Where ads look like content, or people are willing to pay for ads as content you can make a lot of money, but if your website is about marketing, and you heavily place ads on it there is no way to know how much that is going to cost you.

Your Blog is Your Business Card:

I disagree with Jason Calacanis about many things on many levels, but I think this quote is spot on

I make money building profitable businesses, not selling ads on my business card (and that's what I consider my blog to be).

Selling Yourself Short:

Good select targeted advertising can be interesting and add value, but most back-fill advertising networks do not provide enough context to add as much value as they take away. AdSense now lets you place their ads alongside competing ones, but should you?

One of my recent AdSense campaigns matched some blog related keywords, and the ad was getting over 5,000,000 impressions a day for under $40.00. And Google is getting a cut on that too!

Does Your Optimization Factor in Invisible Costs?

What is one quality link worth? What is one reader worth? Due to limited market attention and the self reinforcing nature of networks anything that costs a few credibility points will have an increasing cost as time passes, but because it is a cost you don't see you may not be aware of it. If a reporter does not call you will you see that costs? How many other reporters may have called you but did not because you did not get mentioned in that first article? Did you miss out on business or life changing relationships or feedback because your site was too focused on the short term?

Anyone Can Steal Attention:

The cost may not matter now, but when you want to spread ideas it is going to be much harder to do if people do not already know an trust you. The guy who copied my about page (who even came off as a liar in his apology) is blogging about how his Alexa went up (temporarily) and how smart he thinks he is, but it makes me wonder When you have to steal to get exposure do you think it makes you look smart or worth trusting?

It is easy to lie or cheat or steal once or twice or to do it anonymously, but it gets much harder to do repeatedly to people you know. And you surround people who think and act like you do, so if your foundation is based on stealing you are fighting an uphill battle.

Perception is Reality:

It is not an issue of who is better than who, or even who is right or wrong - but do people trust you? Many current market leaders are there not because of amazing intellect or great work, but more because of slowly building trust and being around for a while.

Trust & Intense Relationships:

As Seth says

LinkedIn tends to make networks that are sprawling and weak. Web4 is about smaller, far more intense connections with trusted colleagues and their activities.

Imagine violently emotional feelings that make it hard to walk or talk or do anything. People that make you cry or laugh so hard it hurts. To get in those types of relationships people have to trust you. Some people get there from a few lucky home runs, but most people build that trust slowly over time.

It seems everyone is writing an article about linkbait right now. Hi Todd, Rand, and Nick!

All the articles are great stuff, and today is a great day to get started with linkbait. It can seem a bit overwhelming off the start, but if you try a few times just about any creative person can make the Digg homepage in well under a month. A friend of mine started a Digg account less than 2 weeks ago and makes the homepage almost every day now. And even Forbes is getting into link baiting.

What is the best way to let them know? Recently I read this charming review

all I can seem to think about is the distaste left in my mouth from my last ebook purchase. I bought this seo ebook and it pissed me off so bad I don’t even want to give you an aff backlink for it. ... it took me two minuts on blogs and in the forums to learn just as much as I did in that stupid 385 page book

Hope those forums will teach you a lot about rewriting the content of those you flame, and pawning the content off as your own. You really need a bit more work on that front.

From my about page

Balancing answering emails, blogging, reading blogs and forums, buying and developing sites, working for a couple customers, and running Threadwatch is pretty hard - especially with zero employees. In the past SEO Book was more about posting search news, but since the market has got so saturated on that front and I acquired the Threadwatch community I have decided to keep Threadwatch focused on the latest search news and speculation, and to use SEO Book to answer customer questions and to offer online marketing strategy tips.

From his about page

Balancing answering emails, blogging, reading blogs and forums, buying and developing sites, working for a couple customers, and running my affiliate business is pretty hard - especially with zero employees.

In the past Nerdville was more about posting Affiliate product reviews, but since the market has got so saturated on that front and I have moved on to different industries I have decided to keep posting focused on the latest search and affiliate marketing news and speculation, answer customer questions and to offer online marketing strategy tips.

I guess emulation is a form of flattery.

Normally I wouldn't care much about a few people being jerks, but as my blog has got more popular the human to jerk ratio has drastically changed (especially over the past couple months), and I think the best way to curb it is to remind the jerks what they are from time to time. Coupled with moving across the country and working on some amazing projects I really don't have much time for these jerks, so from time to time I will just mention them that way I don't carry their words with me.

I am sure this is unconventional and against best practices, but if people are going to steal my content then flame me for my content quality I should remind them how lowly they think of themselves. At least they could steal content from a site they like.

BusinessWeek published an article about small advertisers being priced out of AdWords. Given quality score adjustments that may boost ads for sites which have strong trust associated organic SEO, it is prohibitively expensive for many businesses to use AdWords unless they are already well trusted in organic search.

What Types of Sites Rank?

The sites which are already well represented in organic search typically fall into one or more of the following groups

• old

• has many signs of authority (new and old links, repeat visitors, brand related search queries)
• associated with a rich powerful offline entity
• unique & remarkable

News Sites as God

News sites tend to fit all 4 of those categories, plus get additional easy linkage data by writing about current events and being included in select indexes like Google News, and have many other advantages. The bias toward promoting large trusted sites which are already overrepresented in the organic results starts to look even uglier when news outfits are

• writing for Google (as noted in the NYT's This Boring Headline Is Written for Google)

• creating high ranking lead generation pages that leverage their domain authority (like this one http://www.bizjournals.com/resources/bad-credit-debt-consolidation-loan....)
• buying up keywords, as reported in the Wall Street Journal

From the WSJ:

Britain's famously competitive newspapers have a new battleground: Google. ... Newspapers are buying search words on Google Inc. so that links to their Web sites pop up first when people type in a search. ... Paying to put their stories in front of readers by buying Google ads -- a practice the papers say has intensified in recent months -- is different from past marketing efforts

In spite of Google claiming otherwise, there is a direct connection between buying AdWords and ranking in the organic search results. If a news article is read by a few more people and gets just a few more links off the start it will become the default article about that topic and acquire many self reinforcing links.

Why Would Google Trust News Sites so Much?

• Most news sites have some type of editorial controls and are typical hard for the average webmaster to significantly influence.

• Most people think what they are told to (and the media is who tells us what to think about). Thus if Google returns a rough reflection of what we should think they are seen as relevant and unbiased.
• Most news sites are associated with economic macro-parasites - not micro-parasites. Google is far more afraid of death by 1,000s of small cuts than by trusting any given domain too much.
• It is mainstream media which makes up a large foundation of Google's index and power. Google is killing off many of the inefficient monopoly based business models, and is thus trying to throw the media scraps to keep the media bought into Google's worldview.
• It is easier for Google to organize information if they allow their algorithms to cause their search results to parallel offline authority structures.

Crawl Delay Has Cost:

Danny Sullivan recently commented about how Digg outranked him for his own headline because his website is newer and less trusted than Digg.

Google has become less willing to regularly crawl and rank sites unless they are aged or have a significantly developed editorial link campaign associated with them. If your site gets indexed slower then your content needs to be much more remarkable to be linkworthy, thus if have not built up significant trust this is a penalty / cost you need to overcome.

Sure Google may say they do not offer paid inclusion, but requiring a huge authoritative link profile or years of aging is associated with costs. They may not have paid Google directly, but Google's algorithms do require that most people pay, in one way or another.

And if you can't get past that crawl delay problem, you can always buy AdWords.

Joe Sinkwitz, also known as Cygnus, has a great post explaining how the polarized view of SEO is quite naive and inaccurate in nature. Rather than explaining SEO as black or white, a more accurate representation of the SEO market is those who can think laterally, and those who can not.

A lateral thinking SEO will do what makes sense within the explained rules, but will then say to him or herself "I'm in a competitive industry" and/or "This is not an established brand", and then follow up with a very important "What can I do that will set myself apart within a search engine's algorithm?" If you dumb down what a search engine is to the level of a single database with a single data table, and a couple hundred fields, then it is easier to see what is happening. At any given point of time in an algorithm's evolution (yes, they evolved, get over it…from bubblesort no less!) certain variables are going to be weighed more heavily than others, and some that fall into certain ranges are going to be treated as red-flags.

Go read Joe's post.

Where Did Lateral Thinking Come From?

Edward De Bono coined the term lateral thinking. There is a Wikipedia article and are numerous books on the subject as well.

How Does Lateral Thinking Apply to SEO?

Common SEO lateral thinking questions:

• why the hell is that crappy site ranking (and how can I replicate the results with limited risk or effort)

• how did they get that sweet link (and how can I get similar sweet links)
• how can I make that person (or group) want to link to me (and would it be worth the associated costs)
• how can I write a second page on this topic without looking like a spammer
• is this person naive enough to link at me if I flame them? (and if I wanted to could I get that story and link equity to spread beyond that)
• when, how, and who should I ask for feedback on this project
• do I have enough brand equity to where I can be a bit more aggressive without adding much risk to my marketing
• would this link lead to secondary citations
• how can I leverage this news coverage to lead to more links
• would this link buy pass a hand check
• will more aggressive spammers find this and be able to replicate it? (if so, how long will it be before this site has its outbound link authority nuked?)
• does this page have enough authority to keep ranking even if I alter its format or purpose?
• how might people react if I buy this keyword
• how can I ensure this powerful page linking to me stays in the search index without looking like a spammer
• if I buy their stuff and leave a testimonial would they be willing to link at my site
• if I factor in the value of the testimonial link, is the site design still expensive?
• how can I spin a story so it spreads as far as possible
• how can I put a unique spin on something that is already spreading
• would posting this undermine my credibility more than it would boost my link authority
• is it worth getting this site more exposure, or will doing so drastically alter the risk reward ratio in a negative way
• is this site worth more as a link source, a credibility source, or a direct income stream? or how should I optimally mix those?
• do I have enough authority to make this local site a statewide or nationwide one? if no, what would be the cost of building that authority
• how can I relate my site to this more profitable subject without looking like a spammer

Linguistics vs Profits:

It doesn't really matter weather or not you are a spammer. What matters is public perception, cost (in terms of time, money, happiness, opportunity, and attention), and the risk reward ratio of any action.

There are spots out there where you can get free high value links. There are spots where you can do $2 a month link buys for trusted links that do not look like link buys. There are spots that you can publish content to that will rank nearly immediately.

Everything associated with SEO is margin based. What are the risks and what are the opportunity costs if I do x? If you employ lateral thinking skills your margins are typically going to be better than someone who does not.