This infographic from DIYSEO on search engine optimization return on investment may raise more questions than it actually answers. I'm always suspicious when I see a blanket statement that one channel is better than all the rest… as if you should abandon every other medium? Here are some observations:
- Was this simply measured off of a single campaign? In other words… as they are measuring the impact of email marketing, are they adding in the lifetime value of the subscriber and the subsequent purchases they will make down the road? I think they may have missed that!
- Based on two sites, this is the conclusion for all businesses? I think not!
- How well was their pay-per-click program? How old was it? What was their ad score? Did they tie specific messages to specific, conversion optimized landing pages to maximize the returns?
- How competitive were the keyword terms and how long did it take to get the company to rank well?
- Did the investment in SEO include the cost of all of the content, design and promotion of the site in addition to simply optimizing it?
I have no doubt that SEO should be a dominant factor in any online marketing strategy. Over time, with on-site optimization and off-site promotion, a company can significantly increase the number of leads, the quality of those leads, and drive the cost per lead down to maximize a Return on Investment. IMO, though, this infographic may lead some people to a different conclusion.