Consulting Questions for SEO Clients
SEO Consulting Questions don’t have much to do with SEO.
SEO is about business success more than it is about any art or technology, it is just 1 (very powerful) revenue generating tool.
The SEO projects I’ve witness struggle the most are those that did not commence with a reliable research phase to gain information on the clients business needs. If you can align an SEO project to the business goals and timelines of the client, success is much more likely. Sounds Obvious.
Yet I regularly win business from intelligent SEO providers who got lazy and commoditised the SEO offering, removing the stage where the SEO deliverables and results should be tailored to the clients specific needs and appetite.
This compounded with a lack of communication and patronising search jargonese in place of a solid performance dashboard is enough to destabilise the most robust or ingenious SEO provider. If a client says “I don’t really get it..but I guess you guys are the search gurus, not me” that is not a compliment but stage one of client abandonment because it means you’ve stopped talking the same language.
If you do not enable your client to give their boss/investor a great elevator pitch on the business value of the SEO activity, do not be surprised if they cannot expand funding for the project, maintain priorities or budget.
However, before you can talk your clients language with confidence, you need to understand their business and their needs.This requires SEO providers to look at the whole business and consider, “how can I provide success at the scale, cost and timelines that my client needs”.
To help calculate our business direction I require my staff to ask the following 23 questions when engaging a new client.
Questions to ask new SEO clients:
Market
1. What markets are the client operating within
2. What is their market size
3. What % of their market do they have
4. What are the market trends (technological & social changes)
5. What is the maturity of the market
6. How fragmented is the market
7. How seasonal is their business
Competitors
1. Who are the main competitors
2. How are their main competitors performing
3. Who is looking to enter the market
Customers
1. Who are the clients customers
2. What are the key drivers of purchase amongst their customers
3. Does the client want to change their customer base
Revenues
1. What is the margin on the product/service
2. What are their primary sales channels by %
3. Where is their revenue coming from (not always obvious – british rail was from property)
4. What are their current revenues and projections (may be hard to get if not publicly quoted)
Strategies
1. Why is online important to the client (especially if offline sales channel is dominant)
2. What is their strategy and objectives (fast follower, market leader)
3. What time scales has the client set for objectives to be delivered
4. How will results be measured
Marketing
1. Does their product or service compete on price or brand (or other such as convenience)
2. How robust is their brand
Powerset SEO Tactics Tread A Thin Line
Vistors to the site will notice some handy search term examples towards the bottom of the homepage.
Powerset SEO A Bridge too far?
But click that grey more button and you’ll find Powerset have stuffed 266 search links on the the page below the fold, with all but 8 links largely hidden from most users.
A quick search for some of these terms shows ther perform well on Google, such as “who did Google Aquire” (ranked 2nd), “when was Harvard University Founded” (ranked 5th) and “who owns the Philadelphia Eagles” (ranked 1st).
Passers by could be mistaken for thinking this is keyword / link stuffing and not legitimate behaviour from a search engine. The jury is out I guess, but I thought you may like a partial glimpse of the handy search assistance lists should they, shock horror, decide to withdraw such extensive helpfullness from the Powerset home page anytime soon.
Search Engine Market Share by Country
Search Engine Market Share is dominated by Google at a global level, but there are markets where Google’s presence is less dominant. My team is working on compiling a comprehensive and up to date Search Engine Market Share document but in the meantime the following handy reference was sourced and slightly modified from http://www.luna-park.de/home/internet-fakten/suchmaschinen-marktanteile.html and http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=64322 (Thanks). The German version was sourced, the English version was not sourced so I’ve added sourcing to the UK version.
Search engine market share in Germany
www.google.de - 89.20%
www.yahoo.de - 3.50%
www.t-online.de - 2.20%
www.aol.de - 1.20%
http://search.msn.de - 1.10%
Andere Other - 2.70%
Source: www.webhits.de Date: November 2007
UK Search engine market shares in the UK
www.google.co.uk - 70.25%
www.google.com - 14.95%
www.uk.ask.com - 3.55%
http://uk.search.yahoo.com -3.52%
Source: www.hitwise.co.uk Date: September 2007
Bulgarian Search engine market share in Bulgaria
www.google.bg - 90.00%
www.live.bg - 5.00%
Yahoo - 5.00%
www.jabse.com - .50%
Source: www.multilingual-search.com Date: 2007
Search engine market shares in the Czech Republic
www.seznam.cz - 62.53%
Google - 24.75%
www.centrum.cz - 4.84%
www.atlas.cz - 2.58%
www.jyxo.cz - 0.42%
Source: www.netmonitor.cz www.navrcholu.cz Date: 2007
Search engine market share in Denmark
www.google.dk - 80%
www.jubii.dk - 7%
www.msn.dk - 5%
www.eniro.dk - 5%
Andere Other - 3%
Source: www.business.dk Date: 2007
Search engine market share in France
www.google.fr - 89.79%
www.yahoo.fr - 3.14%
http://fr.msn.com - 2.48%
www.orange.fr -1.89%
www.free.fr - 0,72%
Source: www.xitimonitor.com Date: July 2007
Search engine market share in the U.S.
www.google.com - 57.00%
www.yahoo.com - 23.70%
www.live.com - 10.30%
www.ask.com - 4.70%
www.aol.com - 4.30%
Source: www.comscore.com Date: October 2007
China Search engine market shares in China
www.baidu.cn - 69.50%
www.google.cn - 23%
www.yahoo.cn - 2.30%
www.sohu.cn - 1.80%
Andere Other - 3.40%
Source: China IntelliConsulting Corporation Date: September 2007
Search engine market share in Australia
www.google.com - 56.30%
www.yahoo.com - 21.50%
www.live.com - 8.40%
www.aol.com - 5.30%
www.ask.com - 2.00%
Source: www.hitwise.com.au Date: June 2007
Search engine market share in Netherlands
www.google.nl - 95%
www.ilse.nl - 2%
www.live.nl - 1%
Source: www.checkit.nl Date: September 2007
Search engine market share in Portugal
www.google.pt - 90%
www.sapo.pt - 7%
www.clix.pt - 2%
www.iol.pt - 1%
Source: http://netpanel.marktest.pt Date: 2007
Search engine market share in Russia
www.yandex.ru - 56.70%
www.rambler.ru - 16.80%
www.google.ru - 14.10%
http://search.mail.ru - 7.50%
www.live.com - 1.20%
Source: www.liveinternet.ru Date: August 2007
Search engine market share in Slovakia
www.google.sk - 75.60%
www.zoznam.sk -13.10%
www.zoohoo.sk - 4.90%
www.atlas.sk - 3.70%
www.azet.sk - 0.70%
Source: http://www.mediaresearch.sk/, www.aimsr.sk Date:2007
Search engine market share in South Korea
www.naver.com - 72.70%
www.daum.net - 11.50%
http://kr.yahoo.com - 6.20%
Source: http://www.koreanclick.com/, http://inews.mk.co.kr/ Date: 2007
Search engine market share in Spain
www.google.es - 7.70%
www.yahoo.es - 17.40%
www.msn.es - 5.20%
www.terra.es - 4%
Source: http://www.aimc.es/ Date: 2007
Search engine market share in Iceland
www.google.is - 51%
www.leit.is - 42%
www.embla.is - 2%
www.finna.is - 1%
Andere Other - 4%
Source: http://www.statice.is/ Date: 2007
Search engine market share in Israel
www.google.co.il - 90%
www.walla.co.il - 11%
www.msn.co.il - 5%
www.tapuz.co.il - 2%
Source: http://www.searchmarketing.co.il/ Date: January 2007
Search engine market share in Estonia
www.neti.ee - 75%
www.google.com/intl/et - 20%
www.delfi.ee - 12%
http://raha.www.ee - 2%
Alltheweb, Altavista & others - 2%
Source: www.multilingual-search.com Date: 2007
Search engine market share in Italy
www.google.it - 59.01%
www.msn.it - 25.10%
http://search.alice.it (virgilio) - 23.30%
http://arianna.libero.it - 16.80%
Source: http://www.gplorusso.it/ Date: 2005
Search engine market share in Ukraine
www.google.com/intl/uk - 51.30%
www.yandex.ru -1.50%
www.rambler.ru - 8.70%
www.meta.ua - 2.80%
www.mail.ru - 2.60%
Source: http://index.bigmir.net/se,, Kiev International Sociological Institute Date: 2007
Toureg
Toureg is a misspelling of the 4×4 VW Touareg brand. As a general rule, misspellings account for around 10% of the search traffic for hard to spell brand names. This is an open door for SEO and PPC sharks.
If we look at Toureg on Google’s keyword tool we see that 8100 searches for the misspelling against 74,000 searches for Touareg. This is a 10.94% misspelling factor. Various other misspellings make up around 2% more traffic around the brand name.
While the volume of misspelling traffic is decreasing as search engines suggest corrections, or occasionally auto correct the search term there is still plenty of meat for search activities that target misspellings of popular terms.
Brand owners should be aware and budget for the extra costs that will be incurred by defending hard to spell products, for example the estimated CPC of Toureg is 0.94 pence, over twice the cost of the CPC (0.45 pence) of the correctly spelt Touareg.
20 Most Expensive SEO Keywords
Below is the Top 20 SEO Keywords by price (In GBP) from Google Keyword Tool, based on English Language run against all countries. Of the Top 20 by price, only two were in Top 20 by search volumes. The term “SEO firms” is popular in the US, with “SEO Companies” popular in both UK and US.
| SEO Keywords | Estimated Avg. CPC £ |
Avg Monthly Search Volume |
| search engine optimization companies | 8.93 | 14800 |
| search engine marketing companies | 7.78 | 27100 |
| search engine optimization firms | 6.99 | 3600 |
| search engine marketing firms | 6.87 | 9900 |
| website search engine optimization | 6.46 | 33100 |
| search engine optimization marketing | 6.41 | 33100 |
| search engine optimization consulting | 6.34 | 4400 |
| search engine optimization service | 6.17 | 480 |
| search engine advertising | 6.06 | 49500 |
| search engine optimization company | 6.00 | 4090000 |
| search marketing | 5.95 | 74000 |
| search engine marketing | 5.81 | 5400 |
| pay per click | 5.75 | 823000 |
| search engine optimization services | 5.45 | 33100 |
| high search engine ranking | 5.41 | 33100 |
| web search engine optimization | 5.34 | 2900 |
| internet search engine optimization | 5.24 | 12100 |
| website optimization | 5.23 | 12100 |
| search engine optimization strategy | 5.19 | 22200 |
| cheap search engine optimization | 5.18 | 22200 |
FYI - Raw data from Google above, I usually discount Google search volumes by at least 75% to remove network and duplication (My pinch of salt).
Google Keyword Tool Lockout
The Google Adwords Keyword tool has released search volume data so Wordtracker, Trellian and the various keyword research tools are threatened. But you would be very wise to keep all your subscriptions live unless you want to overly rely upon Google or the figures given.
My team use the Google Keyword Research tools every day as logged in users. This morning I ran 7 lists of keywords against the tool. Each was a small seed list of 150 words. It was very early morning before my team had arrived so it was just me accessing the Google Keyword tool from our IP address but I was still locked out for suspect automated usage.
Google Keyword Tool Lockout
While we all know to take Google’s figures with a pinch of salt, being locked out used to take considerable effort, running dozens of lists an hour. Since keyword research is a precursor of running paid search (and many other activities) the lockout is detrimental to a search agency ability to give money to Google in form of Adwords campaigns. The increasing sensitivity of Google Adwords Keyword Tool is bad news for everyone.
You’ll notice there is no contact number given by Google, or escalation policy. Simply a request to back off and let the dust settle. Now I could call an account manager, but this is undermining the 24/7 automated nature of what search engines have promoted from day 1 as their PPC advertisings USP.
My team run a MS SQL based keyword DB so we are not wholly reliant upon any keyword tool or even an internet connection, but for those relying on the notion of cloud computing and in particular Google’s ability to supply data, 3rd party limitations on your ability to operate a business at the times of your choosing are something that could become increasingly problematic.
Friedrichshafen Airport
Friedrichshafen Airport has an amazingly simple and effective website. The site loads almost instantly, displaying current Friedrichshafen arrivals and Friedrichshafen airport departures on the home page. Directions, Sitemap & Contact details all a click away.
The site, built on the TYPO3 platform delivers a great user experience, has an XML Sitemap at http://www.fly-away.de/sitemap.xml and a user sitemap at http://www.fly-away.de/en/general/sitemap.html
The Friedrichshafen Airport website also uses simple icons, imagery and navigation that is pleasing for those in a hurry (most airport users). Effective headers are used for the site sections, such as the mountains to represent tourism and international symbols to simply message content areas.
Few airports keep a website this usable, it looks professional and reflects well upon the area. While the sites form and function are very good, I suspect the site was relatively inexpensive to develop; a great example of keeping costs down whilst developing an end product that has not compromised quality or scope. You’ll find favicon, breadcrumb navigation, multi lingual support, friendly URLs all handled present and correct. I even like the quirky URL fly-away.de.
Any small airport should use the Friedrichshafen Airport website as a best practice example of what an airport website should be. And BAA should get on the phone now and ask for some advice!
Top 100 Universities in the World
The THES list of top 100 UK Universities in 2007 is below. Source: THES - Top Universities
University Rankings 2007
| Rank | School Name | Country |
| 1 | HARVARD University | USA |
| 2= | YALE University | USA |
| 2= | University of OXFORD | UK |
| 2= | University of CAMBRIDGE | UK |
| 5 | IMPERIAL College London | UK |
| 6 | PRINCETON University | USA |
| 7= | CALIFORNIA Institute of Technology (Caltech) | USA |
| 7= | University of CHICAGO | USA |
| 9 | UCL (University College London) | UK |
| 10 | MASSACHUSETTS Institute of Technology (MIT) | USA |
| 11 | COLUMBIA University | USA |
| 12 | MCGILL University | Canada |
| 13 | DUKE University | USA |
| 14 | University of PENNSYLVANIA | USA |
| 15 | JOHNS HOPKINS University | USA |
| 16 | AUSTRALIAN National University | Australia |
| 17 | University of TOKYO | Japan |
| 18 | University of HONG KONG | Hong Kong |
| 19 | STANFORD University | USA |
| 20= | CORNELL University | USA |
| 20= | CARNEGIE MELLON University | USA |
| 22 | University of California, BERKELEY | USA |
| 23 | University of EDINBURGH | UK |
| 24 | KING’S College London | UK |
| 25 | KYOTO University | Japan |
| 26 | Ecole Normale Superieure, PARIS | France |
| 27 | The University of MELBOURNE | Australia |
| 28 | ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE | France |
| 29 | NORTHWESTERN University | USA |
| 30 | University of MANCHESTER | UK |
| 31 | The University of SYDNEY | Australia |
| 32 | BROWN University | USA |
| 33= | National University of SINGAPORE | Singapore |
| 33= | University of BRITISH COLUMBIA | Canada |
| 33= | University of QUEENSLAND | Australia |
| 36 | PEKING University | China |
| 37 | University of BRISTOL | UK |
| 38= | The CHINESE University of Hong Kong | Hong Kong |
| 38= | University of MICHIGAN | USA |
| 40 | TSINGHUA University | China |
| 41 | University of CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles | USA |
| 42 | ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Tech’) | Switzerland |
| 43 | MONASH University | Australia |
| 44 | University of NEW SOUTH WALES | Australia |
| 45 | University of TORONTO | Canada |
| 46 | OSAKA University | Japan |
| 47 | BOSTON University | USA |
| 48 | University of AMSTERDAM | Netherlands |
| 49 | NEW YORK University (NYU) | USA |
| 50 | The University of AUCKLAND | New Zealand |
| 51= | SEOUL National University | Korea, South |
| 51= | University of TEXAS at Austin | USA |
| 53= | TRINITY College Dublin | Ireland |
| 53= | HONG KONG University of Science & Techno… | Hong Kong |
| 55= | University of WASHINGTON | USA |
| 55= | University of WISCONSIN-Madison | USA |
| 57 | University of WARWICK | UK |
| 58 | University of CALIFORNIA, San Diego | USA |
| 59 | LONDON School of Economics and Political (LSE) | UK |
| 60 | HEIDELBERG Universitat | Germany |
| 61 | Katholieke Universiteit LEUVEN | Belgium |
| 62 | University of ADELAIDE | Australia |
| 63 | DELFT University of Technology | Netherlands |
| 64 | The University of WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Australia |
| 65= | University of BIRMINGHAM | UK |
| 65= | Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munchen | Germany |
| 67 | Technische University MUNCHEN | Germany |
| 68 | University of SHEFFIELD | UK |
| 69 | NANYANG Technological University | Singapore |
| 70 | University of NOTTINGHAM | UK |
| 71= | UPPSALA University | Sweden |
| 71= | DARTMOUTH College | USA |
| 73 | University of ILLINOIS | USA |
| 74= | University of YORK | UK |
| 74= | EMORY University | USA |
| 76 | University of ST ANDREWS | UK |
| 77= | University of PITTSBURGH | USA |
| 77= | PURDUE University | USA |
| 79 | University of MARYLAND | USA |
| 80= | University of LEEDS | UK |
| 80= | University of SOUTHAMPTON | UK |
| 82 | VANDERBILT University | USA |
| 83 | University of GLASGOW | UK |
| 84 | LEIDEN University | Netherlands |
| 85= | University of VIENNA | Austria |
| 85= | CASE WESTERN RESERVE University | USA |
| 85= | FUDAN University | China |
| 88 | QUEEN’S University | Canada |
| 89 | UTRECHT University | Netherlands |
| 90= | PENNSYLVANIA STATE University | USA |
| 90= | TOKYO Institute of Technology | Japan |
| 92 | RICE University | USA |
| 93= | University de Montreal | Canada |
| 93= | University of COPENHAGEN | Denmark |
| 95 | University of ROCHESTER | USA |
| 96 | University of CALIFORNIA, Davis | USA |
| 97= | University of ALBERTA | Canada |
| 97= | GEORGIA Institute of Technology | USA |
| 99 | CARDIFF University | UK |
| 100 | University of HELSINKI | Finland |
URL Standards
When building a website I like to make the URLs predictable to both humans and other visitors. It is good to require the following URL be created and populated by developers. It is surprising how many websites are missing basic pages or place the boilerplate site content on URLs you would not be able to guess.
At the most basic it is good to adhere to the following standards:
domain.com/about/ About Information
domain.com/contact/ Contact Information
domain.cm/contact-us/ 301 redirect to domain.com/contact/
domain.com/data-protection/ Data Protection
domain.com/data-protection-act/ 301 redirect to domain.com/data-protection/
domain.com/accessibility/ Accessibility
domain.com/blog Blog
blog.domain.com/blog 301 redirect to domain.com/blog
domain.com/sitemap.xml Sitemap for search engines
domain.com/sitemap/ Sitemap for human visitors
.Net Magazine SEO Tips Missing
I love .Net magazine. So do most of the web designers I know. After mending yet another friends uncrawlable website, dynamic URLs, numeric image names, use of H1’s to position assets & duplicated page titles I stomped off to the .Net website demanding to know what they were telling my designer friends.
All is forgiven web designer SEO miscreants, Flash away to your hearts content. Please remove every word on the website and replace it with an image carousel without alt text as I simply hadn’t realised that the .Net website simply didn’t have the answers on SEO.
No…I mean literally. See…
SEO in magazine but no online?
Can someone at Future Publishing get on the case as my cold consulting heart will either crack or be forced in to pro bono site search repair.
About
Bill on Business is written by Bill Staples, Head of Search at a leading international interactive technology consultancy.