AI and the Future of Digital Reputation

Over the past month or so, the internet has been buzzing about the new ChatGPT bot by OpenAI. This moment has been coming for a while, in which AI seems almost ready to take a seat at the human table. 

And now the humans are excited. I spent way too many hours asking the chatbot to write sonnets for my kids and sitcom scripts (including a scene from The Good Doctor in which he has to treat a marshmallow who has been badly burned in a fire; At one point the marshmallow actually says to Dr. Murphy, “But I’m a marshmallow!”) All this is making many of us a bit nervous. What does this new technology mean for jobs, education, and relationships? What does it mean for human intelligence? 

From a business perspective, one of the questions that interests me the most is: How will a new, pervasive reliance on AI potentially impact the digital reputations of brands and individuals? 

There have already been numerous articles written on the subject, many of them with doomsday predictions about the coming irrelevance of everything we once knew. In particular, the New York Times raised a series of challenges that this new technology would pose to Google’s revenue and ethics models, as the company evolves its AI strategy.

As usual, I am more optimistic about our capability to incorporate this new technology wisely.

Google vs OpenAI

Right now, when we want to know about a person or a company we Google it, and we see a list of results that the algorithm thinks (based on various factors) will satisfy the searcher. Deciding which of these results to read (or scrolling on) is up to the searcher, as is constructing a conclusion on their basis. 

The search page gives us pieces of information to choose from, but we do the work of picking which ones to read, and analyzing what we read. Searching the way we do now gives us an opportunity to consider: Is that what I really wanted to know? Is there important context available that I might be missing? Do those sources look reliable? Is there bias I am missing?

ChatGPT makes the leap from providing information to performing analysis and stating conclusions. Like Google, it makes some algorithmic decisions about which information to use in its analysis (though less transparently, since it does not typically share sources), and then does its own thinking and analysis in order to provide a cogent answer – one that requires very little work from the searcher. And one that may seem satisfying, in easily accessible language. 

Take for example the question: “Is Tesla a good company to work for?”

When I asked OpenAI, I got this back: 

Yes, Tesla is a good company to work for. The company has consistently been ranked as one of the top companies to work for and has recently been named one of the best places to work for in 2021. Tesla provides competitive salaries and benefits, a great work environment, and the opportunity to work on innovative projects.

When I typed the same thing into Google, I got much more complicated and thought-provoking results.

  • Empire Resume told me it’s a valuable company and has many perks.
  • Google then suggested some questions and answers: 
    • How is pay? Good, according to Zippia
    • How hard is it to get a job? Really hard, according to Zippia
    • How stressful will it be? Very, according to Business Insider
    • How are the benefits? Great, according to Tesla.com

After that, you get to the Indeed.com and Glassdoor.com review sites, where you can see star ratings and read what could be actual reviews from employees. There’s a YouTube video with more information.

You get the idea.

Getting to know the searcher 

So what’s the right answer to the question about Tesla? As a human (and one who has spent 18 years focused on search) I think the answer is “it depends.” If the AI understands the searcher’s specific needs, in some cases it will be able to weigh various factors and make better decisions. Google knows a lot about you – where you are, the types of sites you frequent, your interests – and yet its personalization feels very incomplete. AI will hopefully be able to synthesize the facts about you and better predict what you care about.   

Of course, much of the burden will fall on the searchers themselves. Just as it took many years to get smart about how to use Google, there will definitely be a learning curve as we learn how to ask AI to help us with complex questions. When search was new, many people clicked on the top results almost blindly, but now most of us have better ways to get to the information we trust. Searchers are likely to use AI in the same way, and they will learn to ask for sources. I can imagine something like Google results alongside the AI results. In fact – a new plug in is piloting just this functionality, albeit in a very cursory way.

As I mentioned above, knowing about the searcher would be invaluable, and would make AI that much more useful as a provider of both information and analysis. If I ask AI for dinner suggestions, it would be good if it knew what ingredients are available in my area (or even in my house) and that my family keeps kosher. While it may sound scary, if it knows that we ate pasta yesterday, and that we are trying to watch our carbs, it will be more likely to suggest roasted salmon with broccoli – not a bad decision. 

Where does this leave reputation management?

I believe that in the not-so-distant future, AI will be able to helpfully synthesize a lot of information about brands and executives. This could actually be a great development for brands – assuming that robust, accurate information is available, and that AI is seeing and understanding it. 

As its use in search develops, AI will likely be better at ignoring transient negative news cycles, despite their high clickability on Google, especially when in the overall context they are not that relevant to the searcher. My sense is that we are moving to a place where companies will need to make even more efforts to communicate holistically, as they will need to ensure that humans, computers, and now AI, all get a holistic picture of who they are. The rise of AI will make it even more important to carefully curate your digital presence. 

This development will be bad news for those who are not working to deliberately plan their online presence, or those who have relied on tricks and manipulations to control their online presence. These companies will  now find themselves at the mercy of automated processes which play by different rules. 

Google and other search engines are already using AI and smart algorithms in order to choose sources to display, and it is likely that the search of the future will have elements of Google search (providing key sources and context) as well as elements of AI – providing analysis and cogent answers in language we understand. In the meantime, we humans will need to make sure we are firmly in the driver’s seat when it comes to how we want ourselves and our companies to be perceived.

 

Editing the Wikipedia Article about You or Your Company

LAST UPDATED – December 2022

One of the most popular questions we get regarding Wikipedia is whether a company can edit its own page. The short answer is – not really.

You see, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide an encyclopedia of impartial knowledge. Content that is promotional, selfserving, or biased will often get flagged or removed by other editors..

Wikipedia’s official policy is:

“You are discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organizations (including their campaigns, clients, products and services) in which you hold a vested interest.”

In short, editing the Wikipedia page about your own company is usually discouraged, as Wikipedia wants to ensure its content is unbiased.
It’s also worth noting that the editing guidelines for Wikipedia are far more intricate than they may appear; the sources, writing style, and editor interaction are difficult to manage without signfiicant experience on the platform.

Important to keep in mind:

  • Wikipedia editors frown upon and even penalize pages that appear to have been edited by the company without being transparent.
  • Your IP Address will be recorded and can be seen by others. So never try to be anonymous while using a company-owned IP address.
  • The Wikipedia editor community often track changes. Your edits can potentially trigger alerts for engaged editors. And they may act swiftly against your edits.

Before making a decision we recommend consulting with a Wikipedia expert to weigh options.

We offer Free Consultation and help in determining your options regarding Creation or Editing of Wikipedia pages.

We have helped many companies and individuals navigate Wikipedia and would be happy to discuss your options.

Contact Us

Do you need help editing your company or personal Wikipedia page?

A few words about how we work with Wikipedia editors:

  1. Help in determining notability – if you or your company are not yet seen as notable entities – perhaps there are steps you can take to get there?
  2. Create and submit factual content that may have been missed or under-emphasized by Wikipedia editors. We also suggest corrections for mistakes and vandalism.
  3. Consult with Wikipedia editors to ensure that proposed edits meet the terms of service and appropriately represent client interests.
  4. Work with Wikipedia and carefully consider timing. Introducing a Wikipedia page in advance of a crisis may be a good idea, while doing so in the middle of crisis could backfire.

Free Consultation regarding your brand’s Wikipedia challenge: Contact Us

 

Still have questions? See our FAQ

How do you edit an error on My Company’s Wikipedia page?   

While anyone can edit Wikipedia, editors are suspicious of articles that appear to contain conflict of interest (self-serving) edits. Here’s how we recommend getting essential changes made.

How do you create a Wikipedia page?   

Wikipedia has strict standards for notability (who deserves a page), citations (proving facts with sources), and conflict of interest (impartial information), and many pages get challenged. It is therefore wise to consult with professionals.

Can you edit your own Wikipedia page?   

The goal of the Wikipedia project is to be a comprehensive source for objective information, and editors are highly suspicious of articles that appear self-serving. Here’s how we recommend you go about getting edits made.

Who can edit a Wikipedia page?   

Any edits to Wikipedia articles which add false, insulting, or inflammatory information or language in a deliberate manner are vandalism. If your page has been vandalized, read here about what you can do.

Can I see who edited a Wikipedia page?   

To find editor names, go to the ‘View History’ tab at the top right of the Wikipedia page. The name of the editor appears next to each change, right after the date. Click on that name, and you will find out anything the editor has chosen to share with the public.

When Google Must Not Get the Answer Wrong

You have probably noticed that Google has been steadily elevating the prominence of the “question and answer format” for some time.

Google first introduced the People also ask box in 2015. For a while, it was a low-profile feature, often appearing midway or lower down the first page. As with virtually all new features, Google did extensive testing to ensure they are useful to searchers.

By early 2017, the feature began rising in prominence, including appearing for 10-15% of Fortune 500 companies. In November 2018, the People also ask box started appearing for about 80% of companies and grew from there, today appearing for over 90% of the F500.

It appears that Google has figured out not only the kinds of questions people often ask, but that people appreciate the format as an efficient way to find information quickly. 

This new format often presents questions we would have been unlikely to ask ourselves (a search for ‘gaming fingers’ brings up both ‘how do you play the game number fingers’ and ‘can playing video games cause trigger finger’), and returns answers with varying degrees of authority, simply because they seem to match well.

That is…unless getting the right answer is a matter of life and death. Then Google interrupts its regularly scheduled algorithms to present results much differently, cutting straight to the most authoritative answer. Nothing brings this home more clearly than the way Google is handling the COVID-19 crisis.

What is going on?  Let’s take a deeper look. 

The Paths of Search

When you search online, Google does quick triage: 

If there is one unequivocal answer – as in ‘Who is the Prime Minister of Canada’ – that answer will generally be delivered in the form of a Featured Snippet or Knowledge Panel. A question and answer box will appear below this, with related questions, answered by various sources. 

If your query is something less clear, like “gaming fingers,”  Google’s algorithm is not sure of your intent, so it will generally provide a variety of different results to help disambiguate what you are trying to find; you can pick a specific path or decide you know enough from what you’ve read on the search page. 

The People also ask box captures frequent intentions – and Google figures that your intent is likely to be similar to one of them. 

But what happens when there’s a lot riding on the answer?

When the answer is crucial, like in an impending weather emergency or a search related to suicide, Google overrides its own algorithm – and provides answers that have the greatest likelihood of keeping you safe.

A Tornado warning in the searcher’s area appears in red at the top of the page when they do a weather-related search. In the case of a suicide-related query, a toll-free hotline number appears in a large font at the top of the page, with the text ‘help is available.” 

In these cases, even if Google is not sure what you are asking — and even if there are probably a variety of accurate answers to a question like ‘how to kill yourself’ — Google will err on the side of caution.

In these cases Google sacrifices variety, balance, considerations of the searcher’s own history, and any other elements of its algorithm for the most direct route to possibly saving a life.  

 

The Coronavirus Connection

In our current moment, searches for coronavirus or COVID-19 bring up an expanded knowledge panel — almost a mini- site — featuring symptoms, prevention, treatments, and statistics. The area is branded as a red ‘COVID-19 alert’, and all information is provided only by highly reputable sources. 

The People also ask box is farther down the page than normal, and  is referred to as “Common questions” instead;  answers are sourced from highly authoritative sources – most prominently, the CDC.  

Along with this new way of presenting coronavirus answers, Google has a new initiative to help medical organizations optimize their sites, so that their information appears prominently in Google searches, and populates the results for these types of medical questions.

SEO Roundtable has summarized the initiative here, in which Google has provided guidance for health organizations on:

  • Mobile optimization 
  • The importance of good page content and titles
  • How to analyze the top coronavirus related user queries
  • How to add structured data for FAQ content

While it would obviously be easier for Google to simply give all worthy health organizations more weight in the algorithm (using some sort of ‘authority score’), it seems to prefer that these entities assert their expertise organically. 

Even more “interventionist”: As of end March, Google began heavily prioritizing local COVID-19-related results, giving more prominence to local publishers as each country began developing unique approaches to fighting the virus.  

Balancing Act

It seems that Google is scrupulous about accuracy only when there is a specific unequivocal answer, or when it thinks there might be a case of life and death. Maybe these are the only times Google won’t be called out for using influence in unfair ways?

Google’s opening gambit with health organizations, a half step between the democratic question and answer format and the tightly controlled emergency format, might be an interesting way forward in areas where more authoritative answers may not be immediately crucial, but would be appreciated by users – like nutrition or child-development.  

In fact, all companies and professionals, following a best practices optimization strategy (titles, query analysis, FAQ content, etc.) can help establish their expertise on the results page.  By assessing what questions people ask, and by answering them in the most relevant and easily understood way, companies may be able to make sure that the answers to the questions people ask are answered by their very own legitimate expertise.

It may not always be an emergency to get the answer right, but users would surely appreciate bumping into more true experts on their search paths. 

Five Blocks to Present at 2018 PRWeek “PRDecoded” Conference in Chicago – Thursday, October 18

Curious to learn more about digital reputation management? Five Blocks will be in Chicago this week at the 2018 PR Week Conference.  The conference promises to be a master class for communications pros in the ever-evolving digital world. Come hear from the best in the business and be sure to catch our CEO, Sam Michelson, speaking on Thursday, October 18 at 10:45 when he’ll share keys for cracking a digital reputation crisis.  Don’t miss this informative and actionable conversation.

Our team will be at the conference all day and looks forward to seeing old friends and meeting new colleagues interested in discussing digital reputation management.

Digital Reputation Trends – 2018

Trends on Google Search Results Page

 

Over the first half of 2018, we have seen the search engine results continue to evolve from being a doorway to information to being the destination itself. This is not only evident in the composition of the search engines, but also in how users perceive the results (per the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer).

I have continued to see clear attempts by Google to satisfy users and answer their question without any extra steps, by introducing several interesting changes to the search page functionality:

Ownership of the information

In June 2018, Google rolled out verification of the knowledge panel to more entities and notable individuals. This ability to take over the knowledge panel signals that Google wants entities to participate in providing factual information so that the searchers are provided the summary of an entity without having to search elsewhere.

 

In addition to allowing feedback to the knowledge graph, Google added the ability to verify yourself as the manager of the entity.

Videos Carousel on the page

One of the latest changes Google has brought to the results page, following closely on the heels of Bing, is a video carousel similar to the already existing image box. While this could, potentially, reduce traffic to YouTube, the ultimate goal of immediately satisfying users apparently preempts the potential loss of YouTube advertising revenues.

Improved Search Suggests

A very recent addition to the features on the search page is enhanced search suggest.

When users click on a result and later return back to the search engine results page, Google sees they are searching for additional information and now suggests ancillary search queries directly below the original result. This feature precludes the need to do additional searches to find what the user may be looking for.

 

 

Continuous Scrolling

On mobile, Google has introduced a significant change with Facebook style scrolling, essentially creating an endless page of information. Stay tuned as this might come to all search results pages – not just mobile.

Outlook

Our outlook calls for search engines to continue efforts to provide the exact information the user seeks, ideally within the search page itself. We expect to see search engines return more content previously contained deep within other websites. It will be interesting to see how websites balance their desire to be listed within Google and Bing, and their need to hold onto their own data. Searchers will continue to demand more of the engines – who will do their part to provide the best information they can.

Sohn Conference NY 2018 – Hedge Funds fighting Pediatric Cancer!

Five Blocks has been a proud sponsor of the Sohn Investment Conference since 2014

On Monday April 23rd the top minds in hedge fund investing will gather in Lincoln Center for the annual Sohn investment conference. The conference is a forum aimed at raising funds to further initiatives to cure pediatric cancer. The sharing of world class investment ideas by some of the world’s most successful investors is the bait – and it works marvelously!

The Sohn Conference Foundation has built itself a reputation as the top hedge fund conference – even receiving a mention in the first season of the popular TV show “Billions” (Episode 6, “The Deal”) – as the symbol of hedge fund conferences.

Five Blocks is proud to have both sponsored and worked with the Sohn Conference for 5 years, starting in Hong Kong, and then working on and attending the conferences in London, Tel Aviv, and New York.

We are proud to once again sponsor the great work that the Sohn Conference Foundation is doing around the world and look forward to participating and seeing many of our clients and partners as in years past.

Our staff will be at the conference and looks forward to meeting with hedge funds and communications people who may be able to benefit from our digital reputation management services.

 

Sam Discusses Digital Reputation with Communications Match (Video)

Recently, Five Blocks CEO Sam Michelson spoke with Communications Match about what brands can do to manage their Digital Reputation. In this interview, Sam discusses:

  • How do you define Reputation Management in a world of digital?
  • What should brands do to manage their digital reputation?
  • What does success look like and how do you achieve it?

Why doesn’t Google know who the CEO of Time Inc. is?

The Google Answer box is the section that appears in Google when you type in a question for which Google has a precise answer. One example would be “What is the capital of Iowa?”

iowa capital knowledge panel

The Google Knowledge Panel is that box of fast facts typically on the right side of a Google results page for companies, brands, movies, well-known people and many other entities.

al gore knowledge panel

To populate these boxes, Google needs to have a database reflecting the correct information. They typically source the information from Wikipedia, Wikidata, and other publicly available and (hopefully) updated sources. Sometimes, they get the information by accessing outdated sources or by parsing text in articles online – a process which can lead to mistakes.

So, when we notice something like this:

CEO of Time Inc.

We wonder what went wrong?

Google reports that the CEO of Time is Joseph Ripp ( but he’s been out since Sept 2016!).

Rich Battista is the actual CEO; see Time’s website or  Wikipedia.

In our work, we often encounter cases where Google takes months or even years to update its answer box and knowledge panel information. Sure, Google provides a feedback link that allows you to report the issue – but often even tens of reports from different users have no impact.

Another option is to raise the issue on Google’s webmaster discussion group which has been successful on a number of occasions.

Sometimes, the confusion comes from the fact that the incorrect information is still housed in many data sources – for example in Wikidata, LinkedIn, Crunchbase, and others.

What’s the best practice to avoid these situations? When the facts change, make sure that the information is updated across all platforms including all of the profiles you control and the databases that you can influence. Even then, the change may not happen.

Meanwhile – it’s clear that a better system is needed unless Google is okay with just getting it wrong.

 

Five Blocks Sponsors the Global PR Summit, Miami 2014

Five Blocks is very excited this week to be sponsoring the Global PR Summit in Miami! With over 350 attendees representing many of the largest and most influential PR firms in the US, we expect this conference to be a great event for Five Blocks!

Paul Holmes has been kind enough to set up a session where we will explore Digital Crisis Management – specifically what PR firms and communications team can do to handle the online fallout of real-world crisis situations.

Five Blocks works with some of the largest PR firms represented in the Holmes 250 as well as many smaller independent PR firms.

We focus on translating the PR Team’s efforts so that they are fully reflected online. We also work to remove incorrect information and de-emphasize content that is libelous or otherwise unfavorable to our clients.

If you are here in Miami – we would love to meet with you!

Find us, email, or call to set up some time:

Sam Michelson
samm@fiveblocks.com
(646) 801.8669

 

 

Digital Reputation Management: It’s Not All About Burying Results

digitalbranding
“Brand luminous advertising” by loop_oh | CC BY-ND 2.0 / cropped from original

I posted the following on Business Insider in response to a post that focused on the underbelly of the Digital Reputation Management industry.

Many companies and individuals who have online reputation issues are not trying to bury negative reviews or articles. Instead, they are working to make sure that people searching for them online find what they are looking for. This need often arises when the brand or individual has not made any effort to create an online presence (think either a minimal website or none at all, no participation in social media, no business profiles, no YouTube channel, etc.)

Take for example a financial services firm which mostly arranges M&A’s. An article on a popular business news website portrays a potential upcoming deal for the company in a negative light – probably due to the author’s view of the industry in which the company is involved. The financial services company isn’t active online. They have a one-page website that does not appear prominently in searches online. Most of the prominent mentions of the firm seen in a Google search contain contact information, SEC documents and occasional mentions on investor portals.

The goal of an online or digital reputation management program for this client (and many like it) is to help the client present their brand appropriately online. There really is no need to subvert any search engine algorithm or bury any results.

The Digital Reputation Management program would consist of elements such as:

  • Building out the current website so that it is technically sounds and contains content that will help it rank well in search engines.
  • Creating company and individual profiles on sites like: LinkedIn, CrunchBase, and others.
  • Working with Wikipedia editors to correct any incorrect information appearing in Wikipedia – including providing sources to editors that they can quote.
  • Registering the brand and key individuals on social media websites that may be appropriate to use in the future (Twitter, Google+, etc.).
  • Working with the client’s communications team (or their external PR firm) on opportunities for publishing thought leadership materials in one or more relevant media outlets.

In short, there are many tools at the disposal of digital band management professionals that, rather than being exercises in removing negativity, are proper digital branding and communication efforts. Rather than focusing on fooling the algorithm (in the long term Google will beat you!), serious companies should be considering digital reputation management strategies and tactics that take advantage of Google’s algorithm and its ability to detect relevant, authoritative content from a variety of sources.

Betting Your Reputation on an Algorithm

logo-basicIn today’s hyper-competitive business environment, it is challenging for traders and advisors to maintain an edge. Many wealth managers divide their time with conducting industry research, prospecting, managing their clients’ diverse holdings and exploring new opportunities.

In the digital age, a new skill has an increasingly forceful impact on their business: digital branding. Brokers and traders need an online presence that communicates their business story.

What is an ‘online presence’? Read More …

So, You’re Working on Digital Brand Alignment for a COUNTRY!

We have had opportunities to work with governments, NGO’s and organizations of all types.

Before we can advise a client on the steps they should be taking, we need to understand the context. When working with a country, it is important to ascertain what results are normal for a country.

Clients will usually say something like, “CIA Fact Book?! Why is the entry for CIA Fact Book coming up so high for us? Does Google consider our (banana?) republic a terrorist state?”

To answer these and other questions we start by looking at the expected results for countries.

Below is a chart for Dec 17, 2012 showing the most frequently appearing domains for countries searched in Google. This table considers the first page of Google as seen in the US only. Note that results in any specific location may vary, so that searching in Google.fr (France) would be expected to yield more sites that pertain to that location.

Numbers on the chart indicate the number of countries displaying this domain in their first page Google results.

Google Results for Countries - Top ranking domains

 

It is interesting to note that cia.gov and state.gov dominate the results along with the ubiquitous Wikipedia. If you are responsible for the branding of a country, this table serves as some initial context. Any site here that also appears for your country should not be a shock.

One of the surprises for me was a site called infoplease.com (by Pearson Education) which ranks for 57 countries* even though it is of lower quality! I’m actually not sure what to make of it – it may well appear in situations where a country has not done even a basic job of creating or curating web content that can outrank this low quality scraper search site. (*In case you want to dig deeper, the complete list is at the bottom of this post.)

Also – the role of community-generated content for country results should not be underestimated – Wikipedia and Wikitravel each serve as top domain results for most countries. This certainly suggests that ignoring community content would be unwise.

So what’s your strategy?

In general, your goal should be to design the ultimate branding and focus. Perhaps you would prefer results focused more on industry rather than tourism or political news? With that in hand, you’ll develop strategies to achieve these goals.

If you have questions or comments or would like to dig deeper into the data with us – feel free to drop us a line.

 

 

*Countries for which infoplease.com ranks in the top page of Google results:

1. Algeria
2. Andorra
3. Angola
4. Argentina
5. Armenia
6. Bahamas
7. Bangladesh
8. Bosnia and Herzegovina
9. Burundi
10. Cambodia
11. Cameroon
12. Cape Verde
13. Chile
14. Colombia
15. Cuba
16. Denmark
17. El Salvador
18. Equatorial Guinea
19. Ethiopia
20. France
21. Gabon
22. Guatemala
23. Guyana
24. Haiti
25. Honduras
26. Hungary
27. Indonesia
28. Italy
29. Kyrgyzstan
30. Laos
31. Lithuania
32. Malawi
33. Malaysia
34. Mali
35. Marshall Islands
36. Micronesia
37. Monaco
38. Mongolia
39. Morocco
40. The Netherlands
41. Nicaragua
42. Nigeria
43. Papua New Guinea
44. Peru
45. Poland
46. Portugal
47. Romania
48. São Tomé and Príncipe
49. Senegal
50. Spain
51. Uganda
52. Ukraine
53. United Kingdom
54. Uruguay
55. Uzbekistan
56. Venezuela
57. Yemen

 

 

How Agencies Can Help In-House SEO’s

At Five Blocks, we focus on Digital Brand Management and Reputation Management – which require a lot of the same knowledge as SEO. Clients who engage with us for Digital Brand Management often have SEO needs as well – and this is a service we offer. Interestingly, even clients who have their own SEO teams benefit from our services.

A few reasons why in-house SEO teams benefit by working with an agency.

1) When I started optimizing my first website in 2003, it was reasonable for one or two people to take on all of the responsibilities of optimization. Since then, there has been an explosion of different angles that should be addressed: Webmaster Tools, sitemaps, landing page optimization, new search engines, video optimization, etc.

2) Because we service tens of clients, we can afford to maintain a team of writers and many web assets on a variety of topics. We can provide SEO services to these clients without having to create completely new assets or hire new writers.

3) We are exposed to clients in many industries – and are challenged every day across tens of clients. As we meet each challenge, we are able to apply the lessons to additional client programs. In-house SEOs are not typically exposed to too many clients at any given time.

Taken together, it is reasonable for a company to have one or more in-house SEOs and for those SEOs to work with an external team who can help achieve measurable results by leveraging the agency’s resources, tools, and knowledge.

Error: Contact form not found.