Search Engine Optimization in a changing world

SEO has been compared to playing football on a field that changes shape during the match, with rules you only learn once the referee blows the whistle. Navigating Google’s landscape can undoubtedly be complex, but there are ways to maneuver that make it easier.

Google constantly rolls out updates, which means that what once was good can suddenly become bad. There are a few different approaches to dealing with this, and I believe many of them have their merits. Today, there are mainly three strategies commonly used in search engine optimization:

• Make money today so you can invest it tomorrow.
• Spend time and money on understanding the changes.
• Stay far enough from the cutting edge that changes don’t affect you.

Three models for Search Engine Optimization

Model 1: Make money today so you can invest it tomorrow

Model 1 is perhaps the most common among smaller players, but there are examples even among larger companies. The basic idea is quite simple and is perhaps best explained with an example. Everyone knows that traditional media is struggling today, due to changes in their environment. The internet has made the printed newspaper far less profitable than it once was. However, no one really believes that companies like Schibsted or Bonnier will go bankrupt. They made so much money in an earlier phase — when newspapers towered like giants — that they can now afford to adapt.

We don’t know exactly how they will adapt, to what, or when. What we do know is that they can. In the worst case, they can always buy another player who is doing better in the new landscape.

Advantages and disadvantages of the model

The big advantage of this model is quick cash flow. By completely ignoring what might happen in the future, you can maximize your revenues today in a way you otherwise couldn’t. You also avoid spending large amounts of money trying to predict what the world will look like next year.
The downside, of course, is that you have no idea what the world will actually look like next year — and in SEO, that could very well mean you have no revenue at all. In that case, you simply have to start over with something new.

SEO Model 2: Invest time and money into understanding the change

The second SEO model is the one I personally find most complex and also the one I prefer to work with (never in its pure form, of course, as it becomes greatly simplified when broken down in this way). The goal here is to understand where Google, or other potential search engines, stands today and in which direction they are moving. The aim is to not only take the top spots today but to do so in a way that when Google makes its next change, you will be one of the winners.

There are winners and losers in every change; if an actor loses the top spot, it is immediately taken over by someone else. Google never leaves empty spaces in its search results. When Google rolled out the Panda update in Sweden, a comparison website lost a significant portion of its traffic, which was taken over by their main competitor.

Advantages and disadvantages of the model

The big advantage of this model is that if you succeed, you will always be the one driving the most profitable website at any given time. The major disadvantage is that you either need to be really, really good at SEO or hire people who are. To understand the direction Google is heading in, you need to have a very solid knowledge of the current state of things. Listening to what Google itself says is something many mistake for doing this. The truth is that Google’s own statements can often be very confusing for those who don’t have a deep understanding of the algorithm. This, therefore, places much higher demands on the SEO professional than the other models, but it also pays off very well.

SEO Model 3: Stay far enough from the cutting edge so that changes don’t affect you

This is actually a model that has been successfully used by several Swedish companies. It may sound a bit counterintuitive, but it works. Imagine the situation where Google currently favors red sites while filtering out blue ones. By building a red site, you will climb the ranks today, but you risk being put on the filter list next year when Google decides to do the opposite. A solution would be, instead of building a purely red or blue site, to simply build a green one. You won’t be able to reach the top, as the red sites that Google favors will be ahead, but you also won’t be at the bottom. Furthermore, you won’t risk being pushed out in the big red-blue battle, but instead, you’ll be safely floating in the somewhat less profitable green area.

Advantages and disadvantages of the model

The big advantage of this model is that it significantly reduces your risk. However, anyone who has studied economics understands that risk and reward are closely linked. By reducing your risk, you’re also reducing what you earn. You can never expect to take the top spots using this model, and many SEO agencies that adopt this principle prefer to talk about long-tail strategies. They often become more content-producing companies that capture traffic left over from those competing for the top spots. If you don’t need to be a market leader, this can be a good way forward. You’ll never be able to compete for the big money, but you also won’t lose much. It’s also a very good path forward if you’re lacking SEO expertise—your risks are low, and you likely won’t mess things up due to lack of experience.

In conclusion

There are advantages to all approaches, and there are also disadvantages. Often, it’s because actors have different viewpoints and use different models that big debates arise within SEO. Someone working with model 3, primarily focusing on content, will of course find it hard to understand the methods used by someone employing model 1 with a much more aggressive SEO approach. We at Brath primarily work according to model 2, investing large amounts of time, money, and expertise to stay at the top today and tomorrow. It costs us more, but it’s the way we enjoy working best, because how much fun is it really to fight for second place?