Demand for Search Engine Optimization hits the roof

It is heartening to see the field of search engine optimization mature. It will not be too long until universities begin offering search marketing MBA programs. Unfortunately too many companies still miss the boat by looking for individual histories filled with cookie cutter experience. For example, while I understand that there are different types of work for search optimizers and that content environments vary, how many real SEO positions require 4 years experience as a software design engineer? And why do HR departments insist using only language dissected from the company’s other job descriptions to describe these new positions, work that their company may not even be doing yet? Finally, too many of the job descriptions I read sound cold, like they would be better off hiring forensic accounts. This is cool unconventional work folks! I understand all about legal requirements. I’ve dealt with them. But dam’ it, HR professionals should be forced to read an issue of Wired Magazine cover to cover before setting themselves to the task of writing any Internet marketing related job description.

Why are the Job Description Cold
because they don't really know what makes a good seo from one just spouting crap. What they SHOULD do is hire a serious seo to come in as a consultant to look at what they got going on, then have THEM write up a description of what they REALLY need, not what they THINK they need.

It would sound crazy to them but not only would they SAVE themselves a lot of money in the long run by not hiring the WRONG person, but they could actually MAKE a pile of money by hiring the RIGHT person.

The problem is they don't know enough to know that...

that is because they have an Ad Agency level of understanding of SEO.

It's akin to asking a donkey to put out a job discription for a racing horse.

I may be more employable than I thought.

But back on topic. Today I once again had the conversation about metatags. And yesterday I had the conversation where they were a bit taken aback that the natural search results were about as natural as Pamela Anderson. It's still a surprise that with the right doctor you can pump things up quite a bit and make a good living (the similiarities are astounding).

With that level of misunderstanding still held out there by most people we're a long way from demand topping out - a long way. What's interesting to consider is what happens when the man on the street does figure out that there's a game being played. What does that do to Google et al?

I am seeing more clients needing more basic services. Is that the flip side of the coin? Isn't doing your own link management and guided copywriting and such similar to bringing SEO in house, if they use an SEO consultant to guide them?

In that case, though, I think the hires are far from "SEOs" and more like what IT used to call "systems analysts". Grunt workers who do specific things that nobody really wants to do, and which aren't worthy of specialization. Expect the rates to be loooooowwwwwwww for those jobs.

I also think that the descriptions are cold because it does not benefit search engines (which largely control the language) to clearly define the inefficiencies in their own ad networks. Some sort of propaganda is necessary to maximize profit potential for the search companies.

I deal with a few corporate clients and based on many of their comments over the years, I believe that the reason many of the job offers for SEO seem cold is that the demand for an in-house SEO is too often not driven by need but rather by desire.

With most jobs offered by a medium to large corp. employees are seen as assets that a cost vs return can be figured. They hire people with specific skills to produce a specific results that costs x and returns x and that equation can be figured into the price of their product or service. They set a financial objective and then figure what it will take to meet that objective including cost and then secure the capital needed to meet projections.

BUT, with SEO, a lot of the desire for this type of employee is driven by vanity and that is something that a cost can not be assinged to.

I could be wrong of course, but I'm basing this on a certain theme I hear from corporate guys over and over along the lines of, "so and so is always at the top and we have a much bigger firm/client base/etc."

They are not wanting to be on top because they know that being #100 costs x compared to being #3 generating x, rather they want to be on top becuase their competitor is and that is driven by vanity not business. That makes job descriptions cold because they are trying to justify those feelings motivating them to make bad, (or at least pretty shaky), business decisions that effect other peoples lives. They can't come out and say
"SEO needed to kick the crap out of our competitor so we can have the bragging rights"

Instead they say things like
"must have a minimum BS in computer science with 4 years practicle experience in online marketing"

My point in mentioning this is that when you decide to apply for one of these jobs, you can fill your resume with all kinds of meaningless crap about technique or education, but more than likely, no one is going to hire because of your general outline of how you intend to follow only white hat/black hat practices. The person who is supposed to be reading that stuff probably won't even know what the hell it means.

You have to put all that's obligatory in there, but the job will probably be given to the person who can convey to the suits that you see your job as slaying the enemy and taking joy from the lamentations of their women WITHOUT forcing them to think about the underlying motivations and the lack of those motivations being rooted in real world business practices.

I know as SEO's, (whatever that is), we all like to spout off crap about how important it is to educate the client. Well, that sounds real peachy keen and all, but go ahead and try to educate those suits and see how many second interviews you get.

It is changing, as evidenced by this post, and I do believe there will come a time when there actually will be a cost vs return associated with online traffic generation, but I think, if you want one of these jobs, it is important to accept that at this moment, an equation like that does not exist and that should probably influence the value proposition you would offer to a prospective employer wanting to hire an SEO, (whatever that is?).

go ahead and try to educate those suits and see how many second interviews you get.

agreed. anyone that does that might be a good seo, but they are a bad salesperson. Getting a job is about selling yourself and has little to do with SEO. If they wanted the best SEO they should pick a fairly obscure term and tell the applicants to rank for it and to turn in their expenses.... then take a look at the results.

why would any SEO worth his salt work for someone else?

I never did SEO for anyone but me.

I never did SEO for anyone but me.

me too.

Because you can overcharge and almost do nothing.

p.s. wheel that Pamela Anderson quote has to go down as SEO quote of the week.

"BUT, with SEO, a lot of the desire for this type of employee is driven by vanity and that is something that a cost can not be assinged to."

Massa's wisdom here reminded me of some of my B2B accounts that I used to sell online and offline directory advertising to who would spend $40,000 for a one month insertion in a trade journal that would be put in the lobby, because it had a photo of the president in that full page ad. This ego driven motivation outweighed a top ranking ($20K) 20 relevant headings (keywords) program in a buyer's guide (that had a 95% share of mkt. at the time) where buyers went when they were ready to buy.

Things are changing with CMO's and with traditional ad agencies as noted in the Forrester's Marketing Blog post that stresses "accountability":
http://blogs.forrester.com/marketing/2006/08/the_marketing_o.html

However, for true, total SEO talents to be appreciated vs. what John Andrews said: "Grunt workers who do specific things that nobody really wants to do, and which aren't worthy of specialization.", there needs to be NOT PROPAGANDA, but a truer appreciation for the many talents it takes to be a good SEO. This comment by Peter Kim (a Forrester Analyst) in response to a comment of mine says it all: "Search will certainly gain greater importance as agencies integrate traditional and digital approaches. But new agencies (SEM's) will have to learn some old tricks, too - building a compelling brand is different than trying to reverse engineer a search algorithm. We'll end up meeting somewhere in the middle."

http://blogs.forrester.com/marketing/2006/07/reinventing_the.html#comment-20024922

I'm hoping that more SEO's decide to try to make it independently vs. getting a job like Todd Malicoat recently decided to do. But, it ain't going to be easy for the less well known SEO's, as more traditional agencies wake up and smell the coffee. The beginning of Peter's comment is about how traditional agencies are turning more to some kind of modified P4P compensation models. If more SEO's did this, I believe it would help CMO's understand that the need for independent, in-house, or temporary consultant SEO is driven more by bottom line ROI need than ego. It may even get the job postings to appear less cold due to an improved value proposition.

Had a look for rates, and the first I saw is offering $11.50 an hour. Now I know my cleaner is expensive, but she gets paid more than twice that. OK she is contractual, but she turns up every week, works to a sweat, and does a fantastic job.

An SEO offered that poxy rate won't get out of bed in the morning.

Seems like SEO is going to suffer the same problem as Engineers in the UK. Over here people confuse "Mechanic" with "Engineer". The engineer does not fix your car.

I was pointed at this thread for the Pam A quote... lovely.thx for that!

Well, for one because it involves other people and sunlight.

> why would any SEO worth his salt work for someone else?

I'm sure there was a thread about that recently. Plenty of reasons, mostly to do with the fact that being an SEO doesn't necessarily imply any business skills etc. Why does any highly skilled individual work for anyone else?

There's a couple of oldtime SEOs I can think of who've gone corporate for their own reasons - they are both extremely good, it's certainly not a case of them needing to go and work for "the man", just that it made sense to them, at this point in their lives.

I think it will ultimately be good for the industry to get a few "real" SEOs working in the corporate world.

The only reason I would work for someone else is if I failed at what I was doing. Well actually, if they offered me a shit load of money to do a contract job maybe I would consider it, but even then I would just pass it onto someone else and tell them what to do.