Can a business still count on search engine optimization (SEO) to provide real value? I frequently postulate that all statements pertaining to the Internet have a qualifying ‘but,’ and the answer to this question is no exception. Therefore, yes, SEO can provide value for many businesses. But, there are several factors that must be considered when deciding on an SEO strategy:

First: is the business offering one that is likely to be searched for? This question pertains to the customer journey, and how the question is answered depends upon an understanding of the associations customers have developed with the brand. Sometimes the answer isn’t obvious — are you selling a vacation package, or happiness?

Second: what search terms are in the keyword universe, and how do they affect the economics of an SEO campaign? I would say most SEO agencies completely miss this target by not focusing on growing brand demand through early-phase efforts. Instead, in order to create short-term success stories, they focus on limited and obvious brand keywords that target later stages of the customer journey. Building out a relevant keyword universe according to a cost-benefit model that integrates with other online efforts can help create and grow sustainable brand equity. With an economic framework in place, I have seen SEO efforts yield 30% – 60% of total mature traffic volumes. Failure to develop such a framework is a loss for the SEO firm in terms of billing and success, for the client in terms of online reach and sales, and for the SEO ‘industry’ as a whole, which fails to grow.

Third: with increased attention and proposed value from SEO comes increased monetization. Should we succumb to agencies selling SEO as SEM? Perhaps. I don’t think SEO can be considered in the same category as other media; rather, it seeks to optimize what would naturally happen – the results cannot be ‘bought’ as with other media, although I have seen examples of hybrid media-purchasing SEO strategies that have met with some short-term success. That said, with regards to white hat tactics, no one can guarantee that Google, Yahoo, Bing, and others will display the sought-after search results no matter what stratagems are employed; there is still an element of ‘magic’ in the algorithms with which to contend. If a company wishes to avoid the transformation of SEO into another media-purchasing channel, a payment model based on a flat fee with built-in performance incentives might properly motivate the agency, while offering the greatest return for the client.

Regardless of the fee structure, if SEO is part of online marketing efforts, the cost and expected outcome need to be carefully examined. A good SEO firm should know how to balance value, risk and cost estimates. A really good firm will know how to integrate SEO within the business environment to produce optimal value.

I was recently thinking about the process of learning and how applicable this has become to my work. In my opinion, an early and still successful explanation of the way we learn comes from Bloom during the 1950s. For those not familiar, Bloom’s Taxonomy identifies three domains of learning, each of which are divided into progressive tiers. The domain I deal with most frequently is the Cognitive. In my work, I continually find myself educating both potential and existing clients, to help them achieve Internet Integration, which requires a high level of cognitive learning on their part.

Transitioning from eCommerce to eBusiness, via Internet Integration, essentially grows the required ‘height’ and ‘width’ of the Cognitive Domain, by challenging the student (in my case, business personnel) to incorporate many different sources of information. Not only must they contend with the frontend (user) and backend (technical) aspects of the Internet, but also other (offline) marketing, economic and financial components, distribution and customer management systems, and their own internal business processes.

Too often we see a breakdown at the very early stages of Knowledge and Comprehension, due to information overload. Furthermore, the sheer amount of information leaves open many opportunities for misunderstanding, which can cause more serious problems as they move upwards towards Application.

Likewise, during Application and Analysis, there is a high likelihood of misjudgment due to data paralysis or siloed decision-making. For years, while performing eCommerce optimization, I have seen these failure points. One friend recently told me that his agency ‘reads’ statistics to him during monthly meetings; this is a classic example of a misapplication of knowledge.

I rarely see businesses reach the Synthesis and Evaluation stages, during which it is expected that the learner take the knowledge they have gained and applied, and proceed to add to, adapt and/or innovate. Only at the Evaluation stage can a true ‘Performance Framework’ be activated, and eBusiness be achieved. I see this stage as the merging of the creative and the business mind (or the synthesis of the artist and the economist.)

The Performance Framework is the centerpiece of Internet Integration, establishing the means and methods for an efficient self-auditing, performance-driven business model. In order to achieve this, however, we must respect this taxonomy of learning, and avoid these common pitfalls I have outlined.

Affiliate networks have been a part of online marketing since the inception of the web, and are often touted as a win-win situation for the client and the affiliate; the client only pays for the sales the affiliate generates. But while other mediums have evolved over time, affiliates seem to be stuck in a bad business model that I would argue can limit a brand’s potential, or even cause brand damage.

Is this the fault of the affiliate, the affiliate networks, or the client that hires them? My vote would be to distribute responsibility amongst all three, with the bulk of the accountability on the shoulders of the client, for failing to incentivize a new model that would benefit both themselves and the affiliates.

Generally, the setup is as follows: Affiliate networks house many affiliates, who buy media on behalf of clients. Clients pay the affiliate networks a fixed amount for each sale that an affiliate instigates. The network then disperses this payment to the applicable affiliate, taking a percentage (usually a single digit figure) of the profit.

The problem with this payment structure is that it incentivizes the affiliate to purchase the cheapest media to accomplish the sale—generally brand or late-phase Customer Journey phraseology in Paid Search. Taking the easy way can create brand confusion, unnecessary competition, and potential conflict in messaging. Furthermore, the client can end up paying more for the sale than they would have by purchasing media directly. Loss of efficiency and brand equity: hardly the win-win situation that affiliates are purported to be.

To compound this problem, the current incentives established in many contracts are hardly worthwhile, for the affiliate. I recently reviewed a contract offering ‘prizes’ to the top affiliate, including things a 20 year-old guy might want, but nothing a business would seek. This is inefficient for all parties and does nothing to grow sales.

The network itself can also be a hindrance to progress; instead of allowing the client to select a limited set of motivated partners, they supply affiliates based on their own self-interest. Thus, the potential real value is further diminished. The networks have been responsible for some questionable use of technology, in terms of tracking and sales attribution that I have noticed in European models in particular. These issues do further harm to the perceived value of the network.

I advocate the client-affiliate relationship only so far as a mutual benefit can be achieved. First, the clients should restrict affiliate-generated sales to an appropriate  % of total sales, in order to preserve brand integrity, and maximize profit volume or market share. They should incentivize the use of early phase media by paying a higher percentage of profit for those long-tail sales. To prevent brand degradation, they need to set up clear rules on affiliate media purchasing and messaging. Lastly, tracking and technology issues should be addressed through the client contract, not the affiliate network, to prevent any of the aforementioned problems.

If this new model is created, we may begin to see healthy affiliate programs, where Brand equity is preserved with increased sales and customer reach, and affiliates are profiting at higher percentages than previously. That seems like a real win-win situation.