What is Better Long-Term, Organic SEO or PPC?
This is a question I answered on Quora, which I thought might be neat to copy here, as well.
Here is the original answer:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-beneficial-in-long-terms-organic-or-paid-SEO/answer/Ivan-David-Lippens
My short answer is that Organic SEO is better for the Long-Term.
Since I've already posted my advice to the person who asked the question, I thought it might be neat to see some comments on the topic, here.
The argument can get pretty deep, but I think my conclusion is essentially true.
Throw down a vote, and let me know your thoughts.
Thanks!
Trending on Indie Hackers
Google ads have a much better ROI than content -- hands down.
The biggest misunderstanding is that running Google Ads and producing content are serving different purposes.
Google ads are mostly designed to address purchase-intent searches.
Content is mostly designed/created to address knowledge/informational-intent searches.
I look at content traffic/visits more like running FB or YT brand/product/service exposure campaigns. You do it for exposure, rather than direct & quick conversion.
We get a good percentage of our overall site traffic to the blog section of our site, because we've developed some great & helpful informational content. That said, the conversion % on that section of our site pales in comparison to the visitors that land on our homepage or a product page.
Haven't done a precise analysis, but conversion from people visiting our /blog/ section is likely under 0.2-0.3%.
Also, it's hard to tell exactly what % of sales that come by way of ad retargeting is from people who originally found us by way of our content. Proper attribution is always a little tricky.
Hey, man, I really appreciate your perspective.
I haven't put much time into Google Ads, in a few years, and I'm always down to figure-out a strategy that works.
I probably run a couple campaigns per year, to test things, but nothing much comes from it, because I'm just not that willing to risk a lot of capital.
That's what I like about SEO... the money you put into content, links, infrastructure, etc, you sticks to your asset.
For any legitimate territory, you gotta invest time and money for a few months to a year, but in the long-run I think the math shows that it creates compounding gains.
I mean, once you are ranking, it can be the difference between $50/mo of sustained link-building growth, for example, versus $15/click from a PPC effort.
Then again, it has taken me years to really learn and understand how to rank anything, so the learning curve is much larger for SEO, I think.
I also don't have even a remotely comparable level of skill or knowledge, when it comes to PPC.
You talked about content, as though it's mostly informational, and perhaps that's true for various long-tail questions, but we can obviously rank for you buyer intent keywords, as well.
I see what you're saying, though.
I definitely agree that, with clients for example, it's probably a better idea that they get their PPC going, bringing consistent income, and then start SEO, because I think SEO is definitely a long-term investment.
Anyways... maybe I'll setup a pay-per-call ad, or something, and give something a try, again! :D
Thanks for participating, and don't forget to upvote the general thread!
Thanks, man! :)
True, though I think that's more easily said than done. Unless of course you write some "best 10 XXX" or "XXX review" articles that include your own product/service. Though, that's mostly self-serving & disingenuous.
I see this all the time by brands in the same product category, and their articles are generally crap -- though regular visitors may not recognize it.
Of course the better you rank organically (across all your content), there is a chance that could help your product or sales pages rank for your primary keywords.
I just now looked at Google Search Console, looking at the top 50 search term data for the last 6 months, and outside of searches that included our brand name, nearly all the other searches are terms (other than 2) related to our long-tail content.
So, we're doing much better with long-tail content than we are for our primary buyer-intent keywords. Long-tail converts much less than branded or other buyer-intent terms, so while the traffic and exposure is good, it doesn't drive a ton of conversions.
Yeah, "different" is always gonna rank easier, but as someone who does Client SEO, still, I don't really get paid to do stuff the client should be doing, as the experts in their field. (long-tail)
That's the whole purpose of link-building, because yeah, the money keywords are where the money is at. :P
I'm trying to get more into Affiliate SEO, and while you could argue that there is money in the general traffic approach, it's a field that has just as intense a requirement to rank for your money terms.
It takes money, though, to afford the links, PR, GMB, etc, so I think it comes down to a substantial up-front investment.
Of course, even if you get there, if you haven't done basic CRO, or included necessary information in your content, then you'll be in the position that PPC finds itself immediately, and that's having to make sure your content is convert-able in the first place. >.<
There are risks on both sides, so I think if I had to break-it-down, I'd say that PPC should be done first, because it can really quickly show you issues with your target audience, with your copy, with your prices, etc.
Which are all things that could take you literally months to years to learn if you're just waiting to learn that stuff when you finally rank for something.
Still, though... in the spirit of the "long-term" clause of the question, if all things are working properly, the argument still stands that those rankings can bring compounding gains.
HOWEVER... LoL ...
I think the point of the questions is about which thing someone should invest into, and I think that completely depends on the niche.
If you've got a budget of $100/mo to spend, like if you were starting-out, then I don't see how PPC could get you much of anything, unless you were maybe just buying leads from something like Thumbtack, or maybe doing a pay-per-call thing, or something.
If you put that into SEO, though, then after a year, you'd definitely be ranking for some little things... but that's also assuming that you know what you're doing, and can actually use that money properly, so the expertise aspect is a real issue for SEO.
Man... almost getting to be a circular argument... haha...
Once you get your first MRR from your PPC method, then it stacks just the same, and is a lot easier to scale.
It definitely TAKES longer for SEO to work, but maybe PPC really is better in general.
I guess I need to experiment with some Pay-Per-Call ads, or something! :D
That doesn't account for 90% of business getting closed in the 1st year cause they don't reach break even or profitability or sometime even first users/validation. Long term only doesn't gain anything for them, it's a total loss guaranteed.
Like I know the claim, and point and agree to some degree, but it's easy to debate and play devils advocate... Also if you'r main POV relates to organic growth and 0$/new customer, there are people playing community growing... like Seth Goden's strategy... they are just as free and self growing, word to mouth... they can cross technical gaps..
Also if you'd look longer term you'd need to account for SEO getting to 0, just the same as others before it did... it's already losing a lot of search usage to 2nd-ry platforms for a few years now...
GaryVee likes to be in the cutting edge, newest platforms that get attention, cause they are cheaper in $/time to get attention at, and they at times catch more attention time... social networks and such have more screen time than SEO. [sometimes?] it's about the attention time you can grub..
If you only want to compare google 1 to google 3 and your actually forgetting google 2 which would be youtube.... sure, here a 🌟 sticker.
To your first point...
The angle is ROI.
So, if it's a 2yr+ period, for example, I think the data shows that SEO has much higher compounding gains.
I'm all ears for arguments, though.
That kind of content marketing, though, takes a niche that is really obvious for someone to see... here are the fifteen some-odd sites I can really rock.
That's the catch with SEO... it's a perfectly understandable concept, but there's a sea of misinformation, so just understanding what works is something that either takes time, risk, or a budget, basically.
If that kind of investment is sustained for a year, though, for example, I've seen many times that the rankings do come.
That's hard for the average business owner to agree to, though, in terms of something like a year of investment before knowing if it was worth it (LoL), and therein lies the beauty of PPC.
What platforms are you saying Google is losing to? LoL
Shoot, let me know, because I guess I need to diversify. :P
GaryVee is a tool, but I digress from that point... LOL...
Yeah, I think the stat you are referring to is people staying on Facebook for 15mins on average, or something like that.
There's a similar stat with YouTube, and the rest, which is supposedly some great thing.
I've actually looked at a number of Parasite SEO or Piggy-back SEO opportunities, but the search volume, from most things, is not that great.
Each network is also starkly focused for certain demographics.
Even on something like YouTube, for example, the search volume for various professional marketing topics is not that great, but interestingly enough, the volume that is there tends to have a much higher engagement rate.
I'm ranking on YouTube for Wordpress SEO Hosting, and SEO Hosting, and Cloudflare Static Site, and all kinds of interesting technical phrases, but the traffic is not that great.
Once-in-a-while, though, I get someone contact me who wants to pay for technical consulting, to help them setup something or other.
So, even though the search volume tends to be weaker, the rankings are MUCH faster, and the level of interest I think is much higher... much higher quality traffic.
That's really a social media for pop culture, though, for the most part.
You bring-up a good point, though, and I think that's a question about the sentiment and purpose of the users on various platforms.
It's not really about quantity of traffic, but quality, I suppose, in that argument.
Anyways, thanks for your perspective, man, and please don't forget to upvote the general thread.
Thanks, dude! :)