I have a feeling this post may stir up a mini dust-bowl with some of my friends and colleagues online, but I’ve never been one to shy away from a scrape and I think this discussion is one well worth having in the open right now.
Let’s face it, the search engines adore and favor large sites with deep pockets and/or celebrity bloggers and writers working for them, so how does the little guy compete fairly?
Just being big, having lots of disposable funding for marketing or getting a good brand name A-lister to contribute to a site doesn’t necessarily mean that site will be of higher quality or value then Joe Schmoe’s site is, but it does guarantee more people and Search Engine bots will visit, tag, bookmark and index it faster and more often.
What can Joe Schmoe do? All of the traditional White-Hat tactics are great; on-page optimizations, manual article marketing, responsible social bookmarking, making valuable comments on topic related forums and blogs where you may leave your own site link in the signature… these methods are all honest, fair and of value. However, they’ll only get the little guy so far on their own.
And going from non-existent to page 100 of the search listings is really just a lateral move, sorry.
Some will say that you just have to create great content, but that’s really not enough either. I find great content on obscure sites all the time thanks to StumbleUpon (I love SU for this reason more than any traffic it ever brings my sites)–but despite having great content these sites are still relatively obscure, how can that be if great content is all you need? Simple, because great content means nothing compared to high search rankings, period. And high search rankings for competitive terms are costly in one way or another, period.
Case in point (and I won’t call anybody specific out here, that’s not my intentions) is a search I made yesterday for a health related question. 8 of the top 10 results on Google were for sites of large commercial businesses, not one of them answered my question. My answer was found in a result on page 3, where the vast majority of searchers would never get to before changing their search term. So the best result for my search is essentially “lost in cyberspace” because the folks running that site aren’t either spending the money necessary to advance their rankings or using some not-so-White-Hat methods that would be effective too. Does this seem fair or good for anyone other than those willing and able to spend lots to rank high? Not to me.
I could give a lot of other examples too, but I picked this one because it doesn’t just reflect some Internet Marketer who could “game” the system for better sales, but rather a scenario where someone seeking honest answers to a serious question aren’t able to get the best results fast or easy because the system is already being gamed by those with deep pockets.
And that brings me back to my topic question, would it be wrong for the people behind the web site which did answer my question–if they can’t afford to spend small fortunes on advancing their rankings–to use Gray or even Black-Hat methods to fight their way up? Wouldn’t the outcome be that searchers receive a higher quality experience by finding the better site? Does the end justify the means?
I know some will balk that I’m using a medical example but my true motives aren’t so pure since I do a lot of Internet Marketing in my business, and that’s both true and fair to say. Though I would argue that the same situation plays evenly when applied to commercial sites and sales as well, and that it is often the individual searcher who is still losing out because of it.
Here’s an example, there’s a young woman in my hometown that I’ve worked with in the past to help promote her products online. She designs and hand stitches silken lingerie and does fantastic work, yet she can’t compete online for searchers looking for “lingerie” because she hasn’t got the resources to spend 5 figures per month to get to–and remain on–the first page of rankings (and yes, I believe that’s what it would cost based on my experience) for the term.
How is that fair or good for her, or the individual searchers who would be interested in her products? Everyone is losing out except for those large companies that can and do spend small monthly fortunes to stay at the top.
I remember when I started online in the early 1990’s how everyone touted the Internet was so great because it leveled the playing field, but that’s not true at all. Once online business became a staple in our lives, big businesses found out how to stomp over the little guys just as they do in the real world… by out-spending them.
So, can it be argued that a little Gray/Black-Hatting actually just returns us to what everyone originally thought was one of the best aspects of the Internet anyway–a level playing field again?
I’m not writing this to push my opinion out there, the truth is I’m a bit conflicted about it all myself. If you read my blog you know that I’ve always suggested not using tools or doing anything that would be considered Gray/Black-Hat. It’s always been my position that you should build a strictly honorable and respectable White-Hat online business, even if it takes you many years to grow it into a profitable venture because in the end that would be more secure.
However, I also know a lot of things which I don’t talk about here on the blog often, like just how much money I’m pouring into every new site I launch just to give it a fighting chance coming out of the starting gate. That’s what is necessary today and is considered completely White-Hat, but when I think of the little guy in his home office trying to start something from scratch, probably working from a shoestring budget just like I was 13 years ago; I realize how badly the odds are stacked against him in this so-called White-Hat realm.
It’s not even as good for him as it would have been in the old days before the Internet. 50 years ago anyone with a little woodworking talent could start a small furniture repair/building shop, and if they lived in a neighborhood that didn’t already have one or a large metro-area their chances to compete and survive in the local marketplace were pretty fair providing they had a decent business sense and good product.
Time-warp to today and apply that to an online business and the same person’s chances for success are much lower simply because there’s a dozen or more large competitors from all over the globe who are going to keep him from reaching the full marketplace with his product.
This doesn’t apply to people who have brand new ideas, there will always be room for those who create something nobody else has to carve out their own future… but for the little guy who is following the “build a better mousetrap” philosophy when starting out, which should be followed to produce new businesses, jobs and progress–it’s very hard to get your better mousetrap out to the mass market online because the established businesses are able to keep your offerings in relative obscurity by out spending your startup.
As I said, I truly am conflicted on the issue personally. If it seems I’m leaning one way over the other in my writing that’s because I expect more people to side against using Gray/Black-Hatting online, so felt the need while writing this to present the questions from a slightly tilted perspective so that the pros and cons can be fully discussed.
I also think its important to spell out what I’m referring to when I say Gray/Black-Hatting, because some have the impression that Black-Hat especially means illegal stuff, and that’s not the case at all. Gray/Black-Hatting is about exploiting White-Hat methods, typically through automation. It can be fairly called unethical, and will often violate the terms of service on some sites as well as the Search Engines themselves, but that doesn’t make it illegal by any means.
One example would be to use rewriting software to spin a single article into a dozen or more articles for an exploitation of the very White-Hat promotional benefits of article marketing. A White-Hatter may spend 4 hours writing a single good article, where a Black-Hatter can purchase a single PLR (Private Label Rights) article for a few dollars and through automation convert it into 50 lower quality articles and then through another automated tool submit each of those dozen articles to hundreds of online publishing platforms in that same 4 hours.
How that applies to the big company vs. little guy case I’ve been making is that a business can afford to pay a highly skilled writer thousands of dollars for a single amazing article that will attract lots of interest, buzz and new customers for them online. The little guy can’t afford to pay for that kind of writing and probably can’t do it themselves, but can compete to generate a comparable level of interest and buzz by mass submitting lesser quality articles in bulk. Where the writer paid by a big business may reach 1,000 targeted prospects with a single article, the little guy can also reach 1,000 targeted prospects with 50 articles and automation softwares.
The same thing applies in link building for improving search rankings. Search Engines place far too much value in backlinks to web sites in my opinion, but the best alternative is to do human reviews of every web page and that’s simply not feasible. A big company can afford to purchase lots of links on high quality web sites and they do it constantly. They spend fortunes on specialist consulting firms who go out and generate tons of backlinks for them… and this is why when I did my medical question search yesterday I got commercial results rather than an answer on the first 2 pages of Google.
The little guy can’t afford to go out and buy a bunch of quality links, and without knowing how and where to buy them secretly risks getting penalized by the search engines for buying them in the first place. He also can’t afford to hire specialist firms to create and run link building campaigns for him–but he can afford a $97 piece of software that will auto-submit his link to various networks for backlinks, or that helps speed up the process of finding good blogs and forums to post comments on for backlinks.
Where the company can afford professionals to get them a thousand high quality backlinks to their web site pages, the little guy can afford to buy software that automates the process of getting several thousand lower quality backlinks to his pages.
Now that I’ve put it out there, slanted as it may seem, I’d like to know what you think about it. Is White-Hat just code for “only the established and wealthy need apply” in competitive online markets? If not, how does the startup without a mass marketing budget get in the game?
If you do feel White-Hat is code for “he with the most money wins”, is it fair for the startup to use Gray/Black-Hat techniques to level the playing field? Where should they draw the lines? Is it more likely to have a lasting impact on their business for the good or bad?
Email this post
