• by August 22, 2008

Dave Pasternack's post asks, why do all SEM agencies sound the same -- then goes on to make the point that all SEM agencies are dysfunctional.

Some observations.

1. SEM is new. After 60 years of TV advertising, we still have lousy advertising agencies. SEM in its current form is no more than 6/7 years old.

2. The clients have nobody to blame but themselves when it comes to jargon and unintelligibility. Marketing departments love jargon. Marketing departments love the mysticism of their art. Try telling a client that the problem they can't crack has a simple solution and they feel you're pulling the wool over their eyes.

I have a one-page pitch. I try it from time to time. Clients are aghast how simple search engine marketing sounds. Most of my pitches consist of 6 pages. No more. Occasionally I'm shown the 55-page pitches of competitors.

3. There's only one objective benchmark: Does the SEM agency add value to the client's business beyond the time and money required to implement the SEM agency's program? You can use ROI, ROE (expenditure) or even an old-fashioned project appraisal benchmark called "payback." For my best clients, this can be measured in days, with years of almost free cashflow to follow. Does that sound like a typical SEM agency benchmark?