• http://www.lariada.net baseer

    worthing reading n spending time thanx for this all

  • http://www.alancharlesworth.eu AlanCh

    Spot on Eric – I’m in your camp on this one. Problem is, you [we] are talking about a long term strategy and punters want to be top of Google tomorrow – if not sooner. And the snake-oil-link-builder salesmen promise them just that.

    Keep the faith – you know you are right and will still be around when the link-building phonies have moved on to a different industry.

  • http://www.powderjane.com powderjane

    I agree with Alan, unfortunately clients are star struck by those swift talking link building salesmen. It’s hard to convince people that it won’t work and it’s like going to a slimy car salesman and thinking you’re getting a great deal on a car because he said “trust me.”

    Great content will bring you great links… keep writing Eric, you’ve got great insight!

  • http://www.netreach.com hmerscher

    Eric: Yes, the hard naked truth. While I believe (and I think you do to) to get from “55 to 23”, you do need to optimize your pages, create an xml map, list on directories, do Press Releases, articles etc. But, sigh, the real deal comes down to actual noteworthy content, right? Which can be daunting — to paraphrase Laurie Anderson it starts to feel like “your own personal Content Arms Race” I was talking with a friend of mine this weekend who is the farm coordinator for a local non-profit CSA. She was telling me how she organizes her small staff / volunteers to be able to keep their website updated, send out timely email newsletters and update their Facebook page. They have great content ’cause they have very passionate people who have interesting things things to communicate from different areas of the organization. She spreads the workload around and it seems to work out for them. Thanks for your excellent articles.

  • Will.Spencer

    I’ve always believed in the saying “If it’s stupid and it works, then it’s not stupid.”

    It sounds like you look down at those link building methods because they don’t help to justify the rates you hope to charge unknowing customers. Those techniques do work and they work for a lot less money.

    Moreover, I have seen them create page one — and position one — SERPS. They have created RoI for a lot of people. RoI is what this is really all about, not ego.

    I’d counsel you to put away your ego and start focusing on what benefits your customers.

  • Justin33

    Well … Not all Link Building and Seo Service Company are like that …- what you had said…. It’s always depend on the company – you or the customer must consider their services first before the customer must agree in building up your links …

    Many other SEO company sites uses whitehat-SEO methods to build links and perform a manual submission to boost the customer Google position.

  • http://www.ericward.com Eric Ward

    Will, I appreciate your comment, but there is no container large enough to fit my ego. The only things that work are my wife’s daily reminder that I’m a just a big geek and changing Abram’s poopy diapers. Hard to have an ego when covered in poo. Seriously, I meant no offense. It’s all based only on what I have seen myself. You have seen different results, and to that I say well done. I must say though, that I’m a lot cheaper than what people waste on a few months of paid links or paid reviews that are short acting, fake, and not earned by merit. What benefits the customer most is honesty up front, and an offer of full fee return at the back. I’ve always provided both. That’s not ego, it’s ethics.

  • http://www.adgooroo.com adgooroo

    Will – I’ve been thinking about how I would respond to this for a few days. I don’t think it’s fair to say “it sounds like you look down at those link building methods because they don’t help to justify the rates you hope to charge unknowing customers.” That just comes off as petty.

    When I read this article, I thought that it would make for a great research project. Eric claims that there are diminishing returns on the generic techniques he mentions. With the amount of data floating around, this can be easily proved or disproved. There is no need to conjecture. And certainly no need to throw stones.

    Here are the results of my study: http://bit.ly/GlassCeilings

    Rich Stokes