• http://seo-theory.blogspot.com/ Michael Martinez

    I’m too interested in this debate but it is, as you point out, very hard to miss. So I’ve read a few posts other than yours (I have ignored most of them).

    I think John Tawadros wrote a nice counterpoint over at SEW.

    http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3624467

  • http://www.seopittfall.com pittfall

    Danny,

    SEO is changing, as this is it’s nature. SEO is still relevant, otherwise there would not be such a debate. It is a marketing tool that should be understood, however, it should not be the only focus of a successful marketer. SEO is not the end-all be-all, but it is still as relevant as it ever was. The only difference between now and then, is that manipulation techniques are not as easy to come by. In my opinion, SEO should play an important role in the design, development and maintenance of any website. So, it should become old hat, but put it in your spent bank at your own peril.

  • http://blogs.commerce360.com Craig Danuloff

    I weighed in with my thoughts in a three-part blog post: Part 1, Part II, and Part III.

  • http://seoptimization.blog.com/ ★ ★ SearcH EngineS WeB ★ ★

    __________________

    Perhaps it is the term ‘SEO (SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION) that is confusing everyone.

    Like everything else, the field will evolve as technology evolves.

    We could make ‘SEO’ the umbrella term – or- define a NEW hybrid term that reflects the newest tech trends and complete goals. WE DO NOT have to continue using the same term

    Were we the first to use it in a marketing sense?


    forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=78

    If so, perhaps a broader term should have been created – but social sites, personalization, search marketing and Web 2.0 did not exist (widely) when that term was first coined.

    However, a couple of years ago, the need for a reinvention was urged….

    forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=4718&postcount=9

    The GOALS will always still be the same:

    * Getting Websites to the attention of likely prospects …..via Search Engine Organics – Sponsor Links, Directories, – and now, Social Sites and viral marketing.

    But that effort is now more complex and unveils more options to manipulate.

    So, perhaps it IS time for a Name and Concept Change.

    One could future topic could be coming up with a new term

  • http://www.e-gain.co.uk egain

    Been following the thread on SEW on this, and its a topic that seems to go on on and on.

    Superb overview of the market as you see it Danny, with a good smattering of your own viewpoints thrown in.

    I have to agree wholeheartedly with a couple of your viewpoints, namely

    “As for the reputation problem, I’ve had Jason Calacanis exchanging IMs with me recently — Jason of the “seo is bullshit” line from when I talked with him last month (and hear it here). Jason was hammering at me. All the big companies hate this stuff. They think you’re all slime. You need to dump the name SEO and come up with something new.”

    Personally I am finding a lot of companies embracing SEO, and freeing themselves from the cautious approach that seems to have been prevalent in the past. Whilst their is still some work to do, I can’t help thinking that people like yourself spreading the message as you have been can only raise the profile more and more.

  • searchenginefriend

    Right on Danny. For those that know- it’s not rocket science. To my new clients and friends who are asking what I do in my new job- the first questions they ask are: “Oh! I never heard of that! How do you do it? I never heard of this field.”

  • http://www.brokerblogger.com Brokerblogger

    How does all this affect the reputation of the overall Search Marketing Industry? Can “A house divided against itself will fall” be applied to any extent here, from the perspective of an “outsider” marketer looking in for the first time at Search Marketing?