The Last 30 Days in Search – A March 2014 Recap

Each month there’s a ton of new articles published on the web regarding the latest news and trends in search marketing. Sometimes that news has to do with a Google algorithm update that can have huge ramifications for your business, and how you go about marketing on the Internet. Sometimes that news is about the latest tools, or best practices in search. And sometimes that news can be a simple statement from a well-known bigwig like Matt Cutts, but it can hint toward future updates, and give insight into Google’s perspective on search.

As marketers who serve the legal industry, we know that SEO can be a huge source of new business for attorneys. But it also can be difficult to stay abreast of the latest updates, and keep a pulse on the ones that are most applicable to the legal industry. So, to help you out, we’ve sorted through the last 30 days in search to identify some of the news we feel is most important for attorneys.

With that said, I give you the last 30 days in search.

Google Speaks Up on Disavowing Links

In a Google Webmaster forum at the beginning of the month Google’s John Mueller went on record to answer a user question regarding disavowing links to a website. With Google cracking down on paid and low quality links, many site owners are rushing to remove their links, or disavow them via webaster tools.  In this case the user was working on a website that was previously focused on gardening, and had a profile of links from other gardening related sites. However, the site had recently switched subjects, and he was worried that the gardening related links would now hurt the site beings they were unrelated to the new topic.

Here’s what Google’s John Mueller said:

Just to be completely clear on this: you do not need to disavow links that are from sites on other topics. This tool is really only meant for situations where there are problematic, unnatural, PageRank-passing links that you can’t have removed.

Then a few days later, Google’s Matt Cutts suggested in some cases that you should disavow bad links even if you haven’t been penalized, adding that if it’s only a couple bad links, it “may not be a big deal” though.

So, what does this mean to you? First off, I want to say that I don’t advise disavowing links to your site, unless you absolutely know what you’re doing. So please don’t run off and start disavowing links to your site. If you do this incorrectly you can actually hurt search traffic to your site. With that said, we’ve seen a number of attorney’s with bad link profiles, and two of which I’ve recently submitted link disavows for, after not getting a response from the sites hosting the bad links.

Here’s the question to ask yourself to assess if you’re a good candidate for link cleanup. Have you ever purchased links, or participated in a link exchange? If the answer is no, good work. Keep it that way. It will make your marketing much easier in the future. If you’re answer was yes, then it’s probably a good idea to have an SEO expert take a look into your backlink profile, and do some link cleanup.

Moz Local is Released for Managing Local Search Listings

Local search can be one of the most important, and difficult things to do for attorneys. If you do it right, you’ll show up in Google’s results with a map pinpointing your location, and any Google+ reviews placed neatly next to them like a beacon to potential clients. So, when you see one of the biggest names in local search release a tool and service to help you manage your directory listings, it makes you… happy. Or, perhaps relieved is a better word. Anything that can make managing directory listings for local search easier is a good thing.

Will Google’s Panda Attack Small Business?

At 2014’s Search Marketing Expo in San Jose, Matt Cutts announced that his team was working on the next Panda update that would have a direct impact on small businesses. For those familiar with the Google Panda update that was first introduced in February 2011, this may sound like reason for concern. After all, the original Panda was responsible for tossing many lawyers from the search results, deeming their sites as having “low quality content”. However, Matt Cutts and his team have explained that this algorithm update is meant to help small businesses do better in Google’s search results. There are no confirmed dates for when this update will take place, but it’s speculated that we could likely start seeing some changes within the next two to three months.

In related news, Google was also granted the patent for the Panda algorithm, ensuring Panda won’t be going anywhere.

Google is Reviewing Stance on “Not Provided” Keywords

In SMX West’s keynote, Google’s search chief Amit Singhal suggested that Google is reviewing their stance on “not provided” keywords in Google Analytics. If you’re not familiar with the “not provided” saga, here’s a quick recap.

In October 2011, Google started moving to “secure search”, which began limiting the amount of search query data website owners were able to access and view from within Google Analytics. Prior to this change you were able to view all of the different phrases that people used to arrive on your site, something very beneficial for improving user experience. For instance, if you handle DUI cases, you’d be able to analyze your search query data to see if you’re actually getting traffic on people searching for DUI, and see the exact phrases they’re using to find you. Since 2011 Google has continually reduced the amount of query data to the point now where 70-80% of query data is “not provided”. Meanwhile, Google’s been criticized for passing along the data to advertisers using Adwords PPC campaigns.

Our hope is that Google will return to it’s old system of passing along all search queries to website owners. However, it sounds somewhat unlikely, as Matt Cutts and Amit Singal have both said they’re happy with how secure search has worked on the organic side. So, does that mean Google will start withholding search query data for paid search clicks? We hope not. There’s no official statement on what they’re planning yet, but Amit has said:

In the coming weeks and months as [we] find the right solution, expect something to come out.

Even More FindLaw Link Spam

It’s amazing this site is still alive and kicking.  Just how many link scandals can FindLaw live through?

There’s a post today from LawDeeDa exposing FindLaw’s bot spamming of their directory.  Now, I’ve never heard of LawDeeDa or founder Brint Crockett before, but I do have quite a history with legal directories and the spam game played by FindLaw.  Brint’s done some very good sleuthing  exposing just how brazen FindLaw’s linkbuilding program has become.

In Summary:  LawDeeDa found their attorney profiles were being hacked by a single IP address in India – according to Brint, “every single falsified attorney profile whose identity I could confirm had the same law firm marketing agency:  Findlaw.”   Brint goes on to detail an email correspondence between himself and FindLaw – most interesting the flagrant admission from FindLaw about their linkbuilding spam not only on LawDeeDa, but other sites as well:

“These directory profiles were added on behalf of FindLaw customers in accordance with the LawDeeDa.com Terms and Conditions of Use, “17. User Posted Content & Other Interactive Services or Areas.” Based on your concerns we have removed LawDeeDa.com from the list of directories we’ll send submissions to as of 5:00 PM on March 5.” – Mark Kalthoff of FindLaw

Welcome to the fray Brint.  I’ll buy buy you a beer.

If your law firm is listed below, know that at least according to LawDeeDa, FindLaw is working hard on your behalf spamming the search engines.  May I suggest a review of the FindLaw Jailbreak Guide?

Caught Up in FindLaw Spambot

 

  • Adam J Schwartz, Attorney at Law
  • Anderlini & McSweeney LLP
  • Angela Scarlato & Associates
  • Arthur David Malkin, Attorney at Law.
  • Assalone & Associates
  • Attorney Ronald Polan
  • Ayers, Whitlow & Dressler
  • Barbara L. Jouette, Attorney, P.C.
  • Barry Seidel & Associates, Attorneys at Law
  • Bills & Smith, LLP
  • Binder & Binder
  • Binder & Binder
  • Bohbot & Riles, LLP Attorneys at Law
  • Brian McCaffrey Attorney at Law
  • Bryan P. Keenan & Associates, PC
  • Bryant Whitten, LLP
  • Bull & Davies, P.C.
  • Butler Daniel & Associates, P.L.L.C.
  • Carolann Aschoff PC
  • Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy, L.L.C.
  • Christina A. Marino
  • Christopher A. Wellborn, P.A.
  • Ciancio Ciancio Brown, P.C.
  • Ciesla & Ciesla, P.C.
  • Clark, Love & Hutson
  • Dallas W. Hartman P.C. Attorneys at Law
  • David Coffin PLLC
  • David Holmes, Bankruptcy Law
  • David Low, P.A.
  • David Yeremian & Associates
  • Denlow & Henry
  • Disability Rights Law Center – Alex Boudov, Attorney at Law
  • Dorazio Law Office
  • Dozier Law Firm
  • Edgar Law Firm LLC
  • Edward R. La Rue
  • Eglet Wall Christiansen
  • Ellis Law, P.C.
  • Finkelstein & Goldman PC
  • Foglia & Associates, P.C.
  • Fox & Fox, S.C.
  • Gigliotti & Gigliotti
  • Ginsburg & Redmond, P.C.
  • Godoy Olivieri, Ltd
  • Goldstein & Sutor, PLLC
  • Gori Julian & Associates, P.C.
  • Graham & Associates Law Offices, LLC
  • Gregory C. Starkey & Associates
  • Hadas Law Group, LLC
  • Hallauer Law Firm
  • Harwell, Brown & Harwell, P.C.
  • Higgins, Roberts & Suprunowicz, P.C.
  • Hill Macdonald LLC
  • Horak & Boyd, PLLC
  • Irom, Wittels, Freund, Berne & Serra
  • J. Kelly Kennedy, Attorney/CPA
  • Jacobs & Dodds
  • Jacobs & Jacobs LLC
  • Jameson Babbitt Stites & Lombard PLLC
  • John C. Jones, Attorney at Law
  • John D. Smith Co., L.P.A.
  • John E. Fitzgerald, Attorney at Law
  • Johnston Law Group, PC
  • Jonas Price, LLC
  • Jonathan Feldman, Attorney at Law
  • Judge John E. Turner (Ret.)
  • Kaplan & Seifter
  • Kathryn T. Joseph & Associates, Inc.
  • Kathryn Williams, P.A.
  • Kaufman, Payton & Chapa
  • Keis George LLP
  • Kelton & Teichner
  • Kenneth F. Bromet, Attorney at Law
  • Kevin Qualls Family Law
  • Knight Law Firm
  • Knight Law Firm
  • Laura Dale & Associates P.C.
  • Law Advocate Group, LLP
  • Law Office of Daniel W. Dunbar
  • Law Office of Esperanza Cervantes Anderson
  • Law Office of Henry B. LaTorraca
  • Law Office of Jennifer Zorrilla
  • Law Office of Michael D. Weinstock, P.A.
  • Law Office of Michael E. Pitts
  • Law Office of Nicholas M. Moccia, P.C.
  • Law Office of Rebecca Garren Parker
  • Law Office of Robert Braverman, LLC
  • Law Office of Robert L. Cullen, LLC
  • Law Office of Roberta L. Edwards, P.A.
  • Law Office of Sivertson and Barrette
  • Law Office of Thomas A. Johnson
  • Law Office of Thomas P. Sinton, P.A.
  • Law Offices of Clayton R Dickenson
  • Law Offices of Dan Allan & Associates
  • Law Offices of Dischell, Bartle & Dooley, PC.
  • Law Offices of Max Benkel, P.C.
  • Law Offices of Richard Koch
  • Law Offices of Roger Ghai
  • Law Offices of Steven I. Kastner
  • Law Offices of Wilson A. LaFaurie
  • Lawrence G. Townsend, Intellectual Property Lawyer
  • Lawson & Reid, LLC
  • Leonard M. Caputo, P.C. Attorneys at Law
  • Lisette M. Spencer, Attorney At Law
  • Logan & Logan Attorneys at Law
  • Manfred Sternberg & Associates, PC
  • Marcus A. Rosin, P.C.
  • Marrone Law Firm LLC
  • Martin LLC
  • Mary V. Carrigan, Attorney at Law
  • Matt Karzen LLC
  • McKinney Law Office
  • Megan M. Collins, Attorney at Law
  • Melvin Law Firm
  • Michael P. Fleming & Associates, P.C.
  • Mission Law Group
  • Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C.
  • Neal Ashmore Family Law Group
  • Nickless, Phillips & O’Connor
  • Odom Law Firm
  • Oliva & Associates, ALC
  • Parvey & Frankel Attorneys, P.A.
  • Perrotta, Fraser & Forrester, LLC
  • Perry & Young, P.A.
  • Polidori Franklin & Monahan LLC.
  • Posey, Moye & Cartledge, LLP
  • Prater & Ridley Attorneys At Law
  • Pray Law Firm
  • Prestidge Law Firm, P.C.
  • QDRO Law Center
  • Rhine Martin Law Firm, P.C.
  • Richards & Richards Attorneys at Law
  • Robert D. DiDio & Associates
  • Robertson Law Firm
  • Rogers, Hofrichter & Karrh, LLC
  • Ronald W. Ramirez Attorney At Law
  • Rosenstein Law Group
  • Schwartz Law Firm
  • Shamy, Shipers & Lonski PC
  • Shelly Law Offices, LLC
  • Sherick & Bleier P.L.L.C.
  • Sherman
  • Shollenberger & Januzzi, LLP
  • Shuler Law Firm, LLC.
  • Sikov & Love P.A.
  • Skinner Law Firm L.L.C.
  • Spinella, Owings & Shaia, P.C.
  • Stolar & Associates, A Professional Law Corporation
  • The Cagle Law Firm
  • The Colleran Firm
  • The Epstein Law Firm, P.A.
  • The Gregory Law Firm
  • The Kehl Law Firm, P.C.
  • The Law Firm of Janice M. Greening, LLC
  • The Law Office of Bryan R. Snyder, APC
  • The Law Office of Bryce D Neier, PLLC
  • The Law Office of Corey I. Cohen
  • The Law Office of Troy Kiefer
  • The law offices of charles bonfante III & associates
  • The Law Offices of Heather J. Darling
  • The Law Offices of John S. Eliasik
  • The Law Offices of Judith A. Wayne & Associates
  • The Law Offices of Mark J. Werksman
  • The Law Offices of Mark Kelley Schwartz, P.C.
  • The law offices of Vincent J. Scotto III
  • The Oncale Firm
  • The Reyna Law Firm, P.C.
  • The Wilson Firm
  • The Wright Law Firm
  • Theresa Hofmeister, Attorney at Law
  • Thomas R. Lefly
  • Thompson & Evangelo, P.A.
  • Toppenberg & Burke, P.C.
  • Wade & Lowe, A Professional Corporation
  • Wallace & Wallace LLP
  • Warner Law Offices PLLC
  • Wesley, McGrail & Wesley
  • Whitlock Canter LLC
  • Wick & Trautwein, LLC
  • William E. Cassara, PC
  • William G. Yarborough Attorney at Law
  • Wilson-Goodman Law Group
  • Zimmerman, Lieberman, Tamulonis & Hobbs

(gasp) – still scrolling?  that was a long list wasn’t it?

Richard Jacobs & Speakeasy Marketing – SPAMMY Legal Internet Marketer

I just got an email from a client asking for direction on a link building opportunity.  This from my client:

Conrad, we just got this message regarding link building. As we clearly know nothing about this I defer to your expertise.

Thanks,

And here’s the request, from Andrew Hudson of Speakeasy Marketing  – submitted completely cold to an online form on my client’s website.  I’ve boldfaced the most egregious parts:

From Our Law Firm to Yours – a Request

Hi,

I work for 40 different attorneys throughout The United States, and I have a simple proposition that will benefit your website and ours.

One of my attorney clients would like to Place a link from his website to your website, Which will elevate you in Google’s eyes and help You get higher up in Google results.

In return, we ask for a link from your website to A different attorney client of ours.

No money exchanges hands, the links are not Reciprocal, and both parties benefit.

This is NOT a ‘black hat’ technique, or anything That violates Googles’ terms of service.

100% straight up, legitimate, tit for tat.

Are you open to this simple arrangement?

Please reply regardless,

Andrew Hudson
73-03 Bell Blvd #10
Oakland Gardens, NY 11364
Phone# 347-329-5146
andrew@speakeasymarketinginc.com

Now, if you know anything about online marketing, you’ll know that this is entirely black hat, is entirely reciprocal (I’m not sure how Andrews misses the irony of saying “its not reciprocal”, and then mentions “tit for tat”) and entirely violative of Google’s terms of service.

Richard – when you read this, check out Google’s Guidelines on Link Schemes – although you might find this excerpt particularly insightful:

Excessive link exchanges (“Link to me and I’ll link to you”) or partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking.

I checked out the site for Speakeasy Marketing and found the worst type of internet schyster – the black hat acolyte professing white hat tactics and guaranteeing magical results.  AND they specialize in legal – which I find infuriating.

 Speakeasy Marketing – Avoid at Your Peril

Let’s look at their site as a lesson in identifying red flags of SEO spammers:

Speakeasy Lawyer Marketing

Focus on Rankings

I’ve written ad nauseaum about  the dangers of ranking reports and how SEO’s use them to suggest success in the face of failure.

Guarantee Page 1

100% Success Guarantee

Nothing is guaranteed in online marketing.  Ever.  Nothing.

Guarantee - Speakeasy Marketing  No Effort Required

I’ve been doing this a long time – and the only thing I know for sure is that successful online marketing takes effort.

Speakeasy Content Automation

Disavowing Black Hat Techniques

Of course – the cruel irony here is that he’s calling out black-hat techniques while simultaneously employing them.

 

Speakeasy Lawyer Marketing SPAM

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.   

Legal Marketing in 2014: The Only Thing You Need to Know

Now is the time of year when professional predictions, resolutions and prognostications appear across the legal marketing blogging landscape.  In the ever-changing SEO industry, correctly guessing the newest new thing is very effective.

As far as I’m concerned there’s only one thing you need to know about online marketing in 2014:  Matt is mad.

In 2013, the head of Google’s anti-webspam team (and unofficially, chief industry PR spokesperson), Matt Cutts, hammered the SEO industry with anit-spam algorithm updates.  And while Google started sharing these algo code name updates back in 2011; through 2013 we saw these names go from project code names whispered about at geek conferences into brand names, with careful, proactive PR launches.  Pandas and Penguins and Hummingbirds.  Oh My!

Traditionally, Google’s anti-spam PR approach has been to single out individuals – JC Penney’s, BMW etc. – and make an example of them.  And while there will continue to be individual examples, what we are now seeing is much more widespread.  This accelerated towards the end of the year with widespread algo changes and very public warnings about guest blogging, thin authorship and a litany of link scheme busts.  Here are some (non-animal branded) announcements from December 2013 alone:

Google Has Officially Penalized Rap Genius for Link Schemes

Matt Cuts Implies Google is Aware of SEOs Bribing Bloggers

Google Reduces Authorship Rich Snippets in Search Results

Google Squashes Backlinks.com – Another Link Network Outed by Google

Google’s Matt Cutts: Guest Blogging Abuse SPAM on the Rise

Google Busts Yet Another Link Network – Anglo Rank

Google’s Matt Cutts: Stitching Content is Bad SEO Quality Content

Google Mindset Shift

Most interesting was a shift in mindset publicly espoused by Google. Generally, given their vast reach and power – we seen amicable Matt speaking reasonablly gently about these issues. So I was very surprised to run across Cutts in a December 4, This Week in Google video, in a carefully worded statement saying:

“We want to break [spammers] spirits.”

Barry Schwartz has a detailed review of the video on Search Engine Land – here are some of the key excerpts:

“If you want to stop spam, the most straight forward way to do it is to deny people money because they care about the money and that should be their end goal. But if you really want to stop spam, it is a little bit mean, but what you want to do, is sort of break their spirits.”

SPAM and the Legal World in 2013

Aggressive and enterprising lawyers tend to be some of the more aggressive spammers – rivaling offshore porn, pills and poker.  In 2013, the third largest legal industry centric link buying scheme was quietly taken down (interestingly – to the best of my knowledge this hasn’t been reported anywhere.)  I don’t know if that was a manual change made by Google or if it was caught up in a larger algo update.  And remember lawyers – I’m talking to more and more of you coming up with various office sharing schemes to try to artificially expand your footprint in Google local results.  If you want to stay around for a while, open up a real office.  David Mihm’s 2013 Local Optimization Ranking Factors Survey identified the number one negative ranking factor:  Listing Detected at False Business Location.

So – Atticus’ predictions for 2014?

As a whole, the legal industry will experience a heavy shake-up with regards to who generates business from the web.  “Penalty Recovery” will become a staple of the legal SEO agency world as law firms flee the large spammy, legally focused SEO agencies/consultants/website providers.

 

Google Shuns Low Quality Authors

Now that we’ve all jumped on the authorship bandwagon – its time to reverse course.

SEO rockstar, Barry Schwartz first posted about the drop in authorship a week ago. Today, Google’s Matt Cutts confirmed a change to their authorship model – reducing the number of results returning authorship images by roughly 15%.

If you live under an SEO rock – here’s authorship in action – a picture of yours truly accompanying an article I wrote:

Authorship

Numerous studies have universally pointed to a massive increase in click through rate when results are associated with authorship – regardless of where those results fall on the SERP page.  Predictably, the legal marketing industry fell all over itself in a mad rush to implement authorship.

Why Matt?  Why do you do this to us?

Lets use the legal industry as the whipping boy for why Google rolls back some of their most creative innovations.

As word of authorship rippled across the legal SEO industry,  agencies and  enterprising DIY lawyers learned how quick and easy authorship was to implement.  This was the lateset SEO magic bullet – little work, big results and a client ego-stroked with his picture showing up on The Google!  Woot Woot!

Predictably, we took it too far.  I’ve talked to some of you about this and I’ve seen some of you try to game the system . . . so don’t protest too loud.  Marketers started establishing authorship across the firm – tying lawyers to news-rewrites outsourced to India and vomited onto legal blogs. And this, of course is exactly what Google hates.

The Real Value of Authorship

And by the real value – I mean the value to users – is the recognition of great content through highly authoritative subject matter experts. This is a great concept, although horrible christened Author Rank.  So Google is rolling back authorship results on the bottom of the author authority barrel. If you’ve been writing your own stuff and connecting socially, this change is a non issue.  But if you’ve been trying to skirt the system, time to start looking for another magic bullet.

 

 

 

 

The Power of Promoting (Good) Content

A few months ago I wrote a diatribe proclaiming SEO Regicide – the Death of Content the King.  The concept was fairly simple – there are so many lawyers vomiting (bad) content across the web, that building content, in and of itself, is not sufficient for driving traffic (and therefore business) from the web.   The conclusion was that the new King of SEO is the marketing and distribution of great content.  Simple premise – but not immediately (or perhaps ever) scaleable.

Now let me share  some great data to validate the theory:

The graphic below depicts organic search traffic for a site whose only SEO tactic during the past 9 months has been the generation and distribution of very high quality content.  While I generally wouldn’t recommend focusing on one search tactic, the firm is on a very solid technical platform and is in a maintenance mode.  They have been publishing (and promoting) high quality, unique content from the writers at We Do Web Content on a regular basis.

Content Growth

The Results

That’s a 50% increase in traffic over a period of 9 months and demonstrates exactly what I want my clients to experience – slow, steady, predictable improvement in their site’s performance – which correlates to a slow steady increase in the volume of inbound phone calls.  There’s no technical magic, no link-building shenanigans, no directory submissions needed.

I often am asked for a magic SEO bullet, when sometimes the foundational concepts are all you really need.

SEO Regicide: Content the King is Dead

Content content content.

“You need more content.”

 “You need to rewrite news articles every day!”

“You need to blog more.”

“Publish or perish.”

“Google launched Hummingbird – you need to write FAQs!”

Psssssst . . . . lawyers . . .  all of the SEO experts are telling you (and all of your competitors) the same thing.  And like compliant lemmings, you are all doing the same thing.

Psssssst . . .  It doesn’t work anymore.

The Rise and Fall of the Content Dynasty

The genesis for the focus on content began about 5 years ago.  Changes in consumer search behavior gradually took effect – whereby users began looking for increasingly specific answers with increasingly granular content pages.  The “long tail” of search became the industry’s hottest new buzzword.  SEO experts, ninjas, and mavens started churning out pages with very subtle differences –  “Best Seattle underage DUI Attorney”, “Top 10 Settle teen DUI Attorneys” “Great Seattle Drunk Driving Lawyers for drivers under 21” ad nauseam.  The industry adopted the boorish practice of rewriting news stories and vomiting them back onto blogs that quickly became poorly written rehasings of yesterday’s news.

And for a while it worked (at least in generating traffic for the SEO consultants to return triumphantly with “success metrics” for their misguided clients – the fact that the phone never rang didn’t seem to matter – but I digress, that is a topic for another post.)  The legal industry became publishing sweatshops – with individual firms churning out hundreds, even thousands of articles a month.

Eventually, the search engines, as they always do, caught up with the SEO spammers.  Penguins and Pandas and most recently, Hummingbirds were let lose on the algorithms.  Content, the King, was under attack.

Content is Dead

The Succession of the King:  Quality Content

The search engine talking heads defended their King – retreating back to the ever-popular refrain – “write quality content and we will reward you with a bounty of traffic.”

So the SEO experts and mavens and ninjas did as they were told . . . infographics and guest blogging were born. Top 10 Lists proliferated like bunnies on a steady diet of Viagra. In time, most legally focused news stories was dissected and built into beautiful graphical statistical displays.  Guest blog brokers were born.  Just like with King Content, the disciples of his son, Quality Content initially did very well.  But as others caught up, they became increasingly less effective. Because everyone was doing it.

So the search engines sent warnings about guest blogging.  The cycle repeated itself again.

Quality Content is NOT Enough

This death of King Content and his prince son, Quality hit me square in the face a few weeks ago at Webcam –  a small but amazing conference in Bend Oregon.  Marshall Simmonds, who used to be the in-house SEO for the New York Times  (arguably one of the most high quality original content publishers) heralded the end of a dynasty:  Content is no longer King.

Eu Tu Simmonds?

And he’s right. We are now at a point in the evolution of the web where generating quality content is no longer sufficient for success. There’s frankly just too much of it.  The trick, the real hard part of marketing, today’s unscaleable solution and the successor of the crown is marketing content.  And by “marketing content” – I don’t mean “content marketing” – the aforementioned practice of vomiting out hoards of webpages.  I literally mean undertaking marketing efforts to promote your quality content.  This can take the shape of many different channels – social media, networking, the dubiously named “author rank” or even the marketing pariah of the SEO world – Public Relations.  Marshall’s pronouncement was utterly confirmed for me when I looked at the referring traffic for some legal sites and found that Press Release providers (PRWeb etc.) frequently showed up as the #1 referring site. For years, I have mocked the press release tactic as a dying relic of yesteryear  – but I’ve been wrong – because now, the genuine distribution of content is what makes the magic happen.

The reality is that the Quality Content mantra assumed that when you have quality content, links are going to happen.  This is no longer universally true – especially in hypercroweded content landscapes like legal.  To be successful, you must embrace proactively marketing that very good, high quality content.

Content is dead, long live Content.

Your Legal Blog Content Isn’t As Good As You Think It Is

I made an error in Atticus’ initial approach to identifying (and reporting on) a very simple success metric for our clients: traffic.  Turns out, all traffic is not created equal – specifically traffic to blog content is (usually) much less valuable than other traffic.

How have the SEO’s been steering us wrong all this time?  Let me use me use Google Analytics to review Atticus’ own traffic to demonstrate my point:

First, I’m going to filter my traffic in Google Analytics by selecting only non-paid search traffic.

Blog 1

Now I’m going to look at my site’s most effective landing pages in the Landing Pages report.

Blog 2

Now look at the content that draws in traffic – outside of my homepage (which is essentially branded traffic – people who already know me and are actively looking for me), its all blog posts I’ve written about online marketing which contain instructions, news items and  search theory pontifications.  A full 20% of my inbound traffic goes to a blog post I wrote on “how to check your access level in the new google analytics interface.”  The likelihood that one of those users is an attorney actively looking to hire an SEO Agency is exactly zero.

I have to scroll and scroll through different landing pages before I finally find a page that generates high converting traffic (the legal equivalent of a Practice Area description page.)

Blog 3

This represents a whopping 0.4% of my search traffic and 0.1% of my total traffic.  Now, in my situation, this is not a concern as the objective of my blog is to reinforce my credibility with industry leaders not generate new business. However, if I was an attorney who relied on the web for my business’ growth, this is a very concerning statistic.  And unfortunately, many SEO consultants and website vendors mask poor business performance with pretty reports of overall traffic growth. Want to see a nice growth graph that hides the fact my traffic isn’t making my phone ring? – below is the graph that shows my site’s performance looks like overall.  Note this is driven heavily by inbound traffic to pages that do NOT generate any business.

Blog 4

The notion that vomiting out barely tangentially related content on a blog (and the associated traffic bump) to generate traffic is the panacea of legal marketing is utterly misleading.  Beware SEO consultants who push clients to write in order to overshadow poor website performance. Instead, take the time to look into those high converting pages of your site – and see how much traffic they are generating. Those are the pages that make your phone ring.

Does My Site Look Fat in this WordPress?

If your site runs on WordPress, it is highly possible – even likely – that your site needs a diet.  WordPress makes it mind-numbingly easy to create lots of different pages by recycling your content, or snippets of your content, into various related pages.  This has been grossly exacerbated by uninformed SEO consultants  pushing their clients to aggressively “tag” blog posts.

Tagging

WordPress Often Generates Too Many Pages

First, understand that search engines don’t necessarily review all of the pages on a site, but instead use the site’s authority (from links etc.) to determine just how many pages they will both crawl (find) and index (add to the consideration set for search results).  Therefore, sites with low authority and lots of pages may find that most of their pages receive zero traffic and aren’t ever seen by search engines.

Let’s use Atticus Marketing as an example to showcase why all of these extra pages are problematic.  Yesterday, I published a great post on the differences between three mainstream CMS systems. Not only have the search engines failed to send any traffic to my lovely content, they haven’t even indexed or even crawled it at all!  They don’t know it exists. This despite the fact that I’m doing all of the social media marketing: posts on LinkedIn, Facebook, Google Plus, Tweets and Retweets.

Here’s why:  Atticus is a very young site, with just 34 different sites linking to it AND I’ve built out lots of extra pages through WordPress’s Categories and Tagging functionality. Every time you create a category or a tag, WordPress generates a page to organize content with that category or tag.  These pages are optimized for the category/tag.  This functionality has the capacity to generate lots of pages with content that already has a home on your site – duplicate content that search engines eschew. (Note that tags are worse because the interface is very freeform, encouraging writers to generate multiple versions of similar tags).  You can see how this gets out of control:  on AtticusMarketing.com I have a paltry 10 pages and 25 blog posts – yet Google indexes 186 different pages for the site.  The reality is, the vast majority of these pages just contain content that exists elsewhere on the site.

The reason the search engines haven’t deigned to even look at my lovely new content is because my site’s authority and multiple duplicate content pages combine to convince them that much of my content just isn’t worth their time.

Tagging and SPAM

Look at this from a search engine perspective, to understand why a combination of page volume and site authority determines how many pages are reviewed.  Let’s review a more extreme example, from the Carter Law Firm, where a site utilizes WordPress tagging functionality to generate a litany of spammy pages.

The blog is well written, has some beautiful imagery, appropriately utilizes external and internal links and embraces edgy topics including Topless Day and revenge porn.  Unfortunately at the end of every single post is a long list of entries for both “Filed Under” i.e. categories and “Tagged With” i.e. tags.  Here’s the entry for the post on “Ask the Hard Questions Before Starting a Business”:

tag spam

This one piece of (very good) content is now going to be replicated on 15 different pages across her domain – most of which will have nothing but a verbatim copy of this content.  And many of these pages are “optimized” (I use the term very loosely here – but optimized with on-page elements like Title Tags, H1s, URL etc.) for very similar content:

  • “How to start a business” vs. “How to start LLC” vs. “start LLC”.
  • “Arizona business attorney” vs. “Arizona small business attorney” vs. “Phoenix business attorney” vs. “Phoenix small business attorney”.
  • “Business operating agreement” vs. “Limited Liability Company operating agreement” vs. “Operating agreement for LLC” vs. “what is an operating agreement”.

This is a content spam tactic intended to capture variants of long tail search queries.  In reality, search engines figured this out years ago and the site owner is doing nothing other than artificially inflating her page count – most likely to the detriment of her search performance.

How to Avoid These Problems

Personally, I enjoy the tag clouds that are generated by tagging my posts and there is definitely a user benefit of being able to see articles grouped along common threads.  To use tags and avoid an inflated page count, simply Noindex your Tags. (Be careful about noindexing your categories, to make sure your URL structure for your posts doesn’t include the category folder.)   The Yoast SEO plug in has simple check boxes for this, as does the All-In-One SEO pack (below):

Tag Spam 2

However, when implemented carefully, tags can be effective in generating inbound search traffic, but follow these best practices:

  • Limit your site to 5-8 general, broad categories.
  • Tags should have multiple posts of a similar topic associated with them.
  • Tags should be genuinely different, not replicated spamming for verbal nuance i.e. Not: “divorce laws” and “divorce law”.
  • The posts should be displayed as snippets (not the entire article).
  • The tag page should contain its own unique content – you can do this with the SEO Ultimate plugin.

If all of this sounds overly technical and confusing, buy a WordPress book or invest some time with someone experienced in both SEO and WordPress – leaving the tagging to the graffiti artists .