2011 08:19 AM PDT

There is a lot of buzz around new developments that go back to the early days of Facebook. No it's not another movie but if the legal case being brought by a man who claims he should have 50% of Mark Zuckerberg’s equity is real, there may be a need to make another one.

Normally, this kind of case would be viewed as a get rich quick play by most because there are more than a few large question marks in the claims of a web developer in upstate, New York. He has already taken one swipe at claiming that an amended contract from 2004 between he and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg entitles him to some serious cash.

The Wall Street Journal reports

The strange fight over the origins of Facebook Inc. has new lawyers, new allegations—and possibly new legs.

Paul Ceglia, who last year surprised Silicon Valley by claiming he was entitled to a large stake in the social-networking company, filed an amended complaint citing emails he says support his claims against Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and chief executive.

Mr. Ceglia, who lives in Wellsville, N.Y., has hired DLA Piper, one of the world’s largest law firms, to represent him in the case he filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. He also has added Dennis Vacco, a former New York attorney general, as co-counsel.

The suit claims a 2003 contract between Mr. Ceglia and Mr. Zuckerberg entitles Mr. Ceglia to 50% of the founder’s equity from when he started the company in 2004.

Why are we giving this any attention? It's mainly because the law firm that has been retained by Mr. Ceglia is big. Real big. Most big firms don't do a lot of ambulance chasing and high risk cases because they have the resources to weed out who has a case and who doesn't before they decide to take on a client. Like any big firm they want to feel like there is a real chance of 'winning' (which may be just a large out of court settlement rather than a trial and verdict but it's the money that matters, not the truth, right?) before they invest time and resources in pursuing a case.

What makes this interesting is the intrigue around just how Facebook started and it dredges up all of the questionable characteristics of none other than the social media wonderkind himself, Mark Zuckerberg. Of course, let’s not ignore that Mr. Ceglia has had his own legal issues and there are likely to be countless questions about his character. My guess is that the lawyers think they know about him enough to make something fly.

Zuckerberg has been viewed from both ends of the spectrum. Depending on who you speak to he can be a man of very questionable character or he can be Time's Man of the Year. He can be portrayed as the starter of revolutions or the man who stole the idea of Facebook. He can be the sweating, uncomfortable kid on stage trying to talk about his service or the new, improved and slicker Zuck.

So what's going to happen with this lawsuit? It'll be fodder for many continue to dig into Zuckerberg's past and that never seems to come up with nice things about him and his character. I have never personally met the man and it is very likely I never will, so any assumptions I make (along with just about anyone else) about him will come from the court of public opinion. That's a court that no one wants to be tried in because, let's face it, no one is even close to perfect yet most people like to judge.

The lawsuit and the outcome will almost be secondary unless of course, Mr. Ceglia's attorneys somehow convince someone that he really is entitled to half of Facebook based on a claim he sat on for over 6 years because he says he had forgotten about it. That alone is sketchy. But hey, stranger things have happened and if Zuckerberg suddenly became 50% poorer that would be something of interest.

In the end though, the big loser in all of this is likely to be Zuckerberg because the more that is revealed about who he is and how he handles business dealings the more suspect he becomes. I have always believed that culture in a company comes from the top down so the darker the image that is painted of Zuckerberg it's natural to believe that Facebook is operating like he does in general. Look at how Facebook has approached privacy. It's always been a "let's ask for forgiveness rather than permission" approach which is the same as saying "let's see what we can get away with".

Maybe Zuckerberg's tendency to try to get away with things will come back to bite him. Who knows? Honestly, whether the case is won, lost or dismissed is irrelevant because what's really on trial is Mark Zuckerberg's character or lack thereof. That's what will likely be with him forever in the digital world he helped to create that can never forget and often chooses not to forgive.