The Battle: Ad Agencies Versus SEO Firms

tribbles6.jpg

Tribble Ad Agency which isn't really an ad agency but rather a search engine marketing firm or an agency that offers SEO or a just parody site designed to crap on the current state of the ad agency business has caused a debate between ad agency types and search engine marketing folks who are jockeying for position as to who's best suited to handle a company's online marketing. We think the SEO guys are a little bit more right than the ad agency guys.

In announcing their launch last month, Tribble had this to say, "Tribble Ad Agency has opened it's doors and launched our blog to consume companies' ad budgets and deliver next to nothing by way of online ROI. We promise to build your website all in flash so it never ranks in the search engines. We also like to use image navigation with complex DHTML menus that are unspiderable and employ random 'keywords'." And it goes on deliciously from there.

by Steve Hall    Jul-17-06   Click to Comment   
Topic: Agencies, Strange   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



Comments



Comments

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, David Ogilvy said, “The consumer isn't a moron. She is your wife.”

With the fanatical focus on technology - SEO, blogging, keyword density, podcasting, link building, RSS, organic listing, microsites - we seem to be missing the forest for the trees.


Today, there is almost no discussion about the consumer.


How can we please her or him? What makes her or him tick? What are their dreams, desires, hopes and fears? What motivates them? Truly the consumer has become another keyword.

Geeks siting in SEO firms bullshitting clients with all their jargon should ask themselves, "What happens after the user lands on the site?"

For that my geek friends, you need iddeas that cut across all mediums.


Posted by: Sunil on July 17, 2006 2:39 PM

Holy run-on sentence, guys!

Posted by: malloreigh on July 17, 2006 2:42 PM

You know what I find more interesting:

"What happens after the user lands on the site"

should be stated as:

"What happens when no one lands on the site"

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 17, 2006 3:03 PM

Geeks siting in SEO firms bullshitting clients with all their jargon should ask themselves, "What happens after the user lands on the site?"

Not all SEOs have that attitude. It's about content, accessibility, creating interest, spider-friendliness, and ROI.

One of my clients dropped me to work with an ad agency that bragged about their SEO skills. They now have a beautiful site and no traffic from any source but PPC ads. And heaven help anyone trying to use a screen reader on the site.

Posted by: Bob Gladstein on July 17, 2006 3:05 PM

I am sorry to out you Sunil, but you seem to be selling SEO on your blog..

"websites, SEM, SEO "

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 17, 2006 3:28 PM

No probelmos.
But it is to taken on the SEO only agencies.
SEO is part of the communication mix and cannot work in isolation alone.
For SEO firms to bash ad agencies shows their insecurities.


Posted by: Sunil on July 17, 2006 3:37 PM

PS: Excuse the typos.
It is 1 am here in Mumbai, India and I am a bit sleepy.

Posted by: Sunil on July 17, 2006 3:40 PM

I think the SEM's need to get a handle on their own problems - mainly CLICK FRAUD and search engine monopolization of auctioning - before they start getting cute by launching their own blog sites and self proclaiming themselves the 'agencies of the future'...

How's that for a run on sentence?

Posted by: Click Fraud on July 17, 2006 4:10 PM

I am an SEO that started out at an ad agency.

Being that this is a parody, the intended result seems to be working (generating this delightful banter on the subject).

Traditional marketing is:
1. Conduct consumer research
2. Determine advertising vehicles to speak to those consumers
3. Measure effectiveness of reach

The breakdown where SEO/M fits in is:

Marketing > Advertising > Internet Advertising > SEM (search engine marketing) > SEO (search engine optimization).

So that said, if you are a marketing and/or advertising company that is building websites as an advertising vehicle for your clients, part of your job is to measure your efectiveness- who was your target market when creating this website and how did you reach them? It could very well be that you set up websites for your clients in which your sole means of driving traffic to those sites is through billboards and magazine ads. Then SEO is of no value to you I guess. (I'm sure I could find some though ;)

Otherwise, an advertising agency involved in the web as an advertising medium, but doesnt integrate SEO/M is really fucntioning as a Web Development shop, and not a full advertising solution.

Imagine TV advertising without considering target markets, viewer demand, and measuring reach.

All that said, it is true that an alarming number of advertising agencies do not integrate SEM or SEO for their web services. And a large number of them that DO are unfortunately not well-educated enough on the SEO/M front to hire someone who knows more than just how to talk the talk. SEO/M is such a new industry, there are a lot of kinks to be worked out, but I'm sure with more of the awareness that the Tribble parody brings to light and more data-centric execs who want to know their web reach come into play, the big gap between traditional ad agencies and new media marketing will begin to close.

Posted by: laura on July 17, 2006 5:42 PM

The smart SEO firms are doing the full-service thing now. SEO in and of itself is, in essence, Snake Oil, unless you can back it up with real creative and real results-getting interactivity.

And the smart traditional ad agencies are at least devoting more than a tiny corner of their shops to the "interactive marketing freaks."

See
here what David Ogilvy might've thought about Search

Posted by: Kinetic on July 17, 2006 6:45 PM

You know what I find funny...

That SEO firms are ranking for "Interactive Marketing Agency" in Google.

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 17, 2006 7:15 PM

That's not necessarily funny, Roger. That's just the direction of the trend - or should be, anyway.

Posted by: Kinetic on July 17, 2006 9:42 PM

You got me there Kevin :)

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 17, 2006 9:45 PM

I can't access my blog because the Indian government in its infinite wisdom has decided the block all blogs post the 7/11 serial train blasts in my city.
Some were I believe virulent jehadis sorts and therefore all had to be blocked. Well I will do my city for my city and country. (Though they have goofed up big time by blocking Mumbai Helpline blogs!)
If you can access my blog there is a link to Project World's Worst Call Center Worker. It took me two months to reach the top of the search engine rankings.
I agree with Laura about knowing your target audience. For all the hype and hoopla over SEO not one talks about the target audience. And well Kinetic puts it across nicely when he says it's Snake Oil.
I would like to se the fun when all the SEO firms try to get the top ten rankings for themselves.

Posted by: Sunil on July 18, 2006 2:40 AM

"What happens after the user lands on the site?"

When I landed on Tribble, I left. I guess that's where us wacky creatives come in with our ideas. Designing, creating and customizing content that'ss worth searching for and, this is important, creating juicy Web applications, sites, experiences that keep the user there. Not bad blog templates. Thanks SEO guys, we'll take it from here.

Posted by: Edward on July 18, 2006 10:25 AM

"When I landed on Tribble, I left."

The funny thing is with your 'juicy web applications' no one would ever land on it in the first place.

See at the end, if no person comes to the site, it was never built. Your 'juicy web application' will just sit there.. unused.. nothing.. nada.. zip..

While in the case of tribble... you visited.. you even felt it worthwhile to discuss it on other sites IE: Adrants ...

Funny how the SEO's 'failure' is a win.. while your web app would never be found in the first place.

It actually looks like the SEO's will be taking it from here.

We have spent a decade online learning how to get links.. built vaild viral campaigns .. how to increase our site's popularity... because that is how the search engines work.. with link pop.. you don't get popular with just crap on your site..

.... as noted earlier... we will take it from here....

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 18, 2006 11:25 AM

Hey Guy ...

I wasn't implying you folks in SEO did nothing. Practically nothing, but not nothing. One of my global agency's capabilities (that's not in Pottsville) is SEO. They do a great job getting our work out there. But again, once the person is there, at the site, creative must take over and do a damn good job at not only keeping the person there, but also enticing them to hit cmd+d. Otherwise you'll get a lousy blog template and some guy from Pottsville shoutin' game.

Posted by: Edward on July 18, 2006 12:02 PM

LOL Edward -- So insulting the best beer town on Earth .. home of Yuengling Brewery is the extent of your retort?

FYI : There is no such thing as a 'global ad agency' that has SEO. You guys (ad agencies) are dismal at it. You have next to nothing in terms of resources to pool at it.

I don't see ad agencies as moderators on any of the SEO forums or news sites.. nor would I ever expect you guys to... we have 10 years or more experience in search engine optimization and online marketing.. you guys are still arguing that it doesn't exist.

It's not even that you have to play catch up.. it didn't even click in your head why these SEO firms have signed up many of your clients and forced you to work with them (an industry as a whole).

So while we are experts at this field, you havent' even realized what the field is...

By my guess you are literally 10 years behind us in terms of online marketing savvy.

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 18, 2006 12:15 PM

Roger,

Whilst many ad agencies can write create websites (albeit badly) , TV spots, print ads, radio spots, billboards not many SEO companies can do the same.
End of argument.

Sunil

Posted by: Sunil Shibad on July 18, 2006 12:16 PM

I never said we could.. in fact most of our partners are progressive ad agencies... the billboards and Print Media ads are theirs.. we don't even watch to touch that sunset industry.

The concept of this is not to 'slam' ad agencies.. it's to bring SEO to light in terms of being a very powerful marketing tool.

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 18, 2006 12:26 PM

Roger,

>

Ah, how enlightening.

Then you go on to say:

>

SEO is snake oil and let's not pretend otherwise.


Posted by: Sunil Shibad on July 18, 2006 12:34 PM

It is enlightening isn't it?

What I consider Snake oil is an Ad Agency selling a branding campaign.. but forgetting the branding part.. IE: showing up for relevent terms in Google.

Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Snake oil would be telling the client that people will find their 'ultra cool' site.. and leaving out SEO experts to ensure that happens... so the client is holding the bag... and we get the call to fix your problems.

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 18, 2006 1:30 PM

I used to believe SEO was bull. Then I took a job as SEO and Web Manager with a small online marketing agency.

SEO is really about cleaning up the mess left behind by traditional agencies whose designers are still building sites visually, whose copywriters are still selling instead of informing, and whose developers are looking for the quickest way to hit their deadlines.

Our SEO clients have observed appreciable--sometimes huge--increases in traffic by correcting the mistakes made by their traditional agencies. It's no surprise to us that they're now calling us for design work because we understand the value of both design and search engine friendliness. We build sites from the ground up with the end user and SEO in mind.

I love to see beautiful, intricate, interactive Flash sites. Mostly because I know that in a few years, that site will have been replaced by a clean, well-coded, SEO'd site built by us or someone like us.

Posted by: Jay Sylvester on July 19, 2006 2:12 PM

The first rule for ad guys:

Never argue with the geeks.
They lack passion, soul and a right brain.
They always want to have the last word so let them play with their silly codes and link building and all that BS.


Posted by: Sunil Shibad on July 19, 2006 2:21 PM

The 193rd rule for geeks:

Don't expect a straight answer from ad guys.
They cannot respond, only deflect.
Rather than admit to a lack of knowledge, they would dismiss you and your ideas as incorrect or uninformed, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Rules 1 through 192 are for all the things more important than dealing with ad guys.

Posted by: Jay Sylvester on July 19, 2006 2:34 PM

See?
I told you so.


PS: I have yet to see an agency site bashing SEO geeks. Hmm, that gives me an idea.

Posted by: Sunil Shibad on July 19, 2006 2:52 PM

By replying, you would've had the last word. Fortunately for me, I'm not trying to prove some silly point on a web site.

Now if you don't reply to this, I get the last word, proving you right. But if you continue to yammer on, which is what ad guys love to do, you're incorrect.

What a dilemma for an ad guy!

Posted by: Jay Sylvester on July 19, 2006 2:56 PM

Hey Sunil Shibad,

When you are building that anti-SEO site... are you going to employ these 'snakeoil' SEO tactics.. or are you going to build it all in flash?

LOL!!

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 19, 2006 8:40 PM

First and foremost Yooter is a Search Engine Optimization and Marketing agency we consider ourselves only experts in the search engines.

"We know seach engines. We don't know grammar." Hey Rog, you can have that headline for free. If you'd like, I'll rewrite your site for you -- proof it, too. It'll just cost you $200/hour. I am an ad guy after all.

Posted by: Edward on July 20, 2006 1:22 PM

Previewing your Comment

For the record, I am just a lowly techie who probably only built one or two of the websites you have been to today. But, imho paying someone for SEO or even SEM is like paying to have someone put your pants on for you. If you need that level of help, you have more serious problems.

Every good techie knows that SEO personnel are just blowhards who couldn't hack it in any real vocation. Calling their product snake oil really isn't fair to snake oil manufacturers, as I believe snake oil is effective at oiling snakes.

Let me put it as simply as possible, so those with tiny little brains and bookmarks to dictionary.com can follow along. To quote google

"Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"

Now you are probably saying to yourself, well obviously I am wiser than the most intelligent and profitable organization on the face of the earth, so I will just outsmart them with my awesome use of folder names and subdomains.

Yeah, ok.

A good website is semantic, elegant, filled with content, and uses advanced technology at the right place and the right time(Flash is perfectly fine when used properly, if you think it isn't, you display your own ignorance). If the site you are building is not search engine friendly, it is because the person building it does not know what they are doing. That is the bottom line. If you are not coming up on google, fire your developer, don't hire some jackass to compound your problems.

I understand that people find it simpler to distill this all down to name calling, but that is just people bein' people, myself included. But I have spent more time looking over site traffic than most people, and I can tell you without a doubt that most SEO companies simply do not provide an appreciable ROI. In fact, in my experience, SEO companies normally suggest tactics which may(usually don't) have some small beneficial effect, and have very little to say when google corrects their algorithm and the site disappears.

Posted by: Ironcrutchli on July 20, 2006 2:06 PM

I'm a creative guy, and I know from experience that SEO is key for online success. Those who think otherwise need to come out from their caves.

Posted by: ivan on July 20, 2006 2:17 PM

I don't think anyone anywhere thinks search engines aren't important. At least I hope not.

I think the odd thing is that people have seperated it from the actual creation of a website.

The search engine is built to help people find what they are looking for. If you make a site that people are looking for, the search engine will find it.

If you make a website with archaic code like yooter.com. Yeah, you will probably have some problems.

Posted by: Ironcrutchli [TypeKey Profile Page] on July 20, 2006 2:34 PM

People always rip on Flash without understanding how to use it properly...

If a Flash site is built to load all text from external sources, e.g. dbs or xml files, the site can easily be coded to display all text (links etc) and even images to spiders in place of the flash content.

using Flash doesn't result in shitty page rank... using Flash poorly does.

Posted by: anon on July 21, 2006 1:46 AM


Ironcrutchli .. That takes the cake..

For someone that even figure out a DHTML menu you seem to throw around alot of mud.

(of course to make matters worse, DHTML is something that isn't even really supported by Google Currently)

http://72.14.209.104/search?&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dustindiaz.com%2Fdhtml-expand-and-collapse-div-menu%2F

No wonder you guys are so scared.

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 24, 2006 3:48 PM

Wow

I suppose responding isn't really necessary.

As Nietzsche would put it, "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

Your comments really do more to prove my points than anything I could ever say, but since I am bored.

First of all, you begin by stating, "For someone that(Let's just be nice and assume there should be a can't here) can't even figure out a DHTML menu you seem to throw around alot of mud." Now this seems to presuppose that you, through some sort of hyper cognizance, have determined that I have failed to either implement or use a dhtml menu properly. I assume this attempted retort is your diminutive brain's reaction to the higher intelligences surrounding it.

This would almost make sense, not that it would be meaningful, but it would almost make the minimum amount of sense required for rational discussion, except

You then go on to say, "(of course to make matters worse, DHTML is something that isn't even really supported by Google Currently)." I like the parentheses here. It's almost as if your subconscious, having been subjected to some classical theater at an early age, is trying to make an aside to the audience; that I, the villain in this melodrama, will not hear. That's pretty adorable. You may note that earlier in this comment I used the same theatrical technique. Who doesn't appreciate a bit of literary vacillation?

But a problem arises here. If, Google does not, in fact, support DHTML then wouldn't my inability to use DHTML be a virtue rather than a vice. You see by the time you wrote the second sentence, you must have forgotten what you wrote in the first sentence. You already colored me as lacking the ability to either use or understand DHTML. So you see by sheer logic it would not, make matters worse. I would have to be able to utilize DHTML in order to make the mistake of utilizing it.

Finally, you arrive at the conclusion that "you guys" are "scared." I am not certain what it is I am supposedly sacred of. The cached Dustin Diaz article you posted? I suppose the black background was somewhat morbid, but I would hardly call it scary. Maybe I am supposed to be "scared" of the fact that I make more money in a day than you do in a week? Or perhaps I am terrified that I don't embarrass myself every time I open my mouth or type something? I guess you may have been referring to a more global "you guys", and when you say "scared" you mean a more universal fear of the infinite complexity in the world around us.

Now because I am an honest person, and I don't want you to think I can only be sarcastic in response; let me lay it out for you. You are nobody from nowhere and you know nothing about the internet. In fact, if anything, you are the type of neo-simian that websites and advertising are produced to ensnare. Your "site", if I may be so bold, is a joke. Nice tables for layout; did Sergey send you a special memo telling you to live in the past for high rankings? Your client list includes both a model and a community college, a number of misspellings (of which "favoriate" is my favorite, do you get it? lol), and this incredible claim, "Most firms don't want everyone to know how they got excellent rankings, and Yooter has developed technology that could possibly be reverse enginered(sic). In short, it's better to keep some information quiet." Do you seriously think anyone is buying that? Funny, all the clients I have worked on were happy to let us mention them. But I what do I know, I only work for the top interactive agency in the world, so I guess things are a little bit different over there in Pottsville.

I will leave you with this, "Many of our clients are fortune 100 firms."

Oh rly?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-03-22-fortune-500-list_x.htm

I guess someone better call Fortune because they left Mayra Veronica off the list.

Oh wait, no I know, they are your "mystery" clients.

Posted by: Ironcrutchli [TypeKey Profile Page] on July 26, 2006 1:36 PM

Intresting... that link has 3 of our clients :)

"I only work for the top interactive agency in the world"

Though Modem Media is a good company...

They still come up as a blank page in Google:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:http://www.modemmedia.com&hl=en&lr=&strip=1

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 26, 2006 3:26 PM

Look Ironcrutchli it's a diffrence of opinion that won't be settled in a blog / forum like Adrants.

It's a long term issue that I feel needs to be addressed. That Ad Agencies are hurting their clients by building sites that do not rank in the search engines.

You feel otherwise / don't like me / whatever... doesn't matter.

I personally feel I am right on this subject.. that SEO is a vaild marketing method.. you don't for the most part (as an industry.. not you personally).

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 26, 2006 3:46 PM

Intresting... that link has 3 of our clients :)

- Roflcopter, why stop at 3? Careful, someone might "reverse enginer" your technology. You know that's an interesting idea, because if you did something a spider can see then you did something a person can see. So obviously anyone could "renigne esrever" your technology. The only thing they wouldn't know would be that you did it, but why would that matter? Hmmm...

"I only work for the top interactive agency in the world"

Though Modem Media is a good company...

They still come up as a blank page in Google:

-Ummm, hate to break this to you Rog, but I sure as hell don't work for modem media; I have no idea why you think that and no idea what you are talking about. And as far as I am concerned, there is probably very little question that the agency I do work for is number one. And while I admit that is hard to quantify, we are at the very least in the nebulous top few.

But beyond that, I don't really think Yooter.com has much to say to a company like Modem Media. I mean they are doing far better than you, so I suppose they are putting their money in the right place. They come up #1 for Modem Media, and they come up on the first page for modem, which is pretty impressive.

I also consider this matter resolved.

Because we now know who won the battle of the ad agencies and the seo firms.

We did.

I'll stop being insulting for a moment to say this.

Everyone knows seo is important. It just doesn't require an outside firm to do it correctly. SEO is simply not complex or easily adjusted enough to warrant that level of entity.

Posted by: ironcrutchli on July 29, 2006 5:38 PM

Thank you ironcrutchli for such an interesting debate. In fact you might of helped me the most out of everyone :)

The process (in which this thread is part of) is called 'link bait'

I know this might be above you ... but the concept of it is to get backlinks to the target site so it ranks well for a certian term.

Such as 'Ad Agency'
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=ad+agency

I know SEO is 'not hard' and it's 'not complex' ... but it's quite funny not to see your firm up there ... and a blog that makes fun of your industry sitting there on page one (of MSN at least). In about 6 months (or less) you will see similar results in Google and Yahoo.

Care to revisit your idea of 'who won' ... or perhaps you never even understood the nature of the game to play?

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on July 31, 2006 10:24 AM

I think that what we've learned here, is that SEO isn't truly helping us out find what we're looking for at all. For example, Tribble came up when searching for Ad Agencies but it's not an agency nor will it ever be one. Strike one against search engines. I then searched the following terms:

-- Morons in Pottsville
-- Wannabe Ad Guys
-- Poorly-designed websites

I found neither Roger Wehbe, Yooter or Tribble. So, I guess I'll stick to doing what I do--working for a top interactive agency--and forget about throwing myself off a cliff by ever thinking that statistics and media charts are more impressive and interesting that sitting 5 minutes in my chair.

Posted by: Edward on August 1, 2006 10:30 AM

ROFL!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Edward ,

You know what's the best part of it? I find Tribble 100% relevant.

So it's the Search Engine's fault that Tribble is one of the Top Ad Agencies? Or it's your industry wide lack of understanding how the search engines work?

I so hope your clients read this thread... because it spells out literally how backwards you Agencies are...

You restored to blaming the search engines.. rather than admit you are clueless when it comes to them.

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on August 1, 2006 12:34 PM

sorry to jump in... but this is getting more comical by the second.

While looking at Edwards post saying he worked for the top interactive company, I had to type in "interactive marketing"

When I saw Yooter up there #1 I almost crapped my pants.

I think you ad agency types could learn a thing or from these SEO guys.

Posted by: adam on August 1, 2006 9:43 PM

Wow, this went from sad to downright disturbing.

I can almost smell the sweaty desperation.

"Care to revisit your idea of 'who won' ... or perhaps you never even understood the nature of the game to play?"

"The nature of the game", uh I guess it would be pointless to mention that the fact that you are excited about the possible site traffic you might receive from these comments kind of proves that we did, in fact, win.

Any sane person who reads this blog, would be kind of bothered by the fact that your posts are filled with random lies, spelling mistakes, and seriously displaced emotions. Not looking to you for technical help.

"I so hope your clients read this thread... because it spells out literally how backwards you Agencies are..."

I hope everyone reads this, or not. I'm not exactly banking on the last few comments in an adrants post to feed my family, but I suppose you are. To help out, I have forwarded this link to plenty of potential clients. They all found it quite funny, although no one seemed very interested in Yooter.com. Don't worry Roger, we'll think of something.

And as for Adam, or Roger 2, or whatever that post is...
"When I saw Yooter up there #1 I almost crapped my pants."

Um, anyone can type that in a search engine and see that it isn't true dude, you may want to come up with a slightly less transparent lie. Like Yooter's client list; hey, I did say "slightly" less. And btw, you're really mixing posts and people up.

Also, just starting posts with
"ROFL!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
or
"sorry to jump in... but this is getting more comical by the second."

A. Kind of tips your hand.
B. We know you aren't actually laughing, so attempting to show how silly the people who present facts to you are by pretending to laugh uproariously is, at best, awkward.

Anyway, I went from thinking you deserved some sort of smackdown to understanding how pathetic you actually are, and now I almost feel sorry for you. I would feel sorry for you actually, except that you are an insulting douche bag who thinks that posting a bunch of poorly worded emphatic lies is the same as logical, fact-based discourse.

I guess what you seem to be missing is that its hard for those at agencies to be concerened since we have real jobs for real clients in the real world. We aren't scouring the internet praying some flamebait will bring us enough work to buy toys this winter. To me, that sort of answers the whole "who won" question. But clearly you will feel the need to post some other insane rambling along the lines of,

"LOl

iloncrutchri, u es so crazzy if you think thsi is teh wonz

we wonz cuz alll my ccubanos is !!!111!!! o teh seerch enginz"

Anyhow,

Let me try to help you out a little more here.

"EVERYBODY GET OVER TO YOOTER.COM RIGHT AWAY.

I HEAR THEY ARE HAVING A GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE!"

Posted by: ironcrutchli on August 2, 2006 7:03 PM

ironcrutchli I actually respect you.

Not many people could sit there and defend a losing position like you did, abit so poorly as to make you look even more clueless than prior.

Posted by: Roger Wehbe on August 3, 2006 9:49 AM

As Project Manager I am managing an ongoing debate within my exec team re: the use of microsites versus interactive robust sites. When and why would Microsites be the recommended option?

Posted by: Shaz on July 15, 2007 1:56 PM

There's a new blog called Tribbled Ad Agency, spoofing ad agency (lack of)knowledge of search engine optimization that has SEO comunity chunkling and traditional adverting types fuming.The spoof site takes on ag execes by suggesting they are wasteful of client money with the tag line, "We look cute, but boy do we consume resource.
==============================
jjohn488
SEO

Posted by: jjohn488 on November 20, 2008 1:11 AM

There's a new blog called Tribbled Ad Agency, spoofing ad agency (lack of)knowledge of search engine optimization that has SEO comunity chunkling and traditional adverting types fuming.The spoof site takes on ag execes by suggesting they are wasteful of client money with the tag line, "We look cute, but boy do we consume resource.
==============================
jjohn488
SEO

Posted by: jjohn488 on November 20, 2008 1:11 AM

There's a new blog called Tribbled Ad Agency, spoofing ad agency (lack of)knowledge of search engine optimization that has SEO comunity chunkling and traditional adverting types fuming.The spoof site takes on ag execes by suggesting they are wasteful of client money with the tag line, "We look cute, but boy do we consume resource.
==============================
jjohn488
SEO

Posted by: jjohn488 on November 20, 2008 1:11 AM

There's a new blog called Tribbled Ad Agency, spoofing ad agency (lack of)knowledge of search engine optimization that has SEO comunity chunkling and traditional adverting types fuming.The spoof site takes on ag execes by suggesting they are wasteful of client money with the tag line, "We look cute, but boy do we consume resource.
==============================
jjohn488
SEO

Posted by: jjohn488 on November 20, 2008 1:12 AM





Stanton Optical


Featured FREE Resource: