
SEOs are Growth Hackers - fryed7
http://www.johnfdoherty.com/seos-growth-hackers/
======
scottkrager
Growth Marketers? Sure. Growth Hackers? Very rarely.

I love your posts John, but "Hacker" implies a level of coding in my opinion,
and I think most here on HN would agree.

As someone who talks to a few dozen SEOs a week, 99% of them cannot code in a
fashion needed to be a "Growth Hacker". It's not that they can't contribute to
growth, it's just that the traditional methods SEOs use (content, technical
fixes, social) would not be considered hacks, but just solid online marketing.

~~~
JeremyMorgan
I think people need to start breaking out of their current modes of thinking,
and this article represents that. SEOs and Developers have more goals in
common than people realize, and the approach is very similar. As long as we're
talking about real SEOs, not these "guaranteed spots on Google" jokers, but
people like John.

SEOs are there to solve a problem. The problem of course is much deeper than
getting your site noticed. It's a vision consisting of strategies with the
following goals:

The Basics:

1\. Get the most traffic from search engines you can (obviously)

2\. Ensure the traffic you get is from the people you want to reach

3\. Ensure that you are providing what searchers are looking for

4\. Try to build a brand and a vision people can understand

5\. Build an audience that will keep returning to your site

Now these things are solid online marketing, sure but there are other goals
too, that are more "hacker" in nature.

6\. Perform analytics to find out which methods are working

7\. Finding the most optimum content to attract new traffic

8\. Find what landing pages are creating customers

9\. Finding the most optimum paths to lead to engagement

Now this is starting to sound like hacking. We're all problem solvers here.
This is gathering information and using it to get the best results possible.
Like optimizing routines to save cycles.

As a developer, what are you trying to do for a company?

1\. Build software that solves problems for the most people possible (usually)

2\. Ensure that your software is targeted towards the people who need it

3\. Ensuring your software is solving their problems effectively

4\. Making the user interface as effective as it can be (usually by some form
of analytics)

5\. Finding the best ways to save cycles and utilize hardware (again found
with analytics)

Do you see the parallels? This is exactly why I keep one foot in SEO, and one
foot in Web Development, because they seem like entirely separate disciplines,
but they have more in common than not. The name of the game here is
optimization, and both fields strive for optimizing an experience.

Calling someone a software "hacker" means they learn as much as they can about
a process and refine it. Tweak, push, pull and stretch. They optimize software
to better meet the needs of those who use it. A SEO is a "hacker" because they
optimize the website to meet the needs of those who use it. It's not about
writing code, it's about finding ways to do more with less.

This is what I gather he's trying to say.

~~~
williamcotton
You're overloading the term to the point of it being meaningless.

------
allforJesse
Strongly disagree -- [http://www.johnfdoherty.com/seos-growth-
hackers/#comment-117...](http://www.johnfdoherty.com/seos-growth-
hackers/#comment-11777)

[for your convenience]: I definitely agree that growth hacking has a lot of
overlap with SEO and Inbound Marketing, but I think there are a couple of
critical distinctions:

For one thing, Growth Hackers have to be _the_ expert across a huge number of
platforms, because of the environment they work in. Growth Hackers are most
prevalent in startups, where they wont have the convenience of a larger team
of specialists. A 10-man startup (still relatively small) the Growth Hacker
has to be able to do the SEO, the Analytics, the CRO, the Social, the PPC, the
Retargeting, the Media, and be on the bleeding edge of new customer
acquisition technologies as they arrive. New team members may take on some of
this work as the startup grows, but for the most part, it’s all Growth Hacker.

The other distinction is implementation. A Growth Hacker needs to be able to
code, or it’s a dilution of the term — a Growth Hacker who can’t code at least
a little is a Growth Strategist, still a highly valuable team member, but a
different animal.

The reason this is so important is that in a startup environment, the team is
always going to be maxing out their bandwidth. A Growth Hacker can hatch a new
plan, and then start building it, bringing in other team members as they’re
available.

A Growth Strategist on the other hand is utterly at the mercy of the other
members of their team — if everyone is super busy (and they will be) new
growth hacks can take forever to be enacted, and that can spell death for a
startup.

I totally agree that the SEO skillset overlaps with growth hacking, but I
think it’s a mistake to equate them 1:1 — any SEO worth his salt stands
partway down the yellow brick road that leads to Growth Hackerdom, but there
are many leagues to go before we reach the emerald city.

~~~
dohertyjf
Great points, Jesse, but you're also insinuating that: 1) Marketers/SEOs
specifically cannot code; 2) SEOs/online marketers can't do all of the things
you mentioned (Analytics, CRO, social, PPC, retargeting).

I absolutely agree on the implementation part, but we can build some pretty
cool stuff. Though as a consultant you're always at the whim of the client to
get it implemented, no matter what.

We're also getting back to the "What is an SEO" discussion, which I'm tired
of. SEO is so much more than linkbuilding. It touches content, CRO, social,
analytics, email, everything. And we need to recognize that, otherwise we'll
be marginalized and made ineffective quickly.

~~~
allforJesse
Perhaps I mis-insinuated, the implication I'd intended was that _most_ SEOs
can't code. There are absolutely many that can, but it seems problematic to
imply that SEOs as a rule are growth hackers, when many (if not most) lack a
good number of the required skills.

Totally agree on the exhausted subject of what is SEO, so let's not beat a
dead horse.

------
laurentoget
Read in a french accent, it becomes, "SEOs are gross hackers", which is
certainly what comes to mind when you have to muddle through a page of
w3schools or some other SEO pumped spam-sites results on your way to some
actual content.

Some have said that SEOs were not hackers because they could not code, I would
argue they are not hackers because their work is all about decreasing the
signal/noise ratio for the sake of profit. Hackers should know better.

For hackers the web is a way to free information, not a gimmick to make a
quick buck by polluting other people's information streams.

~~~
blauwbilgorgel
Perhaps you focus too much on the bad apples? Anyone can call himself/herself
an SEO, just like the barrier to entry for programming jobs is low. Not every
programmer writes malware, just like not every SEO creates spam sites.

At least two major things you gloss over, don't give SEO's enough credit for
is: 1) Analytics and market research 2) Accessibility.

Improving quality of content and on-page SEO follows well established
accessibility guidelines. SEO's can make sites better for all users: humans
AND search bots. With a fine SEO'd site, you'd be able to navigate it and
consume it, while being blind, drunk or using noscript.

If you have a good (online) product or service, it would be a crime against
the efforts that went into creating them, to forget SEO and online marketing.
You'd be decreasing the perceived value. You'd give the edge to your
competition.

The grossness from SEO comes from people that know just enough SEO techniques,
but not how to properly implement them. They hear: Links increase ranking, so
they start blog spamming links. Or they hear: fresh content does well in
search engines, so they article spin some RSS feeds.

Search engines are for the most part black boxes, even to white hat SEO's. To
play it safe you have to align yourself with the vision of Google. To study
their papers and patents. To follow their engineers every word. To predict
their next moves. To test out your hypothesis. Familiarize yourself with new
(sometimes undocumented) mark-up etc.

Yet good SEO practice hasn't changed all that much in the recent years. Adhere
to the Google Webmaster Guidelines [1] and the Stanford Credibility Guidelines
[2] and you'll get mighty far. Both sets of guidelines increase the quality
and the profit part is indirect.

[1]
[http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...](http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769)
[2] <http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html>

------
austenallred
I love the information in the post - some valuable marketing strategies are in
there. But the main point the author is making? I don't get it.

As a marketer I love the idea of "growth hacking" - manipulating existing
systems for the purpose of growth and customer acquisition. But I'm confused
by the new mantra growth hackers are using to define themselves. "Growth
hacking is, at its essence, data driven marketing..." Seriously? Who the hell
has been marketing without data?

There are some really cool hacks that SEOs can use. .GOV and .EDU links are
valued much more highly than normal sites - how can you get those links? I've
seen some dirty yet beautiful tricks. Building out blog networks with DNS's
linked to different IPs in order to manipulate Google - though rarely worth it
(trying to out-engineer Google isn't my cup of tea), it's also impressive, and
definitely hacking. Creative and unique ways to get press from out-of-your-
league sources? Sure, that's a form of social hacking.

But A/B testing? Using proper markup? "Hooking your app into a network like
Facebook?" Call it proficiency if you like, you can define it as expertise,
I'll even give you savvy, but it's not hacking. Calling it hacking turns into
a giant "we're hackers too!" circle-jerk.

Again, I reiterate that there is some solid stuff in the post. But using that
information as evidence that SEO is growth hacking just doesn't make sense.

------
programminggeek
SEOs should be a laser focused thing, but it is more likely a catch all title
for "internet marketers" and the industry seems to be fairly good at latching
on to any buzzword in the online marketing world. SEOs last big bandwagon was
social media gurus, especially on twitter. Now Growth Hackers? Um... yay... :(

~~~
dohertyjf
Actually we openly hated on social media "gurus", but we respect social media
marketers who know what they are talking about.

I'm the only "SEO" I know talking about SEO and growth hacking. I wouldn't say
we're latching onto it. Most SEOs seem to disagree with me anyways.

~~~
johnmurch
I secondly hate on social media "gurus" as well as SEOers who can't code (or
at least read html).

IMHO: Growth Hacking is just Inbound Marketing for startups. Going from 0
users to 1MM+. You leverage all the online marketing skills: seo, ppc, email,
display (retargeting), ux, social, cro, etc.

BTW, nice post John - glad to see it on here as well as inbound.

------
quad10
I find the term growth hacker comical. And it brought to mind these gimmicky
attraction seeking roadside characters. There is value in having a clever
developer that can quickly build an interface and make a query to target a
market, but it is still marketing.

WRT SEO's being "growth hackers" by definition, I think is incorrect. I
struggle to call the function even marketing as it is more pure advertising.
The only analogy of a "growth hacker" in the SEO space I can think of would be
those search bar installers that millions of people downloaded from looking
for "smilies" and simultaneously installed a toolbar which re-wrote the
organic search results a few years back.

For more perspective on how I feel about "growth hackers".
<http://quad10.com/the-latest-sensation-a-growth-hacker/>

------
gailees
I think the biggest difference is that Growth Hackers aim to hit much less
saturated verticals that are completely disjoint from traditional search
engine optimization and marketing.

------
JimWestergren
A lot of overlap but not the same. CRO is not really considered SEO and is big
part of growth hacking for example. But with the term Inbound Marketer I agree
more.

------
kapilkale
Growth hackers need to be inbound marketers, but most inbound marketers are
not growth hackers.

------
languagehacker
Aw, cute. People in performance marketing want to be called "hackers" now.

------
dangerboysteve
by growth hacker, in reference to SPAM i would agree.

~~~
dohertyjf
LOLz. SEO = spam. I see what did there.

I'm tired of that argument. Read some real SEO blogs and you'll see that it's
not. Do the investigation.

~~~
laurentoget
Sorry your feelings are hurt, man.

Real hackers build spam filters and search engine so people can find the
information they are looking for. Spewing spam and tricking the search engines
to prefer your content are two facets of the same disease.

~~~
sheraz
Real hackers are on both sides of the spam game. There is too much money for
smart people to not do it.

For a short time I worked for a company who was very spammy and outright
sketchy. They had a team of dev and ops people who cranked out hundreds of
millions of emails and "free ipod ads" per day.

There were heavy API integrations with Commission Junction and the porn
affiliate networks, redundant systems, and all that. I leaned a lot in the 45
days I worked there.

All of them "hackers" in this sense. They got the job done, and it worked. But
I hated every minute of it.

~~~
laurentoget
I used the word hackers as defined in McKenzie Wark's 'Hacker Manifesto' (
<http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html> ).

01\. There is a double spooking the world, the double of abstraction. The
fortunes of states and armies, companies and communities depend on it. All
contending classes - the landlords and farmers, the workers and capitalists -
revere yet fear the relentless abstraction of the world on which their
fortunes yet depend. All the classes but one. The hacker class.

02\. Whatever code we hack, be it programming language, poetic language, math
or music, curves or colourings, we create the possibility of new things
entering the world. Not always great things, or even good things, but new
things. In art, in science, in philosophy and culture, in any production of
knowledge where data can be gathered, where information can be extracted from
it, and where in that information new possibilities for the world are
produced, there are hackers hacking the new out of the old. While hackers
create these new worlds, we do not possess them. That which we create is
mortgaged to others, and to the interests of others, to states and
corporations who control the means for making worlds we alone discover. We do
not own what we produce - it owns us.

03\. And yet we don't quite know who we are. While we recognise our
distinctive existence as a group, as programmers, as artists or writers or
scientists or musicians, we rarely see these ways of representing ourselves as
mere fragments of a class experience that is still struggling to express
itself as itself, as expressions of the process of producing abstraction in
the world. Geeks and freaks become what they are negatively, through their
exclusion by others. Hackers are a class, but an abstract class, a class as
yet to hack itself into manifest existence as itself.

