It's not the first time I've heard this logic, but Greg's done a better job than most by putting it in simple terms:
Weíll be allowed to take cuts because search engines want our sites to show up. They want them to show up because their users expect to see them. And those users donít give a shit about whatís contained in the source code. All they care about is whether or not they land on a page that matches their search.
Until that fact changes, there will be virtually no risk associated with aggressive SEO for big brands. And as long as the risks are low, managers of big brands would be foolish not to explore potential strategies that will ultimately improve the visibility of their brands simply because a search engine has said they disapprove.
Is he right? Are the big brands (IBM, BMW, Apple, Toyota, Playboy, etc.) so important to search engines (or their users), that they should "optimize" first and worry about being discovered later?
Put another way, what if every one of the Fortune 500 decided to follow BMW's lead and spam Google? Who win?
Sure, it's an extreme case. But most fun thought experiments are. :-)
Posted by jzawodn at February 08, 2006 09:21 PM