I think this could be one of the best things to happen to the SEO Secto!
Ever!
Why?
Because it will show just how many moving parts there can be,
how tiny the influence is for many of them,
and how narrow/limited each can be.
>>>
>>>
The problem is - rather than it potentially being a phenomenal insight for people to grasp an understanding from,
I foresee a % of people leaping from
* I see X in the Yandex code
to
* Therefore G must do X, and it works exactly like this!
(Please don't do that)
>>>
>>>
Instead, take your time.
Jump around, skim, skip ... read ... think.
But in no way, shape or form should you make conclusions about G, based on anything you see
(or think you see, or some "name" reckons they saw and understood).
Use it as a way to see SEs a new way.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Instead, there has been a significant shift to:
* what contributes to the businesses goal(s),
* what is readily achievable with the resources available,
* how to present needs/requirements to get them implemented,
* understanding of resource allocation
>>>
>>>
As time goes by, SEO grows from being a specialised and highly misunderstood "extra",
to a core aspect of marketing,
and is causing businesses to mature (as there's a shocking number of them that don't grasp marketing in general either!).
It's the inverse of "time served"
(another thing that always irritated me - the assumption that because someone has done the job for X years, they are good at it!).
Some people are smart, others sharp, others invested time/effort learning/research years ago.
>>>
>>>
Some people may have passive experience (family business, spent lots of time soaking up insights from someone in that role etc.).
Others are able to transfer/adapt what they have,
and apply it sideways to something else.
Though markets may differ,
industries respond differently,
audiences react in various ways ...
... there are "safer bets", and "more probable" performers.
We know this based on experience (and even prior tests).
So you go with those as your baseline!
>>>
>>>
You then divvy up the resources,
and allocate a % to "the wilds" - those that you have no experience/knowledge of, those that seem a little out there, those you may have doubts over.
Those still need testing
(if only to shut someone in a chair up!).
1) What is a "conversion" 2) There are other goals
Conversions aren't always Direct/Immediate!
They also may be action (signup) rather than transaction (payment).
Or they could transfer (online to store visit/call)
As a channel, SEO can generate Awareness/Exposure, build Recognition/Trust,
and the content may be their for trust/perception/persuasion etc.,
rather than direct/immediate money.
>>>
3/?
>>>
So ... depending on situation;
No, Traffic that doesn't lead to conversions may not be a waste in SEO!
It's not all short-term, short focus, immediate/fast!
SEO is Not Ads ... and even that method has mid/long term gains, If done or utilised properly!
You can literally see who has experience/knowledge in actual marketing,
and those that have only every dealt with digital,
and not bothered to learn/research anything else :(
TV, Radio, Print ... these didn't have "exact numbers".
And they sure as hell don't give insights into the number of exposures before conversion (if!).
And yet - they managed quite well for decades (and longer!), ...
>>>
>>>
... to the point ... big companies STILL invest in those channels/mediums/sources.
The reason is ... there's far (FAR!!!!) more than Immediacy and Last Touch.
(To be clear, First Touch and even Multi-Touch aren't accurate either :D)