You must login or register!
Inbound.org uses Twitter to register and create accounts. Your Twitter handle will also be your username here on Inbound and registration/login will enable you to submit content, post comments and create/edit your Inbound profile. Use the button below to verify your Twitter account.
Login or Register
IMHO all industries go through this cycle at one point or another. Some of them go through it multiple times. And it's a good, healthy conversation to have, esp. when folks don't freak out and go ninja/pirate/robot on each other.
IMHO Internet marketing is even worse than inbound marketing. It's so broad it doesn't mean anything at all really other than marketing that is not print or billboard advertising. Also marketing suggests a focus solely on commercial endeavors and sales. Optimization goes far beyond that. That said I agree that inbound marketing can't replace SEO.
I submitted this post because I think it's good to have these conversations. However I don't agree with Ian. I don't think "Internet marketing" is a good enough term as it has too big of a meaning.
I'm with you. I voted the article up because it's an important discussion. But I think "internet marketing" is way too broad too. It doesn't really say anything.
I think this was a great post. Ian has some very good points contesting Rand's view on the subject. I would have to agree with Ian on this one and prefer Internet Marketing. It just doesn't seem necessary to create a new term to encompass the specific functions of internet marketing that Rand lists. Just because Internet Marketing encompasses more than just SEO, SM, CRO, etc, doesn't mean it has to be ruled out as a descriptor for this set of skills/marketing tactics. I guess I don't understand why you can't use Internet Marketing and then go on to describe what you or your site/application specializes in. If we go above and beyond to expand our skill sets and applications to things outside of SEO such as CRO, why do we have to stop at paid forms of marketing such as PPC? If you are going to specialize in SEO, then do just that. If you want to expand to cover these other tactics to increase you or your company's value, then you aren't specializing in one specific thing anymore and you should be able to handle all forms of internet marketing (at least the good ones). I think if you stop at a certain point, someone else will come along and do all those things and more, providing more value than you or your company can. Maybe I just don't get it.
Semantic arguments are good ways to sharpen thinking and to cut to the core of what's valuable, why it's different and why that difference matters. I think Ian's take on this is a helpful counter to the common pitfalls of surrounding yourself with like-minded folks. If those of us who already accept "inbound marketing" as gospel are deaf to the majority of marketers who are already overwhelmed, we risk alienating them by underinvesting in education and concrete examples. It's good to remember that most people haven't really latched on to the "inbound marketing" language. The more crisp we can be about what matters about it the more successful we can be at helping marketers accomplish their goals.
I voted the article because I am an "Ianner", a fan whatever he writes :). And because he indirectly cited my answers to his comment (re: the nature of inbound as not including "paid marketing" but just "earned"). Said that, and respecting his point of view, I agree to disagree with him (maybe for the first time), as I consider that Inbound Marketing, defined as a strategy which use harmonically tactics like content and social marketing, SEO and CRO (and partly email marketing), is really fitting what should be the correct way to earn qualified organic traffic. And, thinking now about the bazillions comments the Rand post received, what surprised me was how people forgot quite easily that Rand was stating clearly that Inbound Marketing is not a substitution of SEO.