Lisa pointed out a post to me that Advertising Age did a few days ago called “Meet the Brands Hiding on Google.” I’m assuming it was because she totally didn’t want to blog today and knew sending me something that got me a little riled meant I’d go off on a tangent and write a post about it… thus getting me to blog without me whining about it.
Lisa 1, Rae 0.
The article starts by taking the stance that big brands should be worried when they don’t show up for generic vanity search results. For those who don’t know what a “generic vanity search result is” outside of the obvious “a search for your own name” vanity term, I’ll explain…
A few years back I had a household name telecom company come to me in hopes I’d do some SEO for them. Their primary offering was local phone service. They promptly explained to me that they wanted to rank for “telephone.”
Me: “Why do you want to rank for telephone?”
Them: “Because it has the highest search volume.”
Me: “But it won’t convert. You’re going to spend a ridiculous amount of time and money to rank for such a generic phrase and then come back to me in six months and want to change course. ‘Local phone service’ types terms should be your primary concern.”
Them: “But our CEO wants us to rank for ‘telephone’.”
And there you have it. They wanted to rank for a generic term that won’t convert simply for the ability to say “we rank for ‘telephone’” in board meetings. That’s the other type of “vanity” term.
Now don’t get me wrong… there’s volume and therefore some value in these terms. But, any SEO worth their salt is going to go for converting terms first, not the generic informational ones, be it a big brand or a small brand, because that is where the ROI is.
That said, big brands have a definite advantage in the search results and by default should be able to easily rank for more generic terms. So, Ad Age asked the author of the study, Craig MacDonald, to analyze five specific big brands and their search rankings on generic vanity terms.
And that’s when I tilted my head to the side while reading and went “huh?”
Home Depot
What Craig said the biggest problem was:
“Home Depot’s key problem is that it is missing category-defining keywords in the urls.” [cited url]
What some of the real problems are: First off, the term identified for the research was “home repair” which is an informational term. The competition is high and the conversions would be low. Again, we’re talking a vanity term here. But, if Home Depot did want to rank for it, their biggest issue is far from “category-defining keywords in the urls.” It took a three minute glance to notice:
- They don’t have “home repair” in their title tag
- They don’t have “home repair” on the page
- They don’t have a solid site structure
- They don’t have a solid internal linking structure
- They don’t have a solid url structure (regardless of lacking keywords from the url)
- They are running their main url through a redirect and therefore lose a bit of link popularity from inbound links
No. Home Depot has shitty ranks because they have shitty SEO. On a large scale. Period. Throwing keywords in their url strings would be like throwing a knife to a guy facing fifty machine guns.
Tiffanys
What Craig said the biggest problem was:
“Like Home Depot, Tiffany also failed to put keywords in its url.”
What some of the real problems are: Sorry Craig but “bzzzzt!” wrong again. A quick three minute glance at their result for “wedding gifts” (a cited example) shows:
- They could have a better targeted title tag for the term
- They don’t have the exact phrase “wedding gifts” on the page
- They don’t have any significant content on the page… it’s primarily flash
- They are not targeting that keyword through their internal linking structure
- They don’t have a solid url structure (regardless of lacking keywords from the url)
- They are also running their main url through a redirect and therefore lose a bit of link popularity from inbound links
Keywords in the url are far from their main problem. We now have two guys with knives facing fifty machine guns.
Harry & David
What Craig said the biggest problem was:
“Harry & David’s problem is not content, but the sheer number of links out, one of the other three factors Covario used to determine search health.”
What some of the real problems are: Seriously? The number of links out? The page that ranks for Craig’s cited example “gifts” is the homepage. The homepage does not have an extensive number of links out. But, another three minute glance reveals the real issues are:
- Their title tag is a tad long and therefore loses keyword density for the word “gifts”
- They have a TON of unnecessary code being delivered through their HTML source to the engines
- They are also running their main url through a redirect and therefore lose a bit of link popularity from inbound links
- LACK OF LINKS LINKS LINKS
The number one result for “gifts” has almost three million backlinks. The number two result for “gifts” has almost three hundred thousand backlinks. The number three result has almost seventy thousand backlinks. Harry and David? They’re nearing thirty thousand backlinks. And unlike their competitors, their links are passing through a redirect. Links out? Links IN. That’s the issue. Three knives now facing fifty machine guns.
1-800-Flowers
What Craig said the biggest problem was:
“However, 1-800-Flowers runs into problems with category-defining keywords.”
What some of the real problems are: Sorry, not even close. I’m not sure what the hell 1-800-Flowers’ SEO staff is doing, but category-defining keywords are far from their fatal flaw. A three minute look tells me:
- The page that ranks for “mothers day” is www.1800flowers.com/mothers-day-flowers-and-gifts and it redirects to ww11.1800flowers.com/template.do?id=template4&page=3000&conversionTag=true (let’s note the second new url, ww11)… losing some link popularity in the process
- The “mothers day” page they link to internally is yet again another url: http://ww32.1800flowers.com/collection.do?dataset=10373… and not the url Google obviously prefers for the term from their site
- The landing page that ranks has zero content outside of product listings… the landing page they link to internally is made up of nothing but graphics and JavaScript
- Their internal linking is spread out across MULTIPLE subdomains
- They don’t have a solid url structure (regardless of lacking keywords from the url)
- They are also running their main url through a redirect (to ww32.1800flowers.com) and therefore lose a bit of link popularity from inbound links to the homepage which in turns passes to the subpages
I don’t know who the hell is managing their SEO, but they should seriously actually LEARN SEO. Their site is spread through more subdomains than Lindsay Lohan is through drug dealers. Four knives and still fifty machine guns.
CDW
What Craig said the biggest problem was:
“…it seems to be leaving the generic terms where people are doing initial research to the big-name brand advertisers, and instead focus on very specific terms where conversion rates are higher.”
What some of the real problems are: Ok, so he is sort of right here. But, their problems aren’t simply “leaving the generic terms”. Let’s take a look at the example term “wifi systems” for a few minutes:
- They don’t have “wifi systems” in their homepage title tag
- They don’t have “wifi systems” in text on the page
- They don’t even have a link within their main navigation to a “wifi systems” page
- That’s because they don’t have a “wifi systems” landing page at all… just a one product search result when you search the term on their site
So yes, they’re not targeting it… but “targeting” would imply they even have something to target WITH. And if they’re not targeting the product, why even use it as an “example search term”? But hey, at least we now have five knives against fifty machine guns.
Bottom line? Ad Age’s post was way off… as was the information provided by Covario CMO Craid MacDonald. I’m not trying to be an ass here, but I’ll leave the CMO to managing and reporting to executives on the company’s marketing efforts… so please, leave the SEO to an SEO. We have machine guns.
About the Author
Rae Hoffman is the CEO and Co-Founder of Outspoken Media as well as the author of the often controversial Sugarrae Blog.
Get social with Rae at Sphinn | Twitter | WebmasterWorld
Share this Post
Stay Connected
Subscribe to the Outspoken Media feed via RSS or email and follow Outspoken Media on Twitter!
{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }
LMAO “We have machine guns.”
Kenny,
I thought u just had shotguns & rifles.
I think the first comment in the adage article says it all. But, good job fleshing out and going into more detail about his point.
I just had that argument this morning on twitter. It’s not about keyword volume, it’s about going after the same keywords that your customers are searching – the transactional keywords that lead to sales.
Excellent post Rae. As always. I think I will go pitch those companies now. :D Seriously though it was really helpful to have you give your take on what the real problem is. Thanks for using them as an example. It helps me to pay more attention to the obvious stuff.
Wow. I honestly feel lots better about my SEO skills at this point. I mean, I’m not a Rae or a Lisa, Michael Gray, or Aaron Wall – but even I could’ve seen that crap.
Word.
<-- has no SEO skills.
lol. yeah man that;s what happens when ‘bean counters’ make a decision on the ‘internetz stuffz’, and decide it would be far more profitable to use one of the internal computer geeks who are brainy enough to figure this stuff out (and half the time they are not).
Great post Rae.
I doubt that. Probably the sites including SEO have been done by big, world-renowned and award-winning advertising agencies.
As someone who works for a Very Big Brand with tons of internal office politics–all I can say is: AMEN!
*nodding fiercly*
Rae,
I guess you won’t be getting one of the SEO superman shirts from Covario at SMX Advanced then ;)
I think Craig McDonald may be speaking at SMX Advanced himself with his “trademark” bow tie
Yep. Don’t bring five knives to a machine gun fight.
I hear a loud phone ring from a humbled CMO coming… you go, Rae!
Well said! It’s also nice pat on the back to all your SEO readers that saw the same things!
I could mention some world wide known brands ruining one SEO project after another. Internal bureaucracy, internal fights between departments and so makes almost impossible to do a fine job for any big brand .
We do SEO despite clients :(
You made my day! Thank you for the laughter. I wish I could say thank you for the disbelief too, but the above is all too typical.
You are my hero.
What a great post! Not only is it well written, but it also gives really good information as to why the article was wrong. I learned a ton from this. You rock!
lol
lmao
lmfao
rotflmao
rotflmfao
The only glitch I have with your post is that Craig might learn from it. That last think you need to do is arm then – then they’re dangerous.
So long as you don’t tell them to RTFM. They’ think one needs to be written…wait, no! TELL THEM TO RTFM! More SEO Mess to clean up
F I N N
Great analysis. You’re right that the biggest issue with these companies is that they either don’t get SEO or just don’t care. I can speak from experience that a big retailer like Depot both doesn’t get it and doesn’t care. They get too much flak from the store operations depts that web sales are going to bastardize store sales. They are too scared to harm same store sales that managers are bonused on and that wall street values the stock on to want to “get” the web. Imagine what a company with their link equity could do if they know what they were doing. Maybe I should shut up now…after all I do out rank them for every term I care about.
I love it! Especially the “other” vanity term. How many times have I heard people wanting to rank on page one for an industry keyword yet their market is local.
“www.1800flowers.com/mothers-day-flowers-and-gifts and it redirects to ww11.1800flowers.com/template.do?id=template4&page=3000&conversionTag=true (let’s note the second new url, ww11)… losing some link popularity in the process”
Actually it is even worse than this, the original page 301s to this page http://ww11.1800flowers.com/mothers-day-flowers-and-gifts which then 302s to the final destination, so I am not sure if any link juice gets to the final destination at all.
http://tools.seobook.com/server-header-checker/?page=single&url=www.1800flowers.com%2Fmothers-day-flowers-and-gifts+&useragent=1&typeProtocol=11
Wonder if the CMO will be fired, considering you were mentioned on SEOBook and its obvious you know what you are talking about and he doesn’t.
Lock n’ load the Rae gun, settings set to “whup you ass mofo”, and I’m guessing the “Craig Boy” ain’t feeling lucky.
Thing is, “So much SEO, so little time.” Frank Zappaesque.
Question is will Rae bring this up with Stephan Spencer the TRUE VP of SEO Strategies at Covario during their SMX Advanced Mega Session: SEO Vets Take All Comers…or more interestingly if Covario replaces Stephan with Craig McDonald.
Michael I didn’t even know Stephan was with Covario to be honest… I’d never even heard of Covario before. Seems strange to me they wouldn’t have Stephan be the one doing the SEO advice for the article. I have respect for Stephan as an SEO and this article had nothing to do with him for me to bring it up with him.
I agree, Stephan is one of, if not , THE best technical minds of SEO – affirmed as well by Aaron Wall’s recent best SEOs of the world – http://www.seobook.com/top-10-seos – which of course you were listed on as well :)
Stephan is EXTREMELY intelligent & wouldn’t take the bait publicly on a panel to say anything that would reflect poorly on the company that he is now part of (due to Covario’s recent acquisition of NetConcepts) – as well knowing that you respect him too much to ever put him in such a spot.
The point remains that Stephan would NEVER make such neophyte answers to these questions and SHOULD be the one doing these type of interviews when it comes to SEO representing Covario – IMO.
Companies are made of people who make decisions. Rae addressed the guy who put his name on his words. That has nothing to do with another guy who recently sold his company to them, and agreed to stay on board for (at least) some minimal transition time.
If nothing else, this helps us place our bets on whether or not to fear the new owner of NetConcepts as an SEO player.
I’d place whatever SEO bets on Stephan Spencer
Stephan Spencer is one of the smartest technical minds in this industry, many would probably argue THE smartest. Covario has awesome Superman T-shirts. The end.
Hot.
Love it. Keep spreading the truth, that’s what I love about this place :)
Brilliant! As usual, enjoyable and educational. Thanks Rae and thanks Lisa for pointing out the Advertising Age post to Rae. Fired Up.
I couldn’t have agreed with you more in this post. It’s amazing that these brands have the money and funds but choose not to invest in the proper channels to maximize their visibility on the internet. They certainly do fail and it’s amazing how quickly we can see it…it only took a few minutes.
It’s amazing how some of these companies are so naive. Great job pointing out some of the real issues. What is even more concerning is that their budgets, natural traffic from their stores, brands and media advertising, etc… still doesn’t add up to common sense and basic SEO knowledge. They have the budgets to buy and build backlinks, do promos with bloggers, etc… but I guess that still doesn’t matter.
Great post!
What else can we get Rae riled up about today. This was the most fun reading I’ve had in a week…not to mention educational.
It boggles the mind that they have redirects in place, when what they needed were rewrites. That’s a schoolboy error in failing to understand that URLs are used on the web and filepaths are used inside servers, and although they are ‘related’ by the actions of a server, they are not at all the ‘same thing’.
#FAIL
Covario is a just a bunch of a smoke and mirrors. The best thing they have is Stephen Spencer – and we’ll see how long that last for. I am glad this was written – the article in AdAge was crazy….
Excellent post. Use your riffles….
FYI – the tweet/retweet function on this post is busted – tweetmeme says “the URL points to the wrong story.” Probably why you have 0 RTs!
“Like Home Depot, Tiffany also failed to put keywords in its url.”
Hah! If only it were that easy…
Rae, excellent, in depth analysis. I read the AdAge post and shared it last week also declaring it wrong but for entirely different reasons from a marketing perspective. Wow, this really shines a spotlight on how far off big brands and those who advise them can be when it comes to the digital space.
Got a few laughts out of this brilliant post. Thanks for pointing names. It’s not because you work with big ass company and huge advertising agencies that SEO (real seo please) should not be taking seriously.
+1
All you SEO fake gurus patting yourself on the ass, might want to subscribe to The Official Google Blog where you can find out “The real reason Brands now rank”.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/this-week-in-search-5110.html
This week in search 5/1/10
What a shame, now Home Depot will show right on top of the SERPS for “home repair” even without hiring the gals at Outspoken Media.
IMHO, Not being aware of official announcements by Google = SEO Non-professional
I’d point out how clueless your comment was… but anyone worth their salt already knows. :) wait… wait… I’ll do it anyway:
“in a single line above the rest of the results”
Please re-read that, digest it and realize that announcement had NADA to do with how shit the SEO on these sites is, or the failure to identify the REAL issues by the Covario CMO.
Right on cue, a response from the Agency Land Brain trust. Organic ranking problem solved.
Now if we could only get Google to publish a Webmaster Guidelines so we know what’s OK and what’s not ok, we won’t need SEO consultants at all. Life is short; get a clue.
LMAO! Also John, remember, paid links don’t work… and just make good content. :)
Let’s take a brand with a 300 year history and put
best jewellery|designer jewellery|wedding gifts
in the title tag and call it a solution.
The reason why big brands don’t rank is because of the half-assed solutions put forward by agencies that think that technical implementation is 100% of the picture.
Thanks for the history lesson though, I think the word you were looking for was keywords with “commercial intent”. And while a keyword that doesn’t deliver results is not important at an ROI level. For some exec to say to their CEO that their company is coming up position #1 for the keyword telephone, keeps them happy, which means access to bigger budgets in the long-run.
:)
I’m not about taking money for the sake of taking money… if I don’t feel I’m providing ROI, I don’t want the gig. Period.
Actually with this latest update I disagree. On some of the SERP pages 8 out of 10 of the websites are affiliate websites. Most, if not all of these affiliate websites uses spammy methods to rank including:
1) do-follow comment spam
2) obvious paid links
3) website redirects
4) fake profiles with do-follow links
If I perform a search for “keyword + company” I would like to get results of companies not crappy affiliate websites. Google needs to find a better way of weeding out the affiliate websites.
“I would like to get results of companies not crappy affiliate websites. Google needs to find a better way of weeding out the affiliate websites.”
Whoa there Stuart… there is a big difference between affiliate websites and crappy affiliate websites. Some of the best websites out there in certain niches are affiliate sites and I build a lot of affiliate brands that are top notch, quality sites. Just because a lot of affiliate sites are crap doesn’t mean they’re all guilty… 90% of SEO’s are talentless snake oil salesman… how would you feel seeing someone say all SEO’s are hacks/frauds ripping people off for money? Even a lot of bad apples does isn’t the whole barrel.
Affiliate websites are created with one thing in mind. Sure some are better than others but you didn’t create them for the end user but rather your selfish gain. The two biggest things that have ruined the web are:
1) Made for Adsense Websites
2) Affiliate Websites
So Rae… how many non affiliate websites do you link to or promote on these niches websites of yours??? I’m guessing none.
Stuart, I’m in no way an affiliate marketer but I have to say that you are way off base here. Are you saying that no website that’s created for financial gain can possibly provide good content and deserve to rank well? I work for an e-commerce site. It’s obviously created for financial gain but our content is created for end users, or the content would be useless. As in any segment of sites on the web there are thin affiliate sites that rank despite crappy content and there are sites that rank because they have great content, but which also happen to have affiliate links…or advertising…or which also sell products or services. Have you bothered to check out any of Rae’s sites or are you just tarring all affiliates with the same brush. Oh, and by the way, the site you are reading right now was created for financial gain…
And you’d be DEAD wrong… example: on one of our sites, we review 30+ brands… only eight of them have affiliate programs… most of my sites follow the same pattern… feel free to remove your foot from your mouth at any time. :) Honestly, your reply sounds more like someone pissed he can’t compete with these “shitty affiliate sites.”
Sounds like Stewey brought a baby rattle to a gun fight = totally unprepared.
@Rae Hoffman
Again, you are missing my point. As a web searcher, when I’m looking for a product or a company, I don’t want Google to return 80% affiliate websites. Especially because 99% of the reviews are biased. *Most* affiliate websites rank in order of payout. This is doing a disservice to the end user. It sounds like “Company X” is a great company but it is generally not the case most of the time.
Most people (non-internet savvy) would be shocked knowing that *most* review websites are based on the highest bidder. I have had countless conversations with review websites (AKA Affiliate Websites) that will place my company at a specific position based on the commission rate I give them.
Rae, your review website may be an exception, dunno. You may fall into the 1%. I don’t know any of your websites, nor is it really relevant to this conversation. You and I, and all your tech-savvy readers know that 99% of the review websites out there are created for one reason. Again, *most* affiliate marketers don’t care about the companies or products they just care about their commission.
IMO, the SERPS need to be more balanced. A few affiliate websites are OK but give me some real companies and a few informational resources (ie. wiki) that are not (biased) affiliate websites.
@Rob Woods
I’m specifically talking about affiliate websites. Again, I’m not saying all affiliate websites are misleading because I haven’t read them all. 99% of the ones I have read are misleading. My issue is with how many are showing up on page one. Take it anyway you want but I don’t want to see 80% affiliate websites when I search the first page.
@Michael Martin
Thanks for adding such an insightful comment to our conversation. Do you have anything useful to say or do you just troll the posts here?
@Stuart and again, you’re missing MY point.
“As a web searcher, when I’m looking for a product or a company, I don’t want Google to return 80% affiliate websites.”
So what do you want them to return when you do a search for Coke? Ten results from coke.com? Come on. The brand will typically rank number one and the user who doesn’t want anything but can click on that top result and be done with it. The people who continue past that SERP obviously want information ABOUT Coke that isn’t FROM Coke. Your logic on doing a search for a brand and returning nothing but a brand is simply flat out flawed.
“Especially because 99% of the reviews are biased. *Most* affiliate websites rank in order of payout.”
So you’ve had conversations with *most* review site owners? That’s impressive, considering there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of them. Where do you find the time to learn anything about SEO? Just because a handful of review sites in your industry are shady, doesn’t mean they all are. And it’s absolutely impossible for you to have personal experience with *most* review websites in hundreds of niches. So, you’re assuming based on limited experience. Period.
“I don’t know any of your websites, nor is it really relevant to this conversation.”
Well, you’re an SEO… it would be easy to find out since I don’t hide them. It is relevant, because I know how legit affiliate review sites work, because I build them. You apparently don’t. So, again, I take offense to the assumption. It’s stereotyping. In addition to the “biased” editorial reviews, our sites have tens of thousands of comments from USERS. Not four. Not ten. Tens of thousands. I know a bit about review sites. We have more editorial content and more user reviews then CNet or About.com… Are there some shady people in the “reviews” industry? Damn straight. There are shady SEOs, shady “complaint sites”, shady money hungry lawyers and shady BRANDS. Should we weight all those not to rank too? My sites rank because they deserve to. A lot of my COMPETITION deserves to rank too.
“I have had countless conversations with review websites (AKA Affiliate Websites) that will place my company at a specific position”
I’m not gonna stand by and watch someone generalize an entire industry based on his own boo-hoos.
“Again, *most* affiliate marketers don’t care about the companies or products they just care about their commission.”
Again, it’s impressive that you’ve had personal conversations with tens of thousands of people to be able to say “most” with such *emphasis.*
I didn’t “miss your point.” I simply think it’s ignorant and wrong.
Thanks for sharing this article. As someone still “wet behind the ears”, it was an interesting read and I have taken some useful lessons away. Time to get linking!
Nice dissection of the problems and made for an interesting (and amusing) read, thanks :)
They should think themselves lucky for the free advice!
“Google needs to find a better way of weeding out the affiliate websites.”
Funny that.
Like they weed out Adsense on youtube.
Google’s the biggest black hatter in the industry.
Good article Rae. I appreciated its candidness and the good points made.
SEO, to be done right is a combination of tactics, never just one. You have to look at the platform being run, the obstacles that have to be overcome on that to build a proper foundation and that doesn’t even start the look at content and everything else, but it definitely allows for the ongoing creation of cleaner URLs, especially when dealing with IBM WebSphere or in 800′s case, the massive load balancing they do. Then you can actually start looking at nice clean URLs with your proper page targeting phrase built into them and then use the content (e.g., title tags, body copy, internal linking, etc.) to reinforce the goal keywords and phrases for any particular page.
SEO, for anyone who really knows how it is done, is never a one task fix. Look at the whole picture and then speak intelligently…this was not what the AdAge article did at all.
This Article deserves a followup – Unfortunately I think internal politics trumps SEO methods, in the agency world. It may be more important to look good then get actual results (ROI). The question is finding a way to make an unholy mating of good methods and good politics (HIPPO proof) to help SEO practitioners actually do the work, without BS.
Great article – I would like to see a rebuttal from the ADAGE guy.
Searchengineman
Heh. Internal politics. Tell me about it!! Bryan Eisenberg calls it the HIPPO syndrome — Highest Paid Opinion. I call it the HippiE syndrome — Highest Paid EGO!!
And it flourishes at big corporations, not just agencies. Thereby hangs a tale!
To me these sites point out the lack of vision in each site’s design process – namely the lack of consideration for search engine optimization and post-launch expectations. It has been my experience that you almost have to be a pain in the ass for your SEO concerns to be heard DURING the [corporate] design process, not afterward. Afterward there is just a ton of crap to fix. Often its like it [seo] takes a backseat until after launch and everyone is going “WTF we have a new site, what’s the deal with rankings/traffic?” It is getting better though… people starting to listen to the monkey in the corner ;-) Good read.
Great article. Forwarding to my CIO and VP. Misc notes – Covario does have rad shirts. Also, and I only know this because I was once married, the possessive of Tiffany is Tiffany.
Ah, love it when my first email reading of the day presents me with prose that makes me choke on my cofee with a true LOL.
After I cleaned up the mess on my keyboard, all I could do is say yup and yup… and then another Amen again…
and while we are at it.. why are the big brands so afraid of copy? Tell me that answer while I giggle about the Lindsay Lohan line all day..
“why are the big brands so afraid of copy? ”
Because the top dogs have enormous egos, and nothing feeds an enormous ego like a super-slick all-flash website that looks oh-so-cool and Madison Avenue-ish and minimalist.
I speak from many years of bitter experience, LOL.
These big brands for the most part are so out of it. They are locked in with old school ideas and cannot get out of their own way. I worked at one of these companies in their HQ. They had to have meetings to come up with a plan to come up with a meeting.
LOL, Carol, you must have worked where I work. Seriously. “Out of it” = les mots justes. “Old school ideas” — yep, you nailed it. And meetings to set up meetings — you must know my boss, the Meeting Queen.
I shall say no more. The walls have ears….
I think they’re SEO is failing because they don’t publish in enough print media.
That’s basically the same quality of advice as Craig’s.
Wow. Seriously enlightening to read such banter and realize that so many dollars have exchanged hands to hear it.
What an in-depth look at each of the big brand websites. That really shows your knowledge of SEO compared to many snake oil salesmen out there .
I am new to SEO so I am quite curious about url structure. Does a solid url structure means it should contain keywords and omit the mth/date?