SEO is dead? More like a zombie.

I promised myself I wouldn’t. But I must.

Reuters writer Deborah Cohen took the path literally hundreds have taken before. Asking, albeit in roundabout fashion,  about the death of SEO with an overused headline, “Is SEO DOA?” and a lede that only a mother could love.

Ron Springer is overhauling his company’s website and is spending a big chunk of his marketing budget to help boost its search engine ranking. He had no idea he might be throwing his money away on an outdated strategy.

Entrepreneurs like Springer may want to reconsider pouring money into search engine optimization (SEO) as their primary marketing strategy, according to Chris Dixon, who recently penned a controversial blog, titled: “SEO is no longer a viable marketing strategy for startups”.

Poor Ron Springer? Poor readers who read through this nonsense.

While the article gains some momentum (and common sense), I couldn’t get past the strawman Ms. Cohen set up and thoroughly knocked down in the opening paragraphs.

Who thinks SEO should be the entire marketing budget or core strategy?

Really? In 2011?

Humblebrag/clarification time. I’ve worked with “SEO” in a variety of settings. I’ve worked with (and as) freelance SEOs. I’ve worked at an SEO shop. I’ve worked as an SEO in two very different agency settings. I’ve worked with very large organizations and with start-ups. Not even in my early days, did we recommend or want clients that utilized their entire marketing budget on SEO.

It never ends well. Haven’t we moved on from this?

Where is the outrage for spending budgets on email marketing and email-only shops? Can we pronounce email DOA? What about those brands who bet on social, only to revert back to traditional advertising a year later?

With the exception of SEO’s who are nothing but link-builders, SEO has to touch and be a part of something. Like the website. You know, only the most important marketing asset your company owns and encompasses your entire brand online. So when Ms. Cohen discusses SEO conferences touching other marketing disciplines, she acts as if it’s some recent occurrence. Post-2001, onsite SEO has to incorporate other parts of marketing. Has to.

But back to poor Ron Springer. I have no idea his situation, budget or goals. But it appears that he needed a redesign, and his current site didn’t have SEO in mind, so he built an SEO-friendly site.

How can this possibly be a bad thing?

So many sites and businesses would benefit if their design, content and marketing incorporated SEO best practices. Perhaps the year before, he fixed his product. Or brand. Maybe now is the first time he could incorporate SEO into his marketing budget.

I’ve learned that the majority who claim SEO is dead, or no longer works or doesn’t cure cancer, really didn’t have a firm understanding of all the niches that SEO encompasses or helps. I have no doubt Ms. Cohen or Chris Dixon, the entrepreneur she brings into the discussion, had the best of intentions.

But they’ve bought into the idea that SEO is some magic ball of technical secrecy. An idea no different than the snake oil salesmen who pervade the SEO industry.

If you’re website sucks, SEO isn’t going to help.

If your product sucks, SEO isn’t going to help.

If your brand sucks, SEO isn’t going to help.

If you replace “SEO” with “social media” or “email” or “people stuffed in animal costumes on the street,” no one would argue. Yet when SEO doesn’t have an immediate ROI for a start-up, people like Chris Dixon throw it under the bus.

Who’s surprised new, often unproven technologies are not something everyday Americans are searching for?

At the end of the day, most product searches still start with the search bar. Which is why SEO will continue to be relevant.

Flickr photo by extranoise