Posts Tagged ‘outsourcing search’

Search as a Commodity?

The recent trend in agencies outsourcing search to cheaper suppliers, whether they be in the UK or abroad, signals the possible commoditisation of search skills in the near future.

Both SEO and PPC practitioners are available in plentiful numbers at low rates; there are companies in India willing to work on hourly rates as low as £5. That’s 80p lower than the minimum wage for an adult in the UK, so you can see why it would be tempting for clients and agencies alike.

In practice, outsourcing opportunities will deliver a very cheap solution for the simpler aspects of PPC or SEO delivery. My experience of being involved in relationships (from a third party perspective) where both PPC and SEO have been outsourced has always seen something lost in the translation though, with poor quality results being achieved through either poor campaign builds and management in paid search, or the use SEO techniques that are slightly outdated and that fail to address the real issues needed for success in natural search.

So what’s the reason for this? Where is the value being lost? Let’s face it, some of the actual delivery work in search doesn’t require a huge amount of brainpower – adjusting keyword bids when a CPA is too high or re-working meta-tags to have an emphasis on different words is a simple task. So why does it go wrong so often?

The problem comes from the fact that search strategy is inextricably entwined with its delivery. For example, with paid search, when you’ve spent several hours analysing results, understanding how various factors affect the different metrics, and deciding where to focus your efforts, the matter of performing the optimisation is a relatively simple task. Natural search will sometimes similarly require someone to immerse themself in the market, observing what’s working well for the competition, translate this into a strategy for their site, and then spend time delivering what then seems to be relatively simple output in terms of actual SEO work.

So what does this mean for clients or agencies looking to outsource work? I’d suggest that although there are cheap options out there, the skillset of this type of business or individual is never going to be able to drive real success in search for your business by using them alone. Perhaps we need to look at a more traditional model where a planner would devote their time to building a strategy and a separate buyer would then specialise in buying the media – so for search you may be able to draw value from outsourcing options by using them simply as an implementer of the more time consuming tasks, but you will still need a channel expert to decide your strategy, spend time interpreting the data and recommending what changes need to be implemented to your site or PPC account. For all but the largest of advertisers, the benefit is going to be minimal.

Of course, this may change over the next few years as businesses in lesser developed markets become more savvy and develop their skill sets further. When that does happen we may see search agencies turning into more specialist comms planning style businesses and we’ll see companies who specialise in cost effective implementation springing up to complement them. Larger agencies may choose to break staff down into planning & implementation departments to respond to the market.

So while the current standard of delivery from cheap outsourcing options isn’t yet high enough to actually benefit from the cost saving, the threat to the current search agency model from these suppliers is real – and we can expect to see it driving change in the way search is bought over the next few years.

Time for transparency of Search practices?

At ad:tech in London this week there was the usual good representation from the Search agency community: DBD Media, Oban Multilingual, Jellyfish and Efficient Frontier, to name a few of the regular crowd; and Just Search, Optimize and High Position to name some newer kids on the block.

Each agency has its own USPs – whether this is an algorithm, a technology or planning tool. Some claim to be technology providers; others stick with the agency theme. Some have slicker marketing then others – glossy handouts and snazzy logos for tools; others have fast talking sales folk, who can counter any argument on the planet with “yes, but we’ve got a secret sauce”.

Poor, poor clients. Where do they start in evaluating what really sits behind the ‘smoke and mirrors’ sales rhetoric? How do clients know that they will get quality of service, efficiency of management, a best of breed piece of kit, and – perhaps most importantly – transparency of ROI?

Here’s the thing. What all of these Search agencies and technology providers are selling is a service. It’s a combination of people, process and technology. Technology is really important because it is the enabler, the heavy lifter, the lawn mower. But someone’s got to mow the grass.

Here’s the other thing. There is no perfect algorithm for delivering a service. Efficient Frontier call it an “intelligent learning algorithm”; we call it great minds, nimble fingers, Excel macros, spreadsheets and 50 people in India.

Oh, and clients, do ask about who’s doing the do. Is it in-house, or is it outsourced to a country where labour is cheaper? Many Search agencies nowadays are outsourcing. Because there is a lot of heavy lifting to do. If so, do they understand the nuances of your target language and how people search in that language. Are your business and marketing objectives being lost in the Chinese whispers translation from client to search agency to overseas outsourcing agency.

Search is already complex enough without suppliers masking the truth about delivery and adding extra layers for sales and marketing purposes. When will the mist clear so that clients know exactly what they’re buying? Isn’t it time that Search agencies started being transparent with clients about their practices, so that clients can make informed buying decisions?

Is it too much for clients to expect a straight answer to the questions “how?” and “who?”