It's hustling because you can only have 10 sites in the first 10 spots for any keyword or combination.
By selling services to party 'A' you can temporarily upset the balance, which then immediately gives you a new customer in parties B through to infinity because they all would like to be in that 'top' spot.
So, the 'scarcity' of the positions on the first few pages for any given set of keywords are what drives that whole market with all of these clueless companies shelling out tons of money for something that only benefits the SEO and the temporary holders of those 10 slots.
I'ts like with lawyers, stoke the fight, everybody loses but the lawyers win.
It's a classical example of an arms race.
btw, the funniest thing you can do when an SEO approaches you is ask them if they have a website, then type 'SEO services' in to google and see if they come up in the first 10 results, if not (and that's a 99% chance) enjoy hearing them squirming to explain why not.
You could say that about any form of marketing. There are only so many cola drinkers to sell to, and if I market Coke it will be at the expense of Pepsi. Marketing is always an arms race (so is business in general).
To take your lawyer analogy further consider this: you could say hiring a lawyer is gaming the system (i.e., being found innocent when you are in fact guilty). Or you could say that hiring a lawyer is ensuring that your case is presented as well as possible, allowing it to succeed or fail on its own merit.
Similarly, you probably view SEO as gaming the system, whereas I view it as ensuring that your content is presented in the best way possible.
Either way, your issue is with the Google/the court, not with the SEOs/lawyers or their clients/defendants.
btw, the funniest thing you can do when an SEO approaches you is ask them if they have a website, then type 'SEO services' in to google and see if they come up in the first 10 results, if not (and that's a 99% chance) enjoy hearing them squirming to explain why not.
Sure, and if a company calls to sell you marketing services and you've never heard of them, you should ask why. And if a company wants to make you a website and their's looks shitty, you probably don't want to hire them either.
While I'm fairly sympathetic to your overall perspective, your last point is simply not persuasive at all. As a former SEO, I'd have had no problem comfortably answering that question, and any squirming would be entirely in your own smug imagination.
First, 'SEO services' isn't self-evidently the most important keyword phrase in the industry. Why pick that one? That's just a gotcha.
Second, SEO is extremely competitive. The agencies on the first page for high profile SEO-related keyword phrases charge at least several hundreds of dollars per hour in consulting fees. Most businesses can't afford that.
Third, incumbency is a huge advantage for placement in competitive SERPs, both by itself and because it implies the accumulation of important ranking factors you can't just gin up at a moment's notice. (Don't read too much into that though. There are plenty of opportunities for less competitive phrases and a long campaign can build up to more competitive terms.)
Because it is the set of keywords that any SEO would like to be found under.
> Second, SEO is extremely competitive.
ANY business is extremely competitive, not just SEO, why do you think SEO is some kind of magical special case ?
> Third, incumbency is a huge advantage for placement in competitive SERPs, both by itself and because it implies the accumulation of important ranking factors you can't just gin up at a moment's notice.
That we agree on for the most part. I've seen relative newcomers do some amazing stuff, without SEO simply by getting their users energized. There isn't any SEO strategy that will work as well for you as a couple of hundred thousand uses creating buzz for you.
> There are plenty of opportunities for less competitive phrases
That's the low hanging fruit though.
> a long campaign can build up to more competitive terms.
And that is where we agree again, but most SEOs are people making very large promises that they find hard to fulfill. The whole industry has an extremely bad reputation because of this, and it's not just a 'few bad apples' either.
I'm sure there are 'good' SEOs, just like there are 'good' lawyers, but for the most part I wouldn't want to be associated with any of that stuff.
Search engines are for the most part doing everything they can to look at the web through an SEO neutral lens.
Fixing stuff that is obviously broken is fine with me, but don't get me started on 'link building'.
Gaming the system is where I draw the line and there isn't an SEO out there that wouldn't game the system given half a chance.
By selling services to party 'A' you can temporarily upset the balance, which then immediately gives you a new customer in parties B through to infinity because they all would like to be in that 'top' spot.
So, the 'scarcity' of the positions on the first few pages for any given set of keywords are what drives that whole market with all of these clueless companies shelling out tons of money for something that only benefits the SEO and the temporary holders of those 10 slots.
I'ts like with lawyers, stoke the fight, everybody loses but the lawyers win.
It's a classical example of an arms race.
btw, the funniest thing you can do when an SEO approaches you is ask them if they have a website, then type 'SEO services' in to google and see if they come up in the first 10 results, if not (and that's a 99% chance) enjoy hearing them squirming to explain why not.