Many times the push for search marketing in a company is driven by one person or a small team, desperate to show the rest of the company the value of this marketing opportunity.
Perhaps the most common misunderstanding about search, and thus argument against it, is from companies that feel like they can only serve a local area. To them, search seems too far reaching, too global to justify the expense.
I can’t argue, there is some validity to that. A well designed site, rich in content, and based on solid, fundamental coding practice, can gain position for a wide variety of search queries, even those outside the scope of a professionally implemented campaign. This will put a website in front of potentially thousands of people who may not be able to work with that company right away.
I think this is seen as a waste by many regionally based organizations. They would never run a traditional marketing campaign that didn’t specifically target potential customers in the home market.
This argument is a little bit flawed. The focus is too much on potential clients that can’t be served, rather than those that can and will be served. Well executed geo-targeted campaigns are successful. An ancillary benefit of the campaign is increased exposure for the company outside the region. Rather than a waste, this is a bonus.
The increased visibility works to reinforce the brand. I’m not sure creating an interest in, and a demand for, a company is a negative. Further, by establishing a reputation nationally, many companies will reap benefits close to home. They’ll be recognized among industry leaders and customers will have more confidence in the company.
Any reputable shop that designs a regional campaign will present a strategy and budget appropriate for reaching the local audience. Any thing that falls outside of that scope becomes ‘free’ traffic, not wasted traffic.