Comparing SMM SEO and PR Tactics is Pure Poppycock

Last week I wrote about how some in the search engine optimization profession (not all) are openly espousing how to basically turn social media sites into heat seeking missiles for Google Juice - and not much else. Apparently there is a whole cottage industry called "Social Media Marketing" (SMM) that analyzes how to use social media for SEO purposes. That should give anyone pause.

Given my accusations, immediately and understandably many commenters jumped on the public relations industry for also trying to use social media to pull the wool over people's eyes. That's complete poppycock. There is no comparison. The reason is that over the last several years the PR industry has largely learned its lessons - often the hard way.

Call me an optimist, but in 2008 most in the PR business take a clean approach to social media. A key reason is that when our clients engage, their participation needs to be transparent for it to be credible. If they fail at following the common law of the community, which has happened in the past, you'll be the first to know about it. You can't always say the same so-called SMM SEO types. Their work is sometimes far harder to sleuth.

I want to discuss this a bit more by addressing some of the comments about PR that came back in response to my post...

Danny Sullivan: "the next time you're dealing with some client asking for visibility, just tell them that hey, if they have a great brand, good PR will be a byproduct."

Positive PR is definitely an outcome of good products, but not always. Public relations professionals play a key role in helping brands identify their core genius and to tell that story. The ultimate arbiter here is the public - either directly or through the media.

We always need to convince people of a product or service's worth, no matter how good it is. If we're encouraging brands to participate in social networks, blogs and social bookmark sharing sites then the bar is even higher. They must add their value before anyone will care.

Social Media Marketing through SEO, on the other hand, often aims to game the system for Google's sake. It can be difficult for someone to discern the role it played in generating Google Juice.

Aaron Wall: "Since when is a PR guy concerned about how wrong it is to game media? I mean...I spoke at a PR agency once, and their walls were plastered with framed media articles that favored their clients. How is that any different then a blogger linking to my content because they like it?"

Public relations professionals - the ones who do their job well at least - never game the media. In fact, every journalist would take issue with that statement. In the social web, the bar is even higher. If good content attracts legit blog links, then that's a completely valid approach.

Chris Kieff: I think the PR industry is just as dirty as the SEO industry. For every 8 of us good ones in both PR and SEO there are 2 lousy ones who give us all a bad name.

Every profession has people who are white hats and black hats. However, my contention is that it's very hard to uncover the nefarious SEO types while it's pretty easy to do so in PR. Fear of humiliation is acting as a deterrent in PR.

Andy Beal: "What about the multitude of PR firms that flood social media with company profiles of their clients–all with the sole intent of building their brand recognition. They want to 'appear' as if they’re engaging their customers, but really they’re just jumping in so they can figure out how to push their brand on users."

I believe these people will all be exposed if they are not adding value - period. We (the community and the industry) need to police these egregious programs, no matter where they come from. And that's happening.

Comments

[Paul Chaney]

I don't think the term "Social Media Marketing" need necessarily only apply to SEO purposes. Marketing via social (or what I refer to as "conversational") media covers a broader range and is in-keeping with the tenor of your previous post. SMM, so far as I'm concerned, is about fostering conversations. As the Cluetrain put it, "Markets are conversations" and "participation is marketing," to quote Geoff Livingston.

If those two companion mantras contain truth, then I think use of the term "social media marketing" is perfectly acceptable, so long as the larger picture is kept in view. If it does become singularly the purview of SEOs then, yes, we have a problem.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, I think PR can fall under that banner as well.

[Nathan Gilliatt]

It's not surprising that a session at SMX would focus on what the search crowd/SEOs want to hear. If you wanted to do a session on lunch options for SEOs, you'd need to find a way to link it back to their search results.

[Doug Haslam]

Nice post-- I love this analogy/comparison.

One nit-- as for bad SEO being harder to sniff out, I'm not sure how true that is, but I don;t have the technical acumen to figure that out. Be assured that battle is fought every day in the SEO community though, just as it is with us in PR.

On the plus side; your last sentence is the best part, because bad PR does get exposed in social networks if it is not adding value- or worse, it is ignored.

[Daniel Riveong]

Steve, I find it interesting that you go for sound-bite quotes from my fellow SEO colleagues (We're all here at SMX West, btw), but defer on the bigger issue that linkbaiting only works when the "product" - in this case the content - is genuinely interesting to people nor do you even challenge why Google talks about using Social Media sites for SEO purposes?

See: http://tinyurl.com/34rwpc

I'm still very serious about taking this debate up to WOMMA. They've quoted both us on the this issue and I'm very much inclined to have a more formal discussion on the better.

Lastly, SMM is not for SEO. SMM stands as an awkward service that's somewhere between community marketing and online PR. I've done SMM as a standalone service, where the benefit was community engagement with SEO and PR being part of the results, but not the end-goal.

Cheers,

Daniel

[AbendigoR]

Steve, I think you make some excellent points.

I happen to disagree with you on a couple things, though. I don't think good PR is simply a biproduct of a good product. I also don't think there's anything wrong with optimizing "valuable" content. In fact, if the content is "valuable" but the person doesn't know what they're doing, chances are no one will ever find it. I think there can be a "sincere" gaming of social media -- it's not all bad.

Sometimes your idealism walks on the folks who are making money in this cottage industry because there's a demand for it, some of which you've helped play a part in creating. One can't be pure all the time.

Cheers to Gray Hat!
Sincerely,
Ben

[Adam Snider]

I have to agree with Paul's comment. SMM is not just about SEO. SEO can be a factor in an SMM campaign, but it's not the only one. SMM, when it's done right, is primarily about conversations and genuine interactions---the same things you say that PR people do when they use social media. SMM is part PR, part branding, part advertising, and part SEO. To say that it's just about getting Google juice is to oversimplify an entire industry.

[Jacob Morgan]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for putting up some of the responses. I think a lot of the problem is based on motive. For SEO at least, I believe there are 2 types of SEOs. There are people who use SEO as a rankings tool and there are people who use SEO as a marketing tool. I think the same is true for PR. Are you trying to get eyeballs or build relationships?

I don't quite agree with Danny, a great brand doesn't mean great PR. First off what is the definition of a great brand? Second great brands such as Dell, Ford, Godaddy, etc. may all considered great brands but have all had bad PR.

I recently asked Seth Godin a question, "how is social media marketing going to evolve and how can we keep spammers out?" His response was that "social media is going to continue to segment into more and more niches and that it will never be possible to keep out the spammers," what do you think?

[Jacob Morgan]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for putting up some of the responses. I think a lot of the problem is based on motive. For SEO at least, I believe there are 2 types of SEOs. There are people who use SEO as a rankings tool and there are people who use SEO as a marketing tool. I think the same is true for PR. Are you trying to get eyeballs or build relationships?

I don't quite agree with Danny, a great brand doesn't mean great PR. First off what is the definition of a great brand? Second great brands such as Dell, Ford, Godaddy, etc. may all considered great brands but have all had bad PR.

I recently asked Seth Godin a question, "how is social media marketing going to evolve and how can we keep spammers out?" His response was that "social media is going to continue to segment into more and more niches and that it will never be possible to keep out the spammers," what do you think?

[Thomas M. Schmitz]

I am at SMX where we are discussing your post.

SEO = Search Engine Optimization
SMM = Social Media Marketing
SMO = Social Media Optimization

The goal of Social Media Optimization is to use social media marketing tactics to help websites rank well by helping search engines find relevant information. If the content is great the community will link to it and it will rank. If the information is not relevant, i.e. Spam, it will not rank or the social community will call it out.

Does your company and the people in it participate in PRSA? PRSA is not your target market, they are your peers. Participation builds brand and bolsters reputation. What a great thing. What great social industry marketing! Professional Social Media Optimization is similar. By crafting quality content for a peer segment or market segment, a segment that does create content and does create the links that the search engines use to measure trust, the SMO practitioner builds reputation and branding. What a great thing! Legitimate and desireable.

Ironically Steve, your posts on this subject are SMM and they will have an SMO effect. By taking a single sided stance, and a conservative one at that, you are fanning the flames of controversy. This same strategy is the backbone of political radio. Did you time this post? You know SMX is happening. Are you trying to frame the debate? Fine. Then make like Rush and drop the summary content. Tell us exactly what we should be doing in long detail. What do you not like? Where do you draw the line? How exactly do you think search marketers should practice their craft and generate client success stories? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Andy Wolf]

Wow, was this article unconvincing! "Public relations professionals - the ones who do their job well at least - never game the media. In fact, every journalist would take issue with that statement. In the social web, the bar is even higher." There are at least three totally unsubstantiated claims in that section alone!

Sure, there are some egregious black-hat counter-examples, but PR seems much more alike with SEO than unalike.

My take is that the SMM SEO spam-types are in the same arms race that all other spammers find themselves. It won't go away, but it will constantly evolve. In the meantime, SMM with high content value will generally be the easiest way to get things done (good stories get read, regardless of media).

Valuable SMM content that is also optimized for Google is no worse either ethically or from a UX perspective than valuable content presented to a journalist that is optimized for a company's marketing messaging. Yes, there are ulterior motives, but no they don't completely corrupt the process. In fact, organizations that are positioned to take advantage of these effects perhaps "should" rise to the top of search results.

And no, I'm not an SEO; just a marketer and a realist.

[Tabitha Grace Smith]

That's why good social media PR people ARE in social media, not just blasting away at social media sites. They're people who understand social media from the inside. People who understand blogging ARE bloggers. People who understand podcasting ARE podcasters. And people who are social media pr people (such as I am) are people who do social media outside of just PR reasons.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

In my experience, plenty of PR professionals spin the public via the media, and all try to promote the interests of their employers and clients. Most are ethical, and their work speaks for itself. Good work gets good results, bad works gets folks fired. In every business, 10% to 15% of participants are crooks, and that's why we have laws and regulations. And then we have those who just don't know what's legal or ethical. The market educates them sooner or later.

To say the PR industry has learned its lesson in recent years ignores the fact that there are always a certain percentage of players and clients who are new to the business and make mistakes. I haven't seen much of a change in how ethically or smartly PR people work over the last 43 years. Only their tools have changed, and they are targeting a much better informed audience and market thanks to cable TV and the Internet as well as an increased number of specialty pubs.

No PR can turn a Clinton into an Obama or a McCain into a Reagan. They are what they are. But PR can convince buyers to at least take a look. It's a door opener, not a sales closer.

Same goes for SEO, SMM and SMO. They're door openers, and that's all. And that is why, in the scheme of things, they aren't very important marketing tools.

Point is that I don't worry about whether PR, SEO or SMM practitioners are ethical, because I believe most are and those who aren't will fail sooner than later. I have more faith in the idea and information markets than those who say they know best. I've been a blogger off and on for five years and on message boards for some 10. In my experience, PR, SEO, SMM and SMO can attract you to a blog or board or product, but none of them can make you stick or buy. A good Google or Yahoo rank helps, but it's not the be all.

For example, on stock boards, people start conversations about their favorite stocks, and they often receive feedback within minutes. If someone hypes a stock it's so obvious that everyone sees it and ignores the poster—often after one or more respondents put things in perspective.

So, because I think people who read blogs and boards and listen to Podcasts are smart enough to see the spam, I'm more interested in the methodology and process than the ethics of the situation even though integrity and ethics are among my biggest concerns in business and politics.

If anyone's see some really unethical PR, SEO, SMM or SMO, I'd like to see some links.

[aaron wall]

--- Wow, was this article unconvincing! "Public relations professionals - the ones who do their job well at least - never game the media. In fact, every journalist would take issue with that statement. In the social web, the bar is even higher." There are at least three totally unsubstantiated claims in that section alone! ---

Amen to that. Just because you claim it does not make it true Steve.

Given that I am not just an SEO, but also a marketer who has helped myself (spoke with 3 reporters this week) AND my clients get free press in the mainstream media (aka public relations), I see absolutely no distinction between SEO and PR. They are both based on building perceived credibility and then capitalizing on it to spread messaging and/or build profit.

Have I gamed the search results? Yes. Have I gamed social media? Yes. Have I gamed the mainstream media? Yes. Have you linked at some of my sites in the past? Yes. Did you make a spelling error when you linked to it? Yes. Was anyone gamed when you did so? That is up to you to decide.

I am also a Technorati top 100 blogger, and being in that position, I can tell you that MANY PR professionals do their jobs poorly.

[Danny Sullivan]

Steve, looking forward to our Ad Age point/counterpoint on these issues, but I'll also jump in more here.

I'm pretty surprised you seem to just be discovering the social media marketing industry. It's been thriving for well over a year, if not to. It also -- as many have noted -- is standalone from SEO. Indeed, some like Greg Boser have written how it can be annoying when some SMM tactics can give SEO a bad name:

http://www.gregboser.com/social-media-spam/

I just can't buy into the PR=SMM is pure poppycock argument. Positive social media PR often comes about because someone thinks of an angle for their content, pitches it in a way that will be receptive to a social media audience (Top 9 things, etc) and may know some of the influencer to help it be seen.

In the PR world, you know -- you know! -- that a good PR person can craft a decent pitch (rather than some boring press release), offer exclusives or previews, reach key editors and help make a story happen.

In either case, there has to be a good story at the core of it. But the presentation matters, and I see a completely parallel.

There is a minor element of doing SMM to try and gain links. That's not the primary activity for many people -- and if that's your impression, you need to talk to more social media marketers.

As for uncovering the white hats and black hats, you say that's easier in PR. For you, because you're in PR. For those of us not, it's a mystery.

Please reflect on this. The vast majority of people out there have no clue how PR firms will actively work to manipulate public opinion of products. They don't realize a PR firm may have phone call access to key reporters. They aren't aware of lunch dates. They assume some major publication got an amazing scoop rather than it being prearranged. And they really have no clue if there's backhand deals and other stuff going on. You may find this all transparent because you are in that industry. And since you are not in the SMM and SEO industries, you may assume that everything is cloak-and-dagger, when it isn't always.