Search engine optimization is being defended once more. This time, by Danny Sullivan, who attempts to set things straight with Jason Calacanis. He is joined by many other voices on issues of trust, integrity, social media optimization and marketing practices.
The anti-SEO sentiment may be driven by bitterness over what is viewed as purposeful manipulation. Skilled search engine marketers not only target known users of a product, but they also create desire, need, and emotional connections to products or websites.
This, in turn, helps to create fake, inauthentic traffic and links by the unknown end users who werenâ€™t specifically marketed to or designed for, but bought the storyline and wanted in anyway.
We want to feel part of the Big Thing, even if it has nothing to do with us, wasnâ€™t supposed to be for us or isnâ€™t remotely even like us.
“We have a hunger for something like authenticity, but are easily satisfied by an ersatz facsimile.”-George Orwell, c. 1949
Can we tell where we stand in a culture of fakeness? How can we determine whom to design or market to when the expectations themselves are created by our creations?
We may use. We may create user personas, which can be composites of “real” people based on marketing and other data, such as behavioral. Weâ€™re taught to determine project requirements first. We might study and analyze data to be absolutely sure weâ€™ll be successful at the end.
Or Targeting the Dishwasher?
If you ever watched someone load a dishwasher, you come to understand there is no standard way of using the appliance. Everybody has their own way of doing it. This is also how many people view web design. Since there are so many ways of interacting with a website or online application, we often hope to nab a small percentage that will use it the way we do.
I know there are people who sit on the mountain, in their throne, surrounded by the misty haze from “I Am Right and You Are All Idiots” land. Sometimes these people keep us employed in odd ways.
For example, I learned that an acquaintance of mine was hired to work on a software application already in use by a certain industry. It costs an extreme fortune to own and maintain this application. In a sudden move, the software company changed its mind. It’s scrapping the existing application, restructuring the company and planning an entirely new application that will take an estimated three years to build. It is intended to replace the existing one, which no one is permitted to work on anymore, other than to maintain it for existing customers.
Many of us have worked for schizophrenic companies and ridden the roller coaster. One of the reasons for the crazy ride is the end user. Every time they think they know who that is, and the platforms they like the most, something new comes along and it’s Groundhog day again.
This particular company has no usability department, does no user testing and has no usability requirements documentation for their application.
Are we marketing and development for the right people?
What Comes First? The End User or the Cool Thing?
I view Digg as more like shooting paint balls into a field of obstacles with people ducking and screaming and trying not to get hit. If you manage to hit someone at Digg, a few things might happen. They want revenge. They will cut you down in gang-like fashion out of boredom and because it’s fun to do that. They may like you. They may join your side and call in the army to see your cool thing.
Social media marketing specifically targets Digg, Reddit and other social media because the people who participate there determine the next cool thing. It’s a tough crowd, but is it the right one for your company? What if they like something that fits their demographic? They make it cool and popular, and companies invest even more money into development because their data interprets the traffic and links as demand?
Wouldn’t you want to know who the people are who created the buzz? Are they who built your cool thing for or did they make you build it for them?
Are we building dumbed down versions of things because we didn’t put the time, effort and money into studying the actual target market?
It’s Okay to Mess Up Because Nobody Knows or Cares Who It Effects
There are mistakes in judgment and implementation every day. In today’s news, digital music sharing is under the microscope because the effort to protect music also created limits for those who legitimately share music online. The effort to help one demographic messed with the choices of another.
Jason Calacanis wrote in Why people hate SEO… (and why SMO is bulls$%t):
The whole point of social media is TO BE REAL NOT FAKE!!! Just be yourself and participate… that’s all it takes (and note, participation is not just putting in your own links, it’s voting/commenting on/submitting other people’s content too!).
I find this remark to be very sad, and very telling about the expectations of people in positions like his. I interpret this as permission to be hateful, judgmental, verbally abusive and cruel because in places like Digg, you donâ€™t need to be real or authentic in the first place. You donâ€™t need to ever use your real name.
Anything can be created without the benefit of ever telling anyone who you are. One only needs to note this weekâ€™s story on the attempt to propose live during the Super Bowl. The entire process was promoted and covered publicly under the initials â€œJPâ€. Donations poured in. Hollywood bought into the romance. When the proposal finally aired during a TV show, some swore it was just a marketing ploy rather than an authentic marriage proposal.
The lines between authentic and authentic fakeness are blurred. (A woman without makeup and hyperventilating while being proposed to is not how a diamonds company would advertise their product.)
What Dimension Are We in Now?
Iâ€™m barely touching on the subject of authenticity. Inspiration came from.
How do you know when something is real or fake, authentic or imitated to look authentic?
Are we now a culture that accepts and even demands fake authenticity?
Cartoonist Dan Clowes has mocked “blues clubs where all-white upper-middle class audiences who imagine themselves to have ‘soul’ like to congregate”… but the thing about the House of Blues is, it’s so over-the-top that it doesn’t just appeal to our yearning for authenticity-it actually rubs our noses in the impossibility of ever discovering an authenticity which has not always already been commodified. In a way, that’s a good thing-but only if it freed us from the futile quest for authenticity, which of course it does not. Instead, it makes you feel hopeless and resigns you to the world it has created. You find yourself accepting, with a weary shrug of the shoulders, the aesthetic which comes with the “Elwood” blackened chicken sandwich and watercress-jicama salad.
Is smoking what Jason Calacanis labels, â€œSEO-crackâ€, or marketing the magic of illusion worth investing in?
I wonder if it matters these days whether or not itâ€™s productive to invest in, design, develop and test a product intended for specific people and uses.
It seems to me thereâ€™s an entire culture with millions of people anticipating the next totally far-out thing and they no longer give a damn if it is.