James Carson   Mar 30 2012   Flag

While I've got big respect for Rand and I've enjoyed so much of his content over the years, the obsession with splitting inbound from outbound, saying one is more effective than the other needs to stop really. Slides 28-30 just look like a dis of paid media. Whatever your thoughts on this matter, marketing works best when it works together.

Rand Fishkin   Mar 31 2012   Flag

Out of context, I can totally see how that could be a takeaway. My perspective on interruption vs. inbound is this: Use what works, but bias to inbound if you can, especially if you're a startup, because it makes the cost of customer acquisition lower and builds additional efficiency/synergy with every other marketing effort. The distribution of clicks to marketing dollars on the web is incredibly lopsided (almost all the marketing spend is on paid but almost all the clicks are on organic/inbound). I think that's a field that's ripe for disruption and I'm passionate about sharing that potential with others. I've also found that to craft a great story and create that same passion, having a villain helps. Since I personally dislike interruption marketing when it's used on me, I like using it as the villain in the story, too. That said, I'm fully aware that paid/interruption marketing works and shouldn't be ignored. SEOmoz itself spends ~$1mm/year on it and we have a decent ROI from those efforts.

Reynder   May 10 2012   Flag

I'm also a big fan of Inbound marketing, I must say, especially when you are a start up, that Inbound marketing can be less efffective. Inbound marketing rocks when a brand is supported by good corporate strategy/ brand marketing. Interruptive marketing can support this when it is in sync with inbound marketing and vica versa.

Alex Cook   Mar 30 2012   Flag

"I want to be proud of my work. Am I making the Internet a better place?"