#I’ve attempted to queue this post 3 times and it hasn’t worked any of those times I’m starting to think this app is broken
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
magicalgirlfia · 5 months ago
Text
Guilty Gear XX♯Reload Comic Anthology Translation: Escape Boy
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
This is a comic the Guilty Gear XX Sharp Reload Comic Anthology, which I wanted to start translating. The original scans of this comic are by @tillman and can be found on archive.org
By the by, since I don’t have a Japanese folk tale to link to, I’d like to add the fact that in this comic (from 2003) Bridget’s serre-tête has the trans symbol instead of the male symbol. This is off-model for her XX design and (given the other times she is seen in the anthology) this seems to be a purposeful choice by the artist. Make of that what you will.
You can read the previous translation here
And the next translation here
​​Usual disclaimer: I am not fluent in Japanese and all of this is a one Fia job so everything might not be 100% accurate but I always try my best!
110 notes · View notes
melsie-sims · 2 years ago
Text
I’m going on vacation!
I’m going camping deep in the bush for a week from July 15 to the 22!
Although the cabin I’ll be staying in is supposed to have wi-fi, I don’t expect it to be great... if it works at all. If you’re wondering why I’ve only been posting 3 times a day compared to my usual 7-8 posts per day... that’s why! I’m trying to have a decent amount of content to last me until the end of the month.
Of course that means I won’t be here to get hyped up about the High School pack with everyone... but you can bet your ass when I get back home and get through updating all of my mods again... I’m gonna be playing it! It’s actually a pack I’ll get to use for my BACC so that’s super exciting!
So here’s the deal when it comes to my three on-going stories/series. A lot of this will depend on factors out of my control, like EA fixing their bugs and how many mods break with the High School update.  
MY BUILD A CITY CHALLENGE...
I have plenty of content to last me through the month so no worries there!
I won’t be playing any households with babies until the toddler glitch is fixed but I do have a few households I can play still once I get back from my vacation on the 22nd. Once I’m through all of those, if EA hasn’t fixed the bug, then I may have to take a short hiatus for this series. 
I’m assuming they’ll have it fixed by then though! It should take me the whole summer to get through these 2-3 households after the Leprince-Flynn family.
MY EXTREME DECADES CHALLENGE...
Unfortunately, I’m completely out of posts for this one and it makes me soooo sad because I’ve been dying to play it again. We’ll be on hiatus until the toddler glitch is fixed. I can’t play with broken ass toddlers, sorry.
Until then please go check out @ivyandink‘s Dubois Decades (it’s already in chrono order for you!). It’s pretty similar to mine in terms of setting but edited WAY better and with a much more detailed storyline. I’m kind of obsessed... and it’s been keeping me going while I wait to play my Decades. 
MY OCCULT SAVE FILE...
To be honest? Not sure about this one. If I keep going the way I’m going... I’ll probably burn myself out and stop playing it. It’s A LOT of work for one single post... I don’t know how all of those crazy storytelling simblrs do it constantly!!
I don’t think all of this posing is my cup of tea though. I will continue this save but it will be a bit less staged and a bit more gameplay-focused. I have a few more posts left in my drafts that I’ll queue up and then this save will be on hiatus for a little while until I figure out what kind of challenge/gameplay style I wanna do. Probably some kind of Rags to Riches meets Occult Legacy meets multiple families/rotational gameplay. We’ll see in August!  
MOAR STUFF??? MAYBE??? WILL IT LEAD TO BURN OUT?? WE’LL SEE!
Knock on wood, but I feel like I’ve gotten pretty good at juggling multiple save files... which was a huge issue for me last year when I attempted it.
I know I have 3 things going on now, but I’ve been wanting to maybe start something new in August. Let me know if you have any challenges you’d like me to check out! I’m considering doing a modified version (aka harder and more long-term) of AussieCassPlays’ Island Challenge. I might also try a random legacy challenge or a LEPacy... those also seem really fun!
Soooo... yeah! I’m still gonna be around for another week but I will be slower at replying to DM’s, asks or WCIFs. I probably won’t be replying to anything at all from the 15th-22nd.
Happy simming!
32 notes · View notes
chaotic-bells · 3 years ago
Text
I was tagged by @imbellarosa and @justalarryblog 😊 thank you! And sorry for the delay and rambling lol
my check in tag
This is a bit long... so I’ll just add the break not to bother people with my ramblings. 
1. Why did you choose your url? I created tumblr because of a fanfic, and I've been reading them since I was 11. And I will always love fanfic. Fanfic is the answer to all life's problems and bad canons. I can't imagine living in the world where I don't have fanfic to continue a world I love or to fix issues in a world that was promising, or just to wait until the next bit of canon came out. You have to imagine I started reading fanfic when there were only 2 Harry Potter books available and I was waiting for the translation of the third one (that came out end of 2000, and yes I was reading fics by then). So yeah... I wanted something related to fanfics, and I really am terrible about online identities. Probably should've used something more creative, but oh well. I like it well enough now, it is one that applies to all fandoms I love.
2. Any side-blogs? If you have them, name them and why you have them. Yes, I have @randomsideposts as my attempt to create a tag system and save my favorite posts. I failed. I also have @kenshin-and-maki for my cats, and a third unnamed one as sort of a journal/vent blog, for those times I just need to write stuff down and I don't want to keep things to myself. No one follows me and that's the way I like it. It's kind of dark.
3. How long have you been on tumblr? A year and a half only lol a baby by Tumblr standards.
4: Do you have a queue tag? Me? Organization? What? Jokes aside, I don't really like queueing stuff. I'm either here or I'm not. I'll schedule a post for a random future time, just so I don't forget the post, but a time I know I'll be online to interact with it/the reactions to it. I do that when (for example) Louis posts and I see posts that are not related to that that I'd like to reblog, but not right at that moment.
5. Why did you start your blog in the first place? Because of a cute Larry fic where Louis and Harry become mutuals without knowing they're the other one. I liked the dynamic they described of how Tumblr worked and I wanted to see if it really was like that, because my previous experiences with Tumblr were... confusing enough that I didn't stick around for more than 20 minutes.
6. Why did you choose your icon/pfp? It's Louis and Liam, who are definitely my favorites. Don't get me wrong, I love all the boys, but Liam and Louis (and their friendship) are just really special to me. And this pic is just... so cute. Also, @whatagreatproblemtohave and @evilovesyou demanded either me or @promisethatillnevertell change our profile picture, and that we should duel to see who would keep it because it was getting confusing lol (it was one of the outtakes of the House of Solo photoshoot). I would never fight Lou so I changed it. And I love it because it has my two boys 😁💕
7. Why did you choose your header? Because the livestream was so awesome and even if it's blurry i like it. Also, I never use the desktop version of Tumblr so it's probably a mess, but I like what I see on my mobile so it'll stay.
8. Whats your post with the most notes? Probably my Youtube comments about Louis? I know it has over 1k notes, which... wow.  Also, my little wistful post about keeping the livestream format after lockdown did ok too.
9. How many mutuals do you have? No clue, but I love them all.
10. How many followers do you have? 900 or so.
11. How many people do you follow? 654 blogs
12. Have you ever made a shitpost? Who hasn't?
13. How often do you use tumblr a day? No clue, dozens of times. I won't scroll too far down, just enough to distract me for a couple minutes while I'm waiting for something to load or if my brain needs a break from work.
14. Did you once have a fight/argument with another blog once? Who won? I've argued before with a Liam blog at the end of the LP Show 2, but it was a misunderstanding, I didn't express myself the way I wanted to. Pretty sure a bunch of Liam blogs have me blocked because of it still. Other than that, I'm pretty peaceful, and I really try to just stay out of drama.
15. How do you feel about “you need to reblog” posts? I hate them. It is a passive aggressive way of someone thinking their opinion is better than yours, usually has a comment like "if you don't reblog you don't care about this" or "I don't care if it doesn't fit my blog asthetic, I'll reblog it anyway". Congrats? Do you want a star for it? I'll reblog it if I think it has important information, despite these annoying comments, but only once. If it's a post I've seen multiple times, then everyone saw it multiple times.
16. Do you like tag games? Love them, but recently I've been a bit lax. Once you start saving them in your drafts, it snowballs into unmanageable levels.
17. Do you like ask games? I love them, but whenever I reblog one I only get 1 or 2 asks. :(
18. Which of your mutuals do you think is tumblr famous? I... don't really care enough about that to keep track lol
19. Do you have a crush on a mutual? Yes, but I won't put them on the spot
20. Tags? I don’t know if you’ve done this before, so feel free to ignore it? As usual @promisethatillnevertell @whatagreatproblemtohave @technicallysideacc @maybe-i-missyou @vintageumbroshirt @thedevilinmybrain @beckydoesthings
17 notes · View notes
amphtaminedreams · 5 years ago
Text
We Voted for Murderers
Tumblr media
65.2%.
That’s the percentage of people who voted for the Conservative candidate in my constituency, and I feel completely heartbroken. See, things have properly gone to shit. 
If we’re talking numbers?
Local councils estimate the number of people sleeping rough on any given night between 2010 and 2018 has risen from 1,768 to 4,677, a 165% increase. The Trussell Trust, the UK’s largest food bank charity, has reported a 5,146% increase in emergency food parcels being distributed since 2008. An 8% cut in spending per school pupil since 2009. Funding from central government to local government cut by 60% in that same period. £37 billion less spent on working-age social security compared to over a decade ago by 2020. A 90% fall in the number of social homes being built since 2010. A £7,300,000 decrease in funding for women’s shelters between 2011 and 2017. Don’t even get me started on the government’s treatment of the NHS.
I’ve heard stories of individuals applying for PIP due to mental illness being berated about suicide attempts and the likelihood of another as part of a “formal interview” process to see whether they qualify. People collapsing in job centre queues, freezing to death on the streets and the elderly in their homes, suicides whilst on never ending mental healthcare waiting lists. In fact, 17,000 sick and/or disabled individuals have died whilst waiting for PIP payments to come through, and in total, UCL researchers have linked 120,000 deaths to austerity (I’m not going to comment on the irony of my former university that’s notoriously lacklustre when it comes to giving a fuck about the wellbeing of its students publishing this unless...I just did?). 8 years of negligent homicide of the most vulnerable people in our society under the Conservative government and we voted them back in.
So I ask, are people really stupid enough to believe that the politicians responsible for this mess are the ones who are going to fix it just because they make a few characteristically empty promises on TV or does the British public at large really give even less of a fuck about other people than I thought? As in actually not give a fuck about people dying?
I have to tell myself it’s the former. The press’ treatment of Jeremy Corbyn and Labour was scathing. 
Corbyn, a man who has stood by the same principles of fairness, justice, and equality, for the entirety of his career, was criticised by the likes of The Sun, The Daily Mail, and The Telegraph, for being indecisive and a threat to this country whilst Boris Johnson, a man who can barely string a sentence together when he is asked to give a straight answer to something and blocked the release of a report covering Russian interference in British politics, was held up as the one people should put their faith in. 
I know, the press are never going to be completely neutral. But shouldn’t they at least be committed to integrity? And the truth? Isn’t that the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of journalism? I’ve been hearing the phrase “post-truth world” thrown around a lot and it’s probably an indication of my privilege that it was only with this election that I properly understood what that meant; it was found by the NGO First Draft just 2 days before the election, damage way past the point of done, that 88% of the Conservative Party’s Facebook ads (compared to 0% of Labour’s ads) contained misleading information. The repercussions were non-existent. After Boris Johnson’s claim that Jeremy Corbyn wanted to raise corporation and income tax to the highest levels in Europe was publicised, only Channel 4′s Factcheck website published the actual statistics (France, Belgium, Portugal and Greece all have much higher corporation tax rates than Labour’s proposal). Similarly, in many constituencies, the Lib Dems were posting fliers where Labour candidates were, in the previous election, the runner ups to the Conservative candidate, claiming that it was instead THEIR party’s candidate who had the highest chance of unseating the latter. Days before the election, the headline of one of Britain’s most highly circulated papers claimed that a Corbyn government would plunge us into a crisis the likes of which “we haven’t seen the Second World War”, which is kind of wild considering that 130,000 preventable deaths have been linked to austerity under the Conservative government compared to 70,000 civilian deaths in said war. Not that either is good, obviously, and I can’t believe I have to point that out. But then, right-wingers did paint Jeremy Corbyn as a monster for passing up watching the Queen’s Christmas Day speech to volunteer at a homeless shelter, so I thought I’d just cover my back, y’know. 
Shouldn’t there be standards that the media is held to? You know, like not making slanderous statements about some politicians that have no actual basis in fact whilst brushing over the statements of others. Whilst the PM’s father Stanley Johnson was on nation television calling the public illiterate, and Jacob Rees-Mogg was blaming the Grenfell victims deaths on their “lack of common sense”, and Michael Gove was stating that people who needed to use food banks had brought it on themselves because they were not “best able to manage their finances”, it was Jeremy Corbyn who was being called an enemy of the people, accused of trying to plunge us into a “Marxist hell”...I mean, if Denmark and Norway and Finland with some of the highest living standards in the world are “Marxist hell”s  then sure, that’s what he’s doing. But that’s a hell I’m sure a lot of people would find much comfier than a freezing cold pavement. Before Labour had even released their (fully-costed!) manifesto, barefaced lies were being published about how much it would cost and how it would plunge us into trillions of pounds worth of debt, as if it hasn’t increased from £1 trillion to £1.8 trillion in the years since David Cameron took office. Meanwhile, when Labour did publish their manifesto and the Financial Times published a letter signed by 163 prominent economists and academics backing their spending plans? Crickets. Nothing sums it up better than the debate around Jeremy Corbyn’s alleged anti-semitism, discussed ad-nauseam whilst Boris Johnson’s actual racism, islamophobia, misogyny and classism, RIGHT OUT OF THE HORSE’S MOUTH, was completely ignored by most news outlets. 
You know what, maybe people earning £85k just DON’T want to pay an extra £3 in tax a week to make sure children get an education. Maybe everybody IS just as selfish as that one twat on Question Time who got all red in the face over the prospect of having to give up an amount less than the cost of a tub of Ben and Jerrys a week. But if that’s true, this isn’t a country I want to live in at all, or a planet I want to live on, really. I hope it’s not. I hope it’s a case of a need for some kind of collective realisation that the Sun ain’t shit. Merseyside did it. The younger generation are catching on. And look at the results there.
Labour probably couldn’t fulfil ALL of their promises. No political party is perfect. I was told again and again how unrealistic those promises were as if that was enough to make me go ”oh...I guess I’ll vote for 4 more years of people dying in the streets instead”. Yes, in an ideal world, the entire manifesto would be made a reality, but it depended on far too many rich people being good and honest. Let’s be real-the elite will always find a way to avoid paying their fare share on the premise that they “earned it”, as if anybody earns billions by sheer hard work alone and past a certain point, not off other people’s backs. As if there aren’t nurses and teachers and firemen and other public sector workers who don’t put in just as much energy and as many hours and emotional labour as CEOs and business owners and investors. But the point is that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn acknowledged this, and their manifesto aimed to give the power back to the average person, from the vulnerable to the supposedly middle class still struggling to make ends meet, and give them the quality of life they deserve. It was built on the simple premise that the people should use their government, not the other way round, and that everybody deserves the basic human rights of shelter, nutrition, safety and dignity, regardless of their fortune in life. However many of Labour’s policies would actually have been fulfilled, it would’ve been a shift in the right direction. 
Now the election’s been and gone and I’m scared. Already, the narrative is being rewritten by the billionaires in control of this country that a manifesto like the one we saw this year will never sit right with this country, when it is what so many desperately need. The people putting this information out there know the truth: that Labour’s membership trebled in size under Corbyn (more people voted for him than for any Labour leader since Tony Blair), that most of the safe labour seats were lost because of Brexit, and that if the manifesto had been represented accurately, there’s a good chance that Boris Johnson would no longer be our Prime Minister. I’m scared a person like Jeremy Corbyn will never front Labour again. 
Because I do not want a tory painted red who’s friends with Jacob Rees-Mogg behind the scenes, I do not want a war criminal who thinks that bombing innocent people is ever acceptable, I do not want a person who doesn’t see people of colour as part of the working class and indulges in the occasional bit of TERF-ism.
Already, the Conservative party are backpedaling on the few promises they made to increase NHS spending, and I am scared. I am scared for myself, in the event that I need urgent mental health care again, and I am scared for those less privileged than me who don’t have a family to support them, who don't have a roof over their head, who weren’t fortunate enough to be born in a country with relative economic and political stability, who cannot physically go out and work to earn a living. I am worried about the bigots that this election has already emboldened, the Katie Hopkins and the Tommy Robinsons of the world, who think the things that blind luck have graced them with they somehow earned, who pride themselves on ignorance and cruelty and selfishness.
So for now, what can we do? 
Join trade unions. Organise. Write to your MPs. Bring attention to those who are vulnerable. Be vocal with your criticism of the establishment. Call out those in politics for an ego-trip hiding behind “personality”. Do your research. Keep an eye on the numbers. The “it doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote” sentiment is old, because it does. No “as a feminist, I exercise my right to vote for whoever I want”, because as a feminist, you should care about ALL women, not just the white, middle class, able-bodied ones. 
And if anyone has any more suggestions, let me know. Because I am sick and tired of living under a government who doesn’t give a fuck about the people it’s supposed to protect.
Lauren x
[DISCLAIMER: The photo is not mine. Just devastated and trying to find the words to express it.]
5 notes · View notes
glysimachia-blog · 5 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media
general  information  :  formerly  faunahymn.  so ,  if  anything  seems  familiar ,  that’s  why.  gaea  lysimachia  is  an  original  character  and  while  she  had  originally  been  made  for  the  ffvx  verse ,  i  decided  to  make  her  more  general  because  i  had  certain  people  only  that  i  wrote  with  in  that  verse.  that  and  i  have  so  many  other  verses ,  it  was  good  for  me  to  just  make  her  indie  and  fandomless.
              i. activity.  i  stress  myself  out  a  lot  over  getting  things  out  on  time  and  again,  here  i  am,  attempting  to  get  my  act  together  when  it  comes  to  activity.  this  blog  is  going  to  be  queue - based  and  what  that  means  for  me  is  that  most  replies  and  asks  will  be  thrown  into  my  queue. update:  because  of  how  busy  i  am,  i  have  decided  that  even  things  for  my  mains  and  my  exclusives  will  be  thrown  into  my  queue.  i  haven’t  decided  how  i  am  going  to  set  up  my  cue  but  i  am  leaning  toward  posts  at  eight  hour  intervals:  two  text  posts  and  one  photo.
              ii. discord.  i  primarily  use  discord  to  scream  about  things  (  can  also  be  read  as  plot  )  and  to  share  things  with  my  writing  partners.  i  write  on  there  as  well  and  have  a  number  of  discord - only  muses.  will  i  make  a  writing  server?  one  day.  for  the  moment,  though,  i  prefer  conversations  to  take  place  there  rather  than  in  tumblr  ims.  i  will  ask  you  for  yours  probably  as  soon  as  possible  and  will  not  be  offended  if  you  do  the  same.
              iii. formatting.  i  will  try  to  format  to  match  the  reply  of  my  partner.  starters  and  asks  will  be  written  in  the  small  size  with  spacing.  update:  there  is  a  possibility  that  i  will  be  redoing  my  icons  or  at  least  making  icons  in  different  shapes,  such  as  long  and  vertical.  we  will  simply  have  to  see.
            iv. shipping.  when  i  think  of  shipping,  the  first  thing  that  comes  to  mind  are  romantic  ships,  though  i  totally  understand  it  can  cover  other  relationships  as  well.  the  fact  is,  gaea  is  in  love  with  love.  she  falls  easily  and  her  loyalty  has  definitely  gotten  her  in  trouble.  i  will  never  force  ship.  i  encourage  people  to  send  in  romantic  memes  to  test  the  waters.  i’ve  gotten  to  a  point  where  i  think  we  should  all  be  free  to  admit  what  we  want  with  no  shame.  if  you  ship  it,  come  to  me.  or  send  in  a  meme.  all  relationships  are  important  here,  though.  so  all  ideas  are  welcome.
            v. content.  you  can  definitely  expect  to  find  mature  themes  here.  and  probably  triggering  content  consider  i  don’t  have  any  triggers  and  i  do  love  dark  themes.  triggers  are  formatted  in  tags  as  :  ‘tw: ________‘ ,  ‘tw ________‘  and  ‘ _______ tw.‘  i  look  at  everyone’s  rules  before  i  contact  them  and  look  for  triggers  and  do  my  best  to  keep  everyone’s  in  mind.  i  may  make  a  list  of  them  as  well.  but  if  i  end  up  missing  something  or  forgetting  something ,  please ��slap  me  across  the  face  and  let  me  know.  i  want  everyone  to  be  comfortable  on  their  blogs.  mature  themes  will  also  include  smut ,  which  i  for  the  most  part  will  not  place  beneath  read  mores.
update, june 9th:  this  blog  contains  mentions  of  and  the  discussion  of  forced  prostitution,  dub  and  noncon,  domestic  abuse,  fucked  up  family  dynamics  (  not  incest  ),  unsafe  and  unhealthy  bdsm  practices  and depression / low self - esteem.  again,  my  trigger  warning  formatting  is  above  for  you  to  blacklist  what  you  need  to.
              vi. godmodding.  partners  that  i  feel  comfortable  with  and  who  i  feel  know  gaea  are  allowed  to  do  whatever  they  want  with  gaea  (  basically  mains  and  ships  )  and  don’t  need  to  ask.  there’s  a  difference  between  godmodding  and  moving  things  along  and  sometimes  it’s  hard  to  know  where  you  are.  you  can  always  ask  if  you  have  an  idea  in  mind  and  want  to  make  sure  it’s  okay.  chances  are  likely  you  will also  be  told  to  do  you ,  boo  boo.  
               vii. memes.  i  have  a  problem.  between  my  two  archives,  i  have  at  least  two  hundred.  i  may  bring  some  of  them  over  here.  you  are  always  free  to  send  any  in.  i’ll  be  honest  with  you  if  i  can’t  come  up  with  anything.  but  i  love  doing  starters  based  on  memes  and  will  never  be  upset  when  i  get  one  (  unless  it’s  angst  and  that’s  just  because  i’m  a  sensitive  soul  ).  if  you  reblog  a  meme  from  me ,  please  at  least  send  on  in.  i’m  very  serious  about  this.  if  you  don’t  want  to,  at  least  reblog  from  the  source.  update:  the  game  hasn’t  changed;  i  still  might  bring  some  of  those  asks  over.  however,  i’ve  noticed  the  new  trend  to  make  asks  into  new  posts  and  i  am  here  for  it.
              vii. drama.  new  rule.  i  try  very  hard  to  keep  my  blog  a  safe  space  for  myself  and  for  others.  i  don’t  reblog  call - outs  and  i  don’t  get  in  the  middle  of  things.  i  do,  unfortunately,  have  my  own  little  issues.  nova  (  @mysericordia  )  and  i  used  to  write  together  but  are  no  longer  on  speaking  terms.  once  upon  a  time  she  said  that  gaea  and  her  oc  temp  were  too  similar.  she  is  now  using  bey  as  a  face  claim  and  i  just  want  to  be  clear:  i  am  not  her.  she  is  not  me.  i  would  never  ask  any  of  you  to  stop  writing  with  her  but  just  know  there’s  some  tension  there.  i  don’t  have  a  monopoly  on  bey  but  to  decide  to  change  a  face  claim  after  years... to  mine...  there’s  tension.
              viii. mun.  my  name  is  djaq!  twenty - five  year  old  african  american  cis  female,  going  by  the  pronouns  she  and  her.  i  have  a  job  working  in  a  warehouse  which  means  that between  about  9:30am - 8:00pm  it’s  radio  silence,  unless  i’m  on  my  lunch  break.  i  started  writing  when  i  was  twelve  on  myspace  and  i’ve  been  doing  it  on  different  platforms  since.  i  don’t  have  a  big  preference  when  it  comes  to  genres,  which  is  why  i  have  so  many  verses.  i  look  forward  to  talking  to  you! <3
credits,  update  june  9: base  icons  are  from  whimsies  and  evaccue  on  insanejournal  ( kerry washington ),  hilohello  on  insanejournal  ( yara shahidi ),  and allscalliepsds  here  on  tumblr  ( yara shahidi ). psd  is  mango  from  darkpsds  and  icon  order  is  from  silentxwillxfall.  the incredible hollow ( @voitel /@crimsoninfinity ) made me icons and those are what i will be using from friday, may 31st on! my love myf  (  @masterstrange  )  gave  me  a  psd  to  use  for  steve  but  i’ll  be  using  it  in  some  of  my  graphics  and  icons  from  now  on  as  well.     thanks  so  much,  beeb!
3 notes · View notes
canaryatlaw · 7 years ago
Text
so, lots to unpack here. first of all, to establish setting, I’m currently sitting in LAX (if that doesn’t mean anything to you, their airport in Los Angeles) waiting for my flight back to Chicago that is gonna take off at 1:10 am and arrive at 7:33 am (two hour time difference accounted for). So I figured now is probably the most logical time to make this post. Luckily I can control exactly when I’ll get tired enough to actually sleep because I’m dependent on xanax and melatonin now, isn’t that fun!! haha. so like, most of today was cool of course, and I’m gonna get there, but I feel like I should first establish that I feel profoundly sad right now, though I can’t tell if it’s from the big event and me seeing my friends being over and having going back to real life which now consists of FINALS, or from this nostalgia I keep having for a life I’ve never had, or if it’s because I was reading Captain Canary fan fiction on the flight here (from San Jose to LA) which now just makes me really fucking sad because all I can think is WE’LL NEVER HAVE THIS. and these posts are generally good at helping me unpack my feelings so I figured I’d write this while I have the time and internet connection (good for LAX for actually offering free internet, unlike the pretending heathens in Chicago). so. here we go. I had my alarm set for 9:15 but ended up waking up around 8:45 (because shared hotel room) and started getting ready. I was cosplaying today so I did my make up and then changed into my full white canary garb (which, omg, I forgot is SO uncomfortable), doing my best to make sure where Caity signed it back in March remained untouched. A little after ten we made our way to the convention center and pretty much immediately headed to Caity’s booth because where else are we gonna go? We continued to pretend to all be VIPs (victimless crime, really) and a guy who had rather elaborate Citizen Steel (or whatever the hell we decided was Nate’s superhero codename) cosplay on who was in Brandon’s line right next to us made eye contact with me and was like “hey captain!” which was amusing haha and we took a picture together when I finished with Caity. I don’t really remember exactly what was said at each conversation because we frequented her booth, but it was good, I was just sad when I saw the picture and I looked less than stellar. I had like, super been overheating trying to keep the big coat on (I like the cosplay a lot better with the coat) and trying to make sure my hair and make up don’t run from sweat because my head overheats really easily for some reason so I didn’t look totally awesome and you can actually see my stomach hanging out just a tiny bit between the top and pants in the picture and like, I wanted to vomit when I saw it and then had a bunch of super triggering and totally inappropriate thoughts about it for the rest of the day because my fucking mind can’t be like “hey maybe you should eat less junk food” it has to immediately be like “you should just stop eating again” because fuck being neurotypical am I rite? (I am fine, if you’re concerned right now, but thank you for your concern). We did something to take up some time (I don’t remember) then ended up going back to her because I was like okay I need better photos with my white canary stuff on so I did that and they came out much better. At some point after that I leached onto my friends VIP status and used it to cut the line at Justin Hartley’s table because fuck waiting in line, and I saw him and TOTALLY flipped out, I was like “I love Smallville so much but I started it late after the show ended and I liked it so much but I thought I was never going to get to meet you because it was over BUT NOW YOU’RE HERE AND I LOVE YOUR GREEN ARROW SO MUCH YOU’RE MY FAVORITE” that’s basically what I said lol, to his credit he took it well and was kind and gentlemanly, so that was nice. From there we got some food at some point (just the overpriced shit from the convention center, there was a really amusing exchange where my friend attempted to figure out if the hot dog on the menu came with a bun or not because apparently in the Philippines they come on a stick sometimes and the ladies serving were very taken aback) then I went to Italia Ricci’s booth, and if you don’t know who that is it’s because she’s not *really* an Arrowverse actor (she was silver banshee on a few episodes of Supergirl) but is actually Robbie Amell’s wife so they generally do a joint booth thing. I wanted to see her because she’s on Designated Survivor, which I really love haha and she was super sweet, I said I was a big 24 fan from back in the day (DS stars Kiefer Sutherland) and she was like “oh yeah I’ve never seen it, he’s always teasing me about it because he’s like you’re the only person who hasn’t seen it!!”) which was amusing haha and then I met Juliana Harkavy and got a selfie with her, and she was totally awesome as well and just a fantastic person. After that those of us who weren’t doing the photo ops got in line for the legends panel, which then happened at 2:45. I live tweeted pretty much the whole thing, so if you have specific questions feel free to check that out over on twitter @RachelEiley, but nothing terribly spoilerish was said, someone asked if they could have any person in the DC universe, either existing in the Arrowverse or not yet onto the waverider to fill Stein’s spot who would it be, and Caity was basically like “well I know who it is and I’m very happy about it so I’m not gonna say anything else” lol which has prompted a fair amount of speculation as to who that means. In the room it seemed like everyone was thinking she meant Nyssa, but it’s not very much info to speculate on so I guess we’ll have to see. the other amusing exchange was when someone asked if they weren’t an actor what job they’d have an Caity was like “astronaut” and Brandon was like “do you know math?” which is obviously funnier than one would normally observe it to be when you consider they were in 400 Days together, a movie where they both played astronauts (and were each other’s romantic interests). Caity responded that it was a “dream” question, so she could say whatever she wanted. When the panel was over around 3:30 we ran back to Caity’s table, but the queue was full and the staff guy was like “sorry we had to cut it off here” and wouldn’t let anyone else in but I was like haha no fuck that shit if we all stand here and be annoying we’ll get on the line which, unsurprisingly, worked very well and we actually got on the gold/platinum VIP line and were like one of the first people to actually see her lol so that was a good plan!! But we got a few group selfies in that look really awesome and got to say goodbye to her (which is when the exchange about me saying maybe I’ll do Clexacon if I don’t flunk all my finals and her responding with my law school class rank happened). Everyone else was pretty much shutting things down at that point, so we hung out for a little bit and regrouped before heading out. We went to In-N-Out because I had mentioned I’d never had it before, and the place was absurdly busy, so we ended up eating at the tables outside despite it being like 50 degrees out, but it was nice and fun, a good ending to being with my friends for a few days and just had a good time with them. We were basically across the street from the airport at that point so I was dropped off afterwards and we said our goodbyes. I ended up chilling out at the gate for a while doing quimbee videos, which I’ll probably go back to if I have any time between finishing writing this and boarding the plane, for a while and doing that, then got on the plane and finished the first sudoku puzzle really quickly, then fucking up the next one so badly I couldn’t even correct my way out of it (which like, never happens) that I just gave up and read Captain Canary fan fiction for the rest of the flight, which of course got me feeling very invested in the ship, and then I just felt sad and couldn’t quite figure out why. But the plane landed, got off on the gate and was directed to a little bus thing to get to another terminal, in which a cute pilot gave me his seat, and then I went to the other terminal, found the gate, found a airplane pillow that wasn’t entirely made out of polyester, and planted myself at the gate until the plan boards and resolved to write this in the mean time, and here we are. Now, further analysis on the sad thing- so, obviously, I’ve been looking forward to this weekend for a while now and it being over and me having to leave my friends and of course not seeing my favorite celebrity for at least a few months would reasonably make any person feeling sad, I feel like it’s not that simple. I mean, the fact that I’m going back to finals certainly doesn’t help, and I do have some anxiety about that despite doing this exact schtick every semester with my head going “but what if this time you actually suck at tests not like all the last times????” which of course is always fun. but there’s also that whole nostalgia thing that’s got me itching for something. It came out of course because of being around actors who are living cool lives and such, and links back to that thing I was talking about but not actually mentioning a little while back that had be thinking some of those things, and mostly just imagining that kind of life for myself and feeling wholly unfulfilled with the life I’ve chosen at being a lawyer and it wasn’t supposed to happen this way, dammit!!! I can’t exactly graduate law school and decide to go road trip out to Hollywood and become a waitress while auditioning, that would be a massive waste of time, effort, and money, and there is still of course stuff I want to do as a lawyer that has me not wanting to give up. I just want both, which I don’t think is possible, and that fucking sucks. The thing, anyway, was auditioning for a new show in development (that I’ll leave unnamed for now because despite not hearing anything they haven’t filled the part yet) that was taking casting videos and self-tapes through one of the casting sites I made a profile on at some point during college and was receiving emails from about it. And, this is subjective of course, but I felt like I really nailed the audition (and even if I did there’s no reason to think that would make it likely that I would get what is undoubtedly going to be a highly competed for part and one of which I do not fit the typical character description for), and I couldn’t help but imagine how much fun it would be, even if some of the stuff about the show that’s being said now (mainly how dark it is) makes me think it probably wouldn’t be the best idea anyway (my parents, for sure, would have a freaking fit over it). But that just leaves me here- going back to law school to finish my finals and leaving my friends and favorite actors behind and I just feel profoundly SAD over it all despite having a really fun and all around amazing weekend (it doesn’t help that my friends are going to continue hanging out, but this doesn’t really feel like FOMO). idk what else there is to write about that. it just...is. and I don’t think any amount of writing about that will change it. so I guess I’ll go back to reading my sad fan fiction? I don’t quite feel like going back to studying for bus orgs being that it’s 12:30 am (here, anyway, at home where I’ll be in 5 hours it’s 2:30 am) and now I just feel tired and sad after writing all of that. blah. this is a really shitty feeling and I don’t know what to do about it. there’s no quick fixes for this, obviously. maybe if I fall asleep on the plane (I probably will at some point) I’ll wake up in a better mood, and hopefully can get some more sleep during the day before I have to go to my review session and then make up class at 4 pm. So I guess this is me signing off, though feeling not very happy about all of it. Goodnight babes. Happy Monday. 
5 notes · View notes
miami-web-designer · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
New Post has been published on http://miamiwebdesignbyniva.com/index.php/2019/03/19/5-reasons-legacy-brands-struggle-with-seo-and-what-to-do-about-them/
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I’ve seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn’t ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
It’s worth noting that stagnation is not the only possible state — sometimes brands can even be growing, but simply at a level far beneath the potential, you would expect from their offline ubiquity.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here’s how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale.”
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it’s a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn’t dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Source link
0 notes
readersforum · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
New Post has been published on http://www.readersforum.tk/5-reasons-legacy-brands-struggle-with-seo-and-what-to-do-about-them/
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Posted by Tom.Capper
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I’ve seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn’t ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
It’s worth noting that stagnation is not the only possible state — sometimes brands can even be growing, but simply at a level far beneath the potential, you would expect from their offline ubiquity.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here’s how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale.”
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it’s a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn’t dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes
toothextract · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Posted by Tom.Capper
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I’ve seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn’t ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
Given that large, well-known brands aren’t performing well, one would think that less known brands (brands that don’t fit the above description) would be closing the gap. But it’s the opposite. In fact, said brands are under-performing in organic and showing signs of stagnation — and they aren’t showing any signs of catching up.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here’s how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale.”
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it’s a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn’t dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!
from https://dentistry01.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/5-reasons-legacy-brands-struggle-with-seo-and-what-to-do-about-them/
0 notes
thanhtuandoan89 · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Posted by Tom.Capper
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I've seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn't ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
Given that large, well-known brands aren’t performing well, one would think that less known brands (brands that don’t fit the above description) would be closing the gap. But it’s the opposite. In fact, said brands are under-performing in organic and showing signs of stagnation — and they aren’t showing any signs of catching up.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here's how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale."
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it's a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn't dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes
liteblock · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Posted by Tom.Capper
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I've seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn't ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
Given that large, well-known brands aren’t performing well, one would think that less known brands (brands that don’t fit the above description) would be closing the gap. But it’s the opposite. In fact, said brands are under-performing in organic and showing signs of stagnation — and they aren’t showing any signs of catching up.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here's how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale."
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it's a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn't dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes
jiahaothakur · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Posted by Tom.Capper
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I've seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn't ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
Given that large, well-known brands aren’t performing well, one would think that less known brands (brands that don’t fit the above description) would be closing the gap. But it’s the opposite. In fact, said brands are under-performing in organic and showing signs of stagnation — and they aren’t showing any signs of catching up.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here's how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale."
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it's a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn't dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes
blogpassthings · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Posted by Tom.Capper
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I've seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn't ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
Given that large, well-known brands aren’t performing well, one would think that less known brands (brands that don’t fit the above description) would be closing the gap. But it’s the opposite. In fact, said brands are under-performing in organic and showing signs of stagnation — and they aren’t showing any signs of catching up.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here's how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale."
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it's a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn't dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes
calvinlarry2016 · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Posted by Tom.Capper
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I've seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn't ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
Given that large, well-known brands aren’t performing well, one would think that less known brands (brands that don’t fit the above description) would be closing the gap. But it’s the opposite. In fact, said brands are under-performing in organic and showing signs of stagnation — and they aren’t showing any signs of catching up.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here's how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale."
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it's a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn't dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes
nicholerets · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Posted by Tom.Capper
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I've seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn't ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
Given that large, well-known brands aren’t performing well, one would think that less known brands (brands that don’t fit the above description) would be closing the gap. But it’s the opposite. In fact, said brands are under-performing in organic and showing signs of stagnation — and they aren’t showing any signs of catching up.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here's how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale."
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it's a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn't dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes
carmenkleinundevot · 6 years ago
Text
5 Reasons Legacy Brands Struggle With SEO (and What to Do About Them)
Posted by Tom.Capper
Given the increasing importance of brand in SEO, it seems a cruel irony that many household name-brands seem to struggle with managing the channel. Yet, in my time at Distilled, I've seen just that: numerous name-brand sites in various states of stagnation and even more frustrated SEO managers attempting to prevent said stagnation. 
Despite global brand recognition and other established advantages that ought to drive growth, the reality is that having a household name doesn't ensure SEO success. In this post, I’m going to explore why large, well-known brands can run into difficulties with organic performance, the patterns I’ve noticed, and some of the recommended tactics to address those challenges.
What we talk about when we talk about a legacy brand
For the purposes of this post, the term “legacy brand” applies to companies that have a very strong association with the product they sell, and may well have, in the past, been the ubiquitous provider for that product. This could mean that they were household names in the 20th century, or it could be that they pioneered and dominated their field in the early days of mass consumer web usage. A few varied examples (that Distilled has never worked with or been contacted by) include:
Wells Fargo (US)
Craigslist (US)
Tesco (UK)
These are cherry-picked, potentially extreme examples of legacy brands, but all three of the above, and most that fit this description have shown a marked decline in the last five years, in terms of organic visibility (confirmed by Sistrix, my tool of choice — your tool-of-choice may vary). It’s a common issue for large, well-established sites — peaking in 2013 and 2014 and never again reaching those highs.
Given that large, well-known brands aren’t performing well, one would think that less known brands (brands that don’t fit the above description) would be closing the gap. But it’s the opposite. In fact, said brands are under-performing in organic and showing signs of stagnation — and they aren’t showing any signs of catching up.
The question is: why does it keep happening?
Reason 1: Brand
Quite possibly the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a brand’s performance is the brand itself. This may seem like a bit of an odd one — we’d already established that the companies we’re talking about are big, recognized, household names. That in and of itself should help them in SEO, right?
The thing is, though, a lot of these big household names are recognized, but they’re not the one-stop shops that they used to be.
Here's how the above name-brand examples are performing on search:
Other dominant, clearly vertical-leading brands in the UK, in general, are also not doing so well in branded search:
There’s a lot of potential reasons for why this may be — and we’ll even address some of them later — but a few notable ones include:
Complacency — particularly for brands that were early juggernauts of the web, they may have forgotten the need to reinforce their brand image and recognition.
More and more credible competitors. When you’re the only competent operator, as many of these brands once were, you had the whole pie. Now, you have to share it.
People trust search engines. In a lot of cases, ubiquitous brands decline, while the generic term is on the rise.
Check out this for the real estate example in the UK:
Rightmove and Zoopla are the two biggest brands in this space and have been for some time. There’s only one line there that’s trending upwards, though, and it’s the generic term, “houses for sale."
What can I do about this?
Basically, get a move on! A lot of incumbents have been very slow to take action on things like top-of-funnel content, or only produce low-effort, exceptionally dry social media posts (I’ve posted before about some of these tactics here.) In fairness, it’s easy to see why — these channels and approaches likely have the least measurable returns. However, leaving a vacuum higher in your funnel is playing with fire, especially when you’re a recognized name. It opens an opportunity for smaller players to close the gap in recognition — at almost no cost.
Reason 2: Tech debt
I’m sure many people reading this will have experienced how hard it can be to get technical changes — particularly higher effort ones — implemented by larger, older organizations. This can stem from complex bureaucracy, aging and highly bespoke platforms, risk aversion, and, particularly for SEO, an inability to get senior buy-in for what can often be fairly abstract changes with little guaranteed reward.
What can I do about this?
At Distilled, we run into these challenges fairly often. I’ve seen dev queues that span, literally, for years. I’ve also seen organizations that are completely unable to change the most basic information on their sites, such as opening times or title tags. In fact, it was this exact issue that prompted the development of our ODN platform a few years ago as a way to circumvent technical limitations and prove the benefits when we did so.
There are less heavy-duty options available — GTM can be used for a range of changes as the last resort, albeit without the measurement component. CDN-level solutions like Cloudflare’s edge workers are also starting to gain traction within the SEO community.
Eventually, though, it’s necessary to tackle the problem at the source — by making headway within the politics of the organization. There’s a whole other post to be had there, if not several, but basically, it comes down to making yourself heard without undermining anyone. I’ve found that focusing on the downside is actually the most effective angle within big, risk-averse bureaucracies — essentially preying on the risk-aversion itself — as well as shouting loudly about any successes, however small.
Reason 3: Not updating tactics due to long-standing, ingrained practices
In a way, this comes back to risk aversion and politics — after all, legacy brands have a lot to lose. One particular manifestation I’ve often noticed in larger organizations is ongoing campaigns and tactics that haven’t been linked to improved rankings or revenue in years.
One conversation with a senior SEO at a major brand left me quite confused. I recall he said to me something along the lines of “we know this campaign isn’t right for us strategically, but we can’t get buy-in for anything else, so it’s this or lose the budget”. Fantastic.
This type of scenario can become commonplace when senior decision-makers don’t trust their staff — often, it's a CMO, or similar executive leader, that hasn't dipped their toe in SEO for a decade or more. When they do, they are unpleasantly surprised to discover that their SEO team isn’t buying any links this week and, actually, hasn’t for quite some time. Their reaction, then, is predictable: “No wonder the results are so poor!”
What can I do about this?
Unfortunately, you may have to humor this behavior in the short term. That doesn’t mean you should start (or continue) buying links, but it might be a good idea to ensure there’s similar-sounding activity in your strategy while you work on proving the ROI of your projects.
Medium-term, if you can get senior stakeholders out to conferences (I highly recommend SearchLove, though I may be biased), softly share articles and content “they may find interesting”, and drown them in news of the success of whatever other programs you’ve managed to get headway with, you can start to move them in the right direction.
Reason 4: Race to the bottom
It’s fair to say that, over time, it’s only become easier to launch an online business with a reasonably well-sorted site. I’ve observed in the past that new entrants don’t necessarily have to match tenured juggernauts like-for-like on factors like Domain Authority to hit the top spots.
As a result, it’s become common-place to see plucky, younger businesses rising quickly, and, at the very least, increasing the apparent level of choice where historically a legacy business might have had a monopoly on basic competence.
This is even more complicated when price is involved. Most SEOs agree that SERP behavior factors into rankings, so it’s easy to imagine legacy businesses, which disproportionately have a premium angle, struggling for clicks vs. attractively priced competitors. Google does not understand or care that you have a premium proposition — they’ll throw you in with the businesses competing purely on price all the same.
What can I do about this?
As I see it, there are two main approaches. One is abusing your size to crowd out smaller players (for instance, disproportionately targeting the keywords where they’ve managed to find a gap in your armor), and the second is, essentially, Conversion Rate Optimization.
Simple tactics like sorting a landing page by default by price (ascending), having clicky titles with a value-focused USP (e.g. free delivery), or well targeted (and not overdone) post-sales retention emails — all go a long way to mitigating the temptation of a cheaper or hackier competitor.
Reason 5: Super-aggregators (Amazon, Google)
In a lot of verticals, the pie is getting smaller, so it stands to reason the dominant players will be facing a diminishing slice.
A few obvious examples:
Local packs eroding local landing pages
Google Flights, Google Jobs, etc. eroding specialist sites
Amazon taking a huge chunk of e-commerce search
What can I do about this?
Again, there are two separate angles here, and one is a lot harder than the other. The first is similar to some of what I’ve mentioned above — move further up the funnel and lock in business before this ever comes to your prospective client Googling your head term and seeing Amazon and/or Google above you. This is only a mitigating tactic, however.
The second, which will be impossible for many or most businesses, is to jump into bed with the devil. If you ever do have the opportunity to be a data partner behind a Google or Amazon product, you may do well to swallow your pride and take it. You may be the only one of your competitors left in a few years, and if you don’t, it’ll be someone else.
Wrapping up
While a lot of the issues relate to complacency, and a lot of my suggested solutions relate to reinvesting as if you weren’t a dominant brand that might win by accident, I do think it’s worth exploring the mechanisms by which this translates into poorer performance.
This topic is unavoidably very tinted by my own experiences and opinions, so I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Similarly, I’m conscious that any one of my five reasons could have been a post in its own right — which ones would you like to see more fleshed out?
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes