Dallas Business and Marketing Blog

American Express has already bashed SEO Professionals or as they put it “so called SEO” so now I guess it is time for a bit of return fire. Seriously though this is all in good fun.

Today I got several solicitations from American Express, one for Franklin Spirko Media to get a gold card, one for a client we are working with and are listed as their “media address” and a third for Franklin Spirko MEDICAL to get the much publicized Plum Card. Yes I said medical and no there is not another division of Franklin Spirko in the medical industry, no such company exists.

Now that is just a typo right? Well not exactly you see according to Amex, not just anyone can get a Plum Card and the people at American Express seem to feel that Franklin Spirko Medical (which does not exist) is special enough to get the very special Plum Card. Now look we all know this is marketing spin at its’ finest. A sense of elitism by the customer, created by a color, an admittedly great marketing plan and a 185 dollar a year fee (waived in year one of course).

However, may be before American Express and their so called small business specialists (turn about is fair play you know) go around bashing SEO as a legitimate marketing technique they may want to look at whoever is providing them their “so called mailing lists”.

So what happened to all of these solicitations? Just like anything from American Express until they rescind their bashing of my entire industry, they quickly met with the office shredder.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Recently in the post I did called an “Open Letter to Google” a lot of debating went on. One thing to come out of this is that many SEOs consider the link based algorithms used by Google and other Search Engines to be so flawed that they should be done away with. That the engines should rely solely on the sites content.

One individual actually said the following,

And my point is exactly what the author stated - on-page SEO work is relatively trivial compared to off-page, and off-page largely consists of link building. And so, without the link-based page rank algorithm, a large piece of SEO work goes away and perhaps people start to wise up and realize that the on-page stuff isn’t that hard. Follow the best practices and integrate it into your content production work-flow. Educate your staff instead of paying lofty prices for external SEO companies. Like the author said, it doesn’t take much time to teach. - Stated by TinPig on Sphinn

Now while I disagree with many things Mr. TinPig has to say I do agree with the fact that Onsite SEO is very easy to learn and to teach for that matter. I can teach anyone with good PC skills to do exceptional on site SEO in less then a month, if they can’t learn in that time frame in fact they get to go try to learn somewhere else on someone else’s payroll. This fact though is exactly why Link Based Algorithms will be with us for a very long time.

Let us look at just one small competitive niche for example. Say “Dallas Mortgage” for instance. This industry is fiercely competitive and right now there are several dozen mortgage brokers that are actually in Dallas trying to do a decent job of SEO to be ranked for this one (relatively small) niche. Now add to this the fact that Dallas is a major market and many companies in Houston, Austin, San Antone, etc that can underwrite a loan anywhere in the state are focusing on SEO for this one term as well. Lastly add the literally thousands of affiliate marketers that are working to build leads for companies like LowerMyBills.com, Ditech, etc who are also making mirror sites that optimize for this term and this one very small niche is persued by thousands of people.

To accomplish this goal some of these people are doing pure white hat (and getting owned by the way), some are doing varying levels of Gray to Black hat methods and some (affiliates mostly) are doing pure spam. To get a rank for this term you have to play by the Google rules and you must get links for it. Here is a news flash, no one is likely to give out links for “Dallas Mortgage” in the idealistic “democratic” way that Google suggests we get links. So to rank for this term you either directly create, negotiate, request, buy or beg links from quality sites.

Now to my idealist White Hat SEO brethren the solution is simple, just pull this link component out of the equation and judge sites on their content, what could be wrong with that? To anyone with an ability to think forward even a little bit the problem is like a oncoming train! Just go back to the fact that on site SEO is simple to accomplish, easy to learn and simplistic to teach. It only requires knowing and following standards, some very basic math and some skill with keyword research. So what scream the idealists!

Well what this means is all those thousands of people chasing “Dallas Mortgage” now will each create content with specific key word densities, proper tags, etc. Some will “win” for the moment and the loosers will just copy there techniques and try to do 1% better. Very soon the precise formula is determined and all the sites are using it and in a statistical tie with each other. Now also understand that with the exception of perhaps some of the “made for adSense” sites most of these sites will actually lead the visitor to a source for a Dallas Mortgage, they are not all junk as many would claim. Does this stalemate sound familiar? It should if you have been around a decade or more as it is very much how some of the first engines worked.

So what happened next? We needed a “tie breaker” some way to take two sites that both were quality from a code stand point, both had real sources of “dallas mortgage” information and both had a 2.5% (or whatever was in en vogue at the time) key word density for the term. What, short of a subjective and therefore flawed human review, was left for the search engines to use. Nothing but the infamous link. Why?

Beacause even though you can build your own links, even though you can buy them, even though you can build an entire series of sites just to pass link power around, some number of links will still be 100% beyond the control of the actual site owners. Right now we only have two choices in this. Human review or links as a component and humans can be bribed, wrong, bias, etc. Links at least use math and my friends, “math doesn’t lie”.

Do I think we have swung to far and links now have to much influence? Yes I do, I think it should be impossible for any page to rank for any term that is clearly not present on it at all. Yet Google “click here” and you find Adobe and if you Googled Miserable Failure in the past you found George Bush and Michale Moore (thanks to bloggers Google Bombing). Eventually Google had to hand job out those results for Bush and Moore because there were so many links nothing else would have made them go away.

I would have loved Google to simply have tinkered with things so that a word must be on a page. Sure keep the link portion but if I look for failure on Google I ain’t looking for Bush or Moore (regardless of your opinion of either). What this leads us to though is a simple understanding, links are not going to stop pushing rankings for a very long time. Google may move to put more weight back into content, which I would welcome but links will be a driving force for a long time to come. I for one don’t think removing them all together would create some sort of democratic internet eutopia, that others seem to belive it would.

What do you think? Is there to much weight on links? Would it be good if Google put more weight on content? Do you like things they way they are now? Or do you think I am wrong and TinPig is right and that Google should just stop using links to rank sites at all, if so how do we then break the 100 “ties” for a first page ranking?

Popularity: 18% [?]

I recently did a post where much of the satire was lost on many of the readers. It was angled as an open letter to Google and pointed out ways that SEOs in general have made Google and other Search Engines for that matter better, not worse as it is often claimed by some individuals. If you read the comments on it you will see a wide swing of opinions.

It did however, bring up an interesting set of questions for me. In a nut shell where are the lines between Black Hat, White Hat and Spamming. I am not going to discuss White and Black to much and where the gray areas are there. It has been done many times, what I want to talk about today is when does Black Hat equal spam?

Some would say they are one in the same, I disagree and do so with real conviction. I think we should remember that “spamming” in the beginning was simple unsolicited commercial email. Then as comment “spam” and forum “spam” came into existence “spam” (as a word) came to mean more then just unwanted emails. Then next thing we know it is being used to describe certain practices that many people want to call SEO.

Here is the line between Black Hat and Spam as I see it. Anything you can call spam I feel could also be considered a Black Hat technique as most people use the word but not the other way around. Here are two examples,

1. You build a website about let’s say hotels and you use the US Postal Database to create 60,000 pages each with random and scraped content to make them appear unique. With a bit of rotational content via PHP or CFM or something to that effect you create the illusion that not only are these pages unique but updated and changed often. With this you rank for tons of city and township searches for long tail terms with the word “hotel”. The pages just push people into ads and perhaps an affiliate program using a Hotels.com search tool.

Is this Black Hat? - Yes, I would say so. It won’t work the way it did in say 2001 so it may be a poor attempt at Black but it is Black.

Is it spam? - To me yes this is a very accurate way to describe this practice. This is using automatic content generation to send thousands upon thousands of false results into the SERPs. One can clearly see the analogy to sending 60,000 emails to some list you buy or build through malicious methods. It is also a great way to get caught, devalued and possibly banned by the Engines.

2. You build a high quality web site and go out and broker deals with other site owners for links. You optimize the content on and off site and you push links not just to your site but to the sites that link to it. You build widgets and bury links in them and give them to bloggers. You start a blog and submit some of the articles to social sites.

Is that Black Hat? I think if you ask a group of SEOs you will get many different opinions about which of those are and are not Black Hat. I don’t consider it Black at all if you are ranking a site for things it is actually about with those techniques and other SEOs will call every bit of what I mentioned above Black Hat. Still others will be more in the middle and say some of this is Black, some Gray and other parts are fine. I think this is a subjective argument that I leave to others for now.

Is that Spam? - I say no this isn’t spam it is not an attempt to take tens of thousands of listings in Google with low quality junk pages. It is an attempt to gain specific search engine ranks via a variety of methods, some which are at least gray but I would not call this “spamming the SERPs”.

So what do you think? What is the line between “Black” or “Gray” Hat SEO and Search Engine Spamming or say Link Spamming. Is a link a spam link simply because of the intent or must it also have something to do with the method?

Popularity: 15% [?]

I decided to add this note at the beginning of this post. Please understand while there is a ton of fact in this post it is to be read as a form of satire. Many did not seem to grasp that, hence my addition of this notification.

Sometimes it seems that despite owning one of the biggest SEO Companies in the world that Google has it in for all of us. They have waged war on buying links, crippled paid blogging services by nuking their networks page rank and have even banned web sites of major corporations. They constantly seem to push a covert mantra that all SEO’s are spammers unless they “just create content and let the system work” or some version there of. Personally I think it is getting old! So on behalf of my fellow SEO’s here is my direct letter of truce to Google, let’s see if anyone cares.

Dear Google,

As a person who has been optimizing content for Search Engines before Google was a search engine let me say I admire the work you have done and the industries you have created that have benefited so many of us. That said I and many other SEO’s resent the fact that you have worked so hard to make our lives miserable, spread propaganda about us and generally blamed us for your search engines limitations.

To be blunt every time a person runs a search and can’t find something they are looking for it is not because some evil SEO have optimized spam web pages. Often it is a failure of Google to return a relevant result and it is also at times a searcher who is, well, not capable of running a proper web search.

The following is a list of why Google could not exist with out SEOs

• The Long Tail - Right now searchers are beginning to search with more and more 3 and 4 word queries, to find specific content. It is SEOs that are out here doing deep data mining to find out what these people are looking for and creating specific content to meet those needs. Without us building that content and optimizing it such queries would now still be bringing your users the same 30 - 40 websites that show up for most of the larger terms and giving them the poor result that led them to go to long queries in the first place.

• Someone to Blame - Honestly with out us optimizing content when your algorithm takes a dump who would you blame? Who would you point the finger at? As mentioned above if we did not optimize tail search terms your results would be worse and we would not be here as your whipping board.

• Links - Honestly you would not be able to find much of the quality content that allows you to sell those wonderful ads (that you arbitrarily make one person pay more for then the next for reasons only you know) that make you those billions of dollars. Most site owners are simply unable to understand the nuts of bolts of making content indexable, findable and friendly to your bots with out our guidance.

• Even the Real Spammers Helped - Seriously when your first few versions of search were released they had holes one could drive a truck through or perhaps a cruise ship would have been more accurate. With out spammers you would have never improved your product to the level you have reached to day.

• We Must be Profitable - As an SEO I must either make my content or the content of my clients profitable. To do this I must have valid and useful content and my optimizing must match the search terms to content the user wants. If I simply get a page about Panda Bears ranked number one for the term “animals” it does my client or my own company no good at all. SEO’s do not try to rank irrelevant content as you sometimes infer, we purposely rank the best content we can develop to match the users need based on what they search for. In short the best and most accurate content online today is being created by professional SEOs.

At this time I would like to propose a truce, though we are sure you have no interest in doing so, as you need us as much to have someone to blame as you do for the other reasons I have pointed out. Still do you think you could tone it down a little? I mean we both know that you need us to make your search engine the best it can be so why are you always driving that multi colored bus over us?

In conclusion you built the system that values links over content so don’t blame us for using it that way. We are only doing what is necessary to help you provide relevant search engine results to your users. Sure we profit by doing so but based on the current financial reporting you are providing it is clear you are profiting a lot more then most of us.

Sincerely,

Jack Spirko

To my fellow Internet Marketers, so anyway I am sure I missed a few things. I am sure I missed some reasons why we are a far better friend to Google then an enemy as we are often portrayed. Please chime in below with your thoughts on this and point out the other ways that SEOs have made Google better then it would be with out us.

Popularity: 38% [?]

Most site owners tend to build links in a very one dimensional way. What I mean is that they are prone to building all their links directly to the target page they are attempting to rank for a given key word or phrase in the search engine results. What I mean by this is easily illustrated in the diagram below. Do not give much thought to the sources of the links in the diagram below as they are only examples of possible sources of commonly created links.

The problem with the above approach to link building is it does nothing to boost the power of the pages giving your target page the links. This will in time require far more total links to produce a desired ranking in Google or other major search engines. In fact many sources of such links like Squidoo, Social Bookmarks or Articles in well respected directories are only effective because the sites they are hosted on have a given amount of link value simply because they are on large and trusted sites.

Smart search engine optimization experts know that such inherent link value can easily be increased by simply interlinking these sources. In other words by linking an article or press release published on a well respected site to a page on a site like Squidoo or Hubpages the power of the Squidoo or Hubpage is exponentially increased over the power of either of them individually. You can then pass on that power to your target web page. With this in mind look at how one might structure the same 7 links that we looked at in the first diagram.

The diagram below consolidates the power of 5 of these links into two main pages that I call “power heads”. By taking this approach each of the pages builds increased power as the total web structure is created.

Again do not put to much emphasis upon which sites are where in this diagram. There are many sources of such links including links on partner websites, natural links, viral links etc. The point here is to think about the term “deep linking” in a new way. Typically “deep links” are considered links that link into sub pages of your websites rather then just the home or primary pages of the site. Of course this is very important, however, my suggestion is to also think about “deep links” on the other side of the equation.

In addition to “depth” into your site intentionally build “depth” back into the external side of your link networks. Taking this approach in addition to conventional link building results in much better and much faster search engine rankings for highly competitive key words and phrases.

When this approach is applied to “long tail” phrases it is particularly deadly! Doing so not only often results in landing your target page at position number one in the SERPs, it will often end up with many of the pages where you build your links in the top ten results as well yielding not just positive results but high “frequency” in the top ten results. In other words if people end up on your web page great but if not they may indeed end up on an article that will refer them to you or perhaps a press release or some other content that can push them on to your target content.

Working with this type of link building on long tail terms is also an immense learning experience. As you build this external link depth and watch the SERPs change a very telling picture tends to form about which sites have the most relative ability to pass link power and gain their own SERPs.

Popularity: 17% [?]

As of late, I have been seeing a tremendous amount of buzz and informational products built around the concept of using social bookmark sites such as Digg, Diigo, Delicious, etc. as an easy way to build quality back links to your content and help drive Search Engine Rankings. One thing that I have always found quite troubling about this concept is how so many of these articles and products mention Social Bookmarking sites that might have the potential to drive traffic, however they do absolutely nothing to build quality backlinks.

Such sites fall into two primary categories…

• Category One - Sites that utilize rel=”nofollow” to prevent any link value from being passed on to the target content. Some people feel there is still some value in these links and our own testing has shown they do have some effect, however, that effect is at very best minimal.

• Category Two - Sites that utilize domain redirection to send visitors off to your target content. This works as follows, you link to yoursite.com/article1 but in your posting the social website links to socialwebsite.com/redirect=yoursite.com/article1 or in some other similar matter. Such links are not seen by the search engines as a link to you but as internal links to the social website. They will not and can not affect your search rankings in any way.

So I started out this little project as simply having the goal to make a list of social bookmark sites that did two things:

• Did not use domain redirection
• Did not use rel=”nofollow”

Simple right? Well I thought so until I started with a list of almost 250 various social media websites and by the time I eliminated those that did not function properly, were to specialized into a given niche, did not allow access to the site with out registering (read that as did not let spiders into the content) and obeyed the direct linking rules I was down to just about 20 odd sites.

I then began to think about some other factors that were evident and a few I decided were important enough to create a basic ranking system on a 10 Star rating system. Here are the factors I considered and my reasoning behind them.

• Google PR on The Home Page - I decided to give each site 1 point if that site had a Google PR of a 4 or higher on the main page of the site. The real value of published PR numbers is very questionable but it does give us some indication of link value. PR4 simply seemed like a reasonable expectation for sites like these to achieve.

• Google PR on the Sub Pages - This is another area where I just had to pick a number and go with it. I simply checked the main sub pages of each site to see if any were at least a PR3. Reason being that it may give some indication of how well the site passes link value on through its internal links. This is important because even if you make page one you won’t be there for very long. If the site had at least one PR3 sub page it earned one additional point.

• Does the Site Use PermaLinks - By this I mean when you submit content is a specific page created on the site just for that content. This is one of the most critical factors in my opinion so if the site uses permalinks it got two points. There reason there is so much value to this is it will allow you to build additional off site links to your posted content and build even more link value.

• Does the Site refrain from using NoFollow or Redirection - If not, the site does not even get on the list; but to round out my scale to an even 10 star system each site gets one point for this critical component.

• Is the Alexa Ranking 10K or better - This list is not about driving traffic at all, only about link value and building back links with it. Yet if a site has high traffic volume it will continue to gain more and more of its own links and build power. Hence a site with a 10K or better Alexa rank was given one point due to the fact that link value on the site in theory should continue to rise.

• Does the Site Use Anchor Links - This is another very critical factor in link building and on some levels it matters a lot more then the raw value of the page that provides the link. Some services give you a link that begins with http://. Such links are no where as near as valuable as a link that is formated with anchor text under your control. So each site received or lost two points for this factor. This factor alone dropped Propeller from a 10 to an 8.

• Is the Domain over Two Years of Age - There are two primary factors at play on this one. First in theory an older site should have more “trust” to pass on then younger sites. Perhaps more important though is that an older site is less likely to pull the old switch-er-oo on you. Here is what I mean by that. Many social sites start out giving you great links to get a lot of submissions at first. Then one day switch to redirects or nofollow to horde link juice, an older site in theory should be less likely to do this. This is in no way perfect so only one point was given based on this factor.

• Are more then 10,000 pages from the site indexed in Google - This is another one where I just had to pick a number, but 10K seemed reasonable for these types of sites. I dropped down to the 1000th result to check for supplementals and left it good at that if they were still showing valid content. One point was awarded for meeting this goal.

With that I put together my list and started judging them, as you consider the results the following things should be understood and considered.

1. The criteria was set before I determined how the sites would score. Once I set the rules, no exceptions were made for any site based on my personal feelings.
2. Factors like indexed pages and PR change often. In the week I worked on gathering this data more than three of these sites moved up or down do to such changes. These results are based on how things are as of March 4th 2008, they could change tomorrow.
3. No order of preference is given for sites that have matching scores. So this list is not saying that Metafilter is ranked higher then Digg or that IndianPad is higher then Mixx.
4. It bares repeating that this has nothing to do with direct referral traffic. This rating system is based on the value of building back links with these services for SEO and nothing more.
5. If your personal “Pet Social Site” is not listed it is not out of malice in any way. I found as many sites as I could that met the dofollow and no redirection criteria as swiftly as I could. If you know of a site that should be added to the list, please post a comment and we will try to add it.
6. Some sites can be “forced” into compliance with nofollow in a way. Such as postings on Reddit have nofollow removed after so many votes, etc. Such sites were not included. The criteria of valid back links for any and all submissions was religiously enforced.

So here is the list of sites and how they scored in each category,

How to get the most out of this data.

• First, you should understand that I am not claiming that my system is perfect but I do think it is a valid way to “classify” social sites. As you build content that you bookmark you may want to take on the approach of bookmarking one piece of content into something like 2 of the 10 star sites, 2 of the 9s, etc and rotate things often so you build links in a way that is quite random.

• Next, don’t bookmark under the same name or handle all the time. This is not suggesting that you have multiple IDs so you can go voting for yourself. No, it is simply so you don’t end up with all your submissions associated together in one single profile. A simple tool like RoboForm can help you with this.

• When you put content into a site that uses permalinks, take the extra step from time to time (think random) to create a link to that permalink. Lots of sources come to mind, a Squidoo Lenses, Blogger or WP Blogs, an Article in a Directory, a Press Release, etc. This builds the value of the link on that page and often you can get the submission itself to pop for a variety of terms in the SERPs.

• Do not expect to rely on sites like these as your sole source of link building. Think of these links like taking vitamins if you are an athlete. Consider your daily link building and viral link building to be like training and exercising etc. The vitamins (social links) help to put you over the top but they won’t make you one of the best alone.

I hope this list will continue to grow and become a valuable resource for people that want to build quality back links via social bookmarking websites. If you have suggestions for improving the list, sites you want us to consider adding or just comments or questions on this project, just leave a comment below.

Popularity: 100% [?]

For those of you who want to learn as much as possible about search engine marketing and online marketing in general I highly suggest that you take the time to go through some of the blogs on the BigList of Search Marketing. The list is maintained by the folks at TopRank Online Marketing.

This list is the most comprehensive that I have seen on the net and the blogs listed are truly the best of the best. Go check out the list and I am sure that you will find some blogs that will interest you and answer many of your questions about marketing on the Internet.

Popularity: 17% [?]

In case you haven’t been told there is a “new” domain name extension out there called .mobi for “mobile”. I put new in parentheses because it has been available for use since 2006 and has yet to catch on. Today, I and Mark Barrera noticed an article in a magazine extolling the virutes of .mobi domains and we both met it with a yawn, here’s why.

The entire point of a .mobi domain was for what would amount to “sister sites” for companies to have a “mobile version” of their websites. Sites that would be optimized in size, shape, form and function to appear properly on mobile phones and other devices. The concept was developed because many sites look really jacked up on early smart phones like my Blackberry that I refuse to upgrade, for instance. Then last year something happened that made this all pointless. One word - iPhone!

If you have used an iPhone you know that the internet on the iPhone looks, acts and is just about as close to the regular PC/Mac based internet as a phone could ever be. With the iPhone, no one needs a “mobile” only website. They only need a regular website which most companies already have. The iPhone effectively kills the entire purpose of the .mobi domain. “Wait”, I hear you saying at the screen in front of you, “not everyone has an iPhone or will” you continue. Well, I agree but it simply does not matter. You see the iPhone took on such dominance that every other phone maker is out now building their own truly smart phones and phones are going to get smarter, not dumber.

It will be a year or two at the most when 90% of new phones (even cheap or “free” ones) have excellent browsing capabilities and can access the web with no big issues that require a “special” domain. So what does that mean to you? Simple, do not waste company resources, money and/or time making special websites just for mobile users to access. Instead focus on local search marketing (local SEO)because that is the growth sector that will be most affected by the growth in mobile internet users.

Mobile users are often deep into the need/buying phase of things when they search, they are looking for something now and something close to them. As their phones will soon see the same internet as their PCs, so marketers should address their need. The need is not special websites, it is finding your website when they are in your area. The key to that is local search marketing so my advice is expend resources on developing that area and don’t worry about .mobi or developing websites specifically for the mobile user.

Popularity: 16% [?]

It’s that time again for the Fort Worth Business Assistance Center (BAC) to  pride itself on hosting the largest Entrepreneur Expo  in not only Texas, but across the country! To be exact, it’s the Lockheed Martin and Chase  Entrepreneur Expo 2008, and it will be held at the Fort Worth Convention Center this coming Friday, February 8th.

This year’s theme is “Opening Doors for Business”…and many small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs will fill the exhibit hall and visit with the more-than-300 exhibitors to learn how to build their business and  increase sales.  The BAC has done a fantastic job listening to the exhibitors and small business owners, and this year introduces three new “zones” at the Expo: the Procurement Zone, the Opportunity Zone and the Technology Zone.

Franklin-Spirko will be on hand in booth # 233 in the Technology Zone (we’re just one row in when you come into the exhibit hall…next to the CyberCafe!) talking about our newly launched Internet marketing services designed for the small business owners. Our new products include the Google Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Advertising Starter Package  and Local SEO Package. As Jack (Spirko) says, our services “are designed to help small businesses not only open those doors to new customers, but build their company, and increase their overall sales quickly and easily.”

The Expo  only runs for one day, so make sure you come by and visit not only Franklin-Spirko, but all of the other great vendors at the event! Exhibits are open from 9:00 am - 11:30 am and 1:00 pm - 4:30 pm. There are also seminars at the Expo that will help small business owners learn more about marketing, sales generation, business management, and more.

~Deb

Popularity: 13% [?]

Most business people have a list of magazines that they read to keep up to date with the latest and greatest in the world of business. It is time to add another subscription to your list - Search Marketing Standard.

If you haven’t checked out Search Marketing Standard, I highly suggest getting a subscription today. They are running a limited offer where you can receive a 1 year US subscription for only $4.95 - about the same as a cup of coffee at Starbucks! This offer runs only until Dec. 10 so go ahead and subscribe today and make sure to use the coupon code ‘HOLIDAY67′ to receive this discount. They will also be donating $1 per signup to Toys for Tots so your money also goes to support a great cause.

So what is Search Marketing Standard?

Search Marketing Standard is the leading print publication covering the search engine marketing industry. It has been around since early 2006 and has in-depth articles about online marketing and website optimization. It is a quarterly publication and I must say that I have enjoyed every issue that they have put out due to the great advice and insight that they provide to their readers.

You can sign up here for the reduced annual price of only $4.95 and don’t forget to use the coupon code ‘HOLIDAY67′ when you purchase your subscription to Search Marketing Standard.

~Mark Barrera

Popularity: 15% [?]