Why Do Tech People Hate SEO?

You would think it would be a natural fit. Search Engine Optimization, or "SEO", is a natural outgrowth of an increasingly Web-based society. It looks at the way online technology works and then provides smart ways to use the system more efficiently when promoting yourself, your company or your products/services. Tech feeds the power of SEO and SEO feeds the growth of the tech. Natural symbiosis, right?

And yet the animosity toward SEO in many tech circles is surprisingly vehement.

I first got a taste of the tech community's disdain while listening to tech-based podcasts like This Week in Tech, MacBreak Weekly, Tekzilla, Cranky Geeks and the like. Without fail, when SEO is mentioned it's almost always characterized as "gaming the system." And when legitimate SEO types, like Vanessa Fox (formerly of Google and now at Nine By Blue) come on to debate, they are confronted with rampant misunderstanding and general dismissals of SEO as a whole.

So in the interest of helping listeners of the The BeanCast, as well as doing my duty as the host of a marketing podcast that prides itself on understanding such things, here are my thoughts:

SEO Is Not Egalitarian

Internet purists pride themselves on the idea that the Web is a world-wide leveling of the playing field. It is a place where anyone can rise to the top based purely on the quality of their thinking and expression. In-bound links and being part of the conversation online are benefits that are earned over time. It's a place where early adopters and visionary thinkers enjoy immense popularity, but anyone can rise to their ranks through the power of their own thinking.

SEO, however, "cheats" that cycle. Thoughts and ideas that have no relevance or that may not offer the best solution can be transported to the top of the search results over-night. And frankly, that drives the tech community crazy. In theory it should be a good thing to be able to spread your ideas in the most efficient manner possible. But the reality is any idea can dominate the search results with a little careful engineering. And many look at this fact as a destructive force in this egalitarian Utopia.

There is a LOTS of Bad Advice

I try to always disclose that I am NOT a search expert. This is important, because far too many people who understand nothing more than a few tricks of the trade are claiming they have the answers. This does two things. First, it gives marketers who listen short-term search gains that pollute overall search relevance, eventually leading to long-term blocking by the search engines. Second, it creates widespread misinterpretation of what legitimate SEO is supposed to be doing, which in turn leads to the villainization of the industry by tech-minded pundits who demand unadulterated relevance in their search results.

There is Nothing "Organic" About Misleading Results

SEO is often called "organic search" to explain the difference with it's more forthright and fee-based cousin, SEM (Search Engine Marketing). The word "organic" is used to describe results that appeal to search engine algorithms and appear in the main search result list, thus theoretically looking more legitimate to the end-user. But this word choice implies that the search result belongs as part of the search query. This alone is enough to irk Internet purists. But when a query for "best computer" only turns up big-name manufacturers or worse yet, something completely off topic, the skeptic is forced to realize that there is nothing organic about this process. It is engineered, not "organic." And again, that defeats the Utopian vision of what the Internet is supposed to be.

How We Can Play Nice

Some of the ways that SEO people can mend fences with the tech community-at-large are obvious. Be honest. Represent products legitimately. Don't rely on key-word tricks.

But in the larger sense, I think SEO needs to be more conscientious of search-sensitivities as they execute their campaigns. Sure it takes longer, but in the long-run it behooves brands to build up community engagement and gain legitimate endorsements and linking, than to engineer inflated search results through dubious linking strategies.

This idea is not new. It's the age-old difference between marketing for pure ROI and marketing that is focused on brand building. There's no doubt that moving a client to the top of search results with a little SEO manipulation will result in measurable profitability. But in the long-term it does nothing to solidify the legitimacy and relevance of the brand's presence in the search results. That kind of thing takes actually working with the press, bloggers, forums and directly with customers to secure their ongoing loyalty, affinity, engagement -- and earning their ongoing endorsements through in-bound links.

As for the tech community-at-large, my suggestion is to get over ourselves. A lot of irritation I hear is just plain sour-grapes over the eclipsing of ideas in favor of sensationalism and the co-opting of the Internet by "brands," both of the product and movie-star kind.

The name of the game on the net is getting noticed. And the true goal of legitimate SEO is codifying the process of being seen on the Web. This can benefit anyone who wishes to use these tools, not just brands. So sitting on the sidelines and grumbling about people "gaming" the system is really counter-productive to a cause that all of us are interested in perfecting.

SEO is not the enemy. It is a tool. And while it is often misused, that doesn't make the tool bad. And there's absolutely no reason this tool can't co-exist with the vision we all have for the Internet.

*Image from SEO.com