As a marketer I constantly feel the pressure of driving results. Many of my clients want to see positive results early in the campaign. In practice, however, results take time – particularly when dealing with organic results driven by an optimization campaign. So how can I explain to prospective clients that the long road is the right road for them? In a millennium where instant gratification is the modus operandi, facts and examples can be your best friend. If you find yourself in a similar situation, remember the story of Seikaly & Stewart.
In 2012, a law firm out of Farmington Hills, Michigan sought professional marketing services to bolster their firm’s online presence. Their research lead them to a Phoenix based firm, the Rainmaker Institute, which claimed to be “the nation’s largest law-firm marketing provider” (BCGSearch.com, 2014). The firm wanted the Rainmaker Institute to bolster their 3 websites by link building and creating content, including maintaining a blog. Stephen Fairley, the founder and CEO of the Rainmaker Institute, agreed to the contract price of $49,000 to complete the proposed tasks. A year later, in July of 2013, Seikaly & Stewart filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) case against the Rainmaker Institute, alleging that they were sold a product that Fairley knew violated Google’s guidelines and would result in penalties to the company’s websites. So what is it that the Rainmaker Institute did, exactly?
Like everything else in life, search engine optimization has both good and bad ways of achieving results. We call them ‘white hat’ or ‘black hat’ tactics, which refer to ethical or unethical means of operation. Some examples of black hat practices include hiding disguising links within content, duplicating content, trading links, or plagiarizing content – all of which Rainmaker Institute was alleged to have knowingly done. Rather than focusing on keywords, drafting original blog content, and earning backlinks through proper channels, the marketing giant created a link farm (a software program that provided a large collection of irrelevant links), producing approximately 6720 links to one site (neglecting to link to the other two sites contracted). Of the 6720 links created, only 188 links were deemed to have any value (Sterling, 2014). Additionally, Rainmaker Institute utilized duplicate blog content across several sites – not just sites that were under contract as a part of the Seikaly deal, but across all of their client’s sites (Smith, 2017). As a result the law firm was penalized by Google – rendering the $49,000 spent entirely useless and triggering the lawsuit.
These types of tactics will eventually be realized by search engines, which will in turn ban the site from the search engine results pages (SERPs), in effect neutering the company’s online presence. Even if your case doesn’t end up in a courthouse, it pays to play by the rules. Having your name, or your company’s name, dragged through the mud as a company that used unethical practices to achieve success will only damage your reputation. The Seikaly & Stewart v. Rainmaker Institute case is still ongoing but damage has already been done to both the customer and the company – and the worst of it may still be to come.
BCGSearch.com. (2014, June 15). Law Firm Brings RICO Lawsuit against the Rainmaker Institute. Retrieved August 8, 2018, from https://www.bcgsearch.com/bcgnews/900041689/Law-Firm-Brings-RICO-Lawsuit-against-the-Rainmaker-Institute/
Smith, M. (2017, May 12). Can Link Building Land You in Jail? Retrieved August 8, 2018, from https://www.v9digital.com/blog/2014/07/21/black-hats-and-white-collar-crime-how-link-building-can-land-you-in-legal-troubles/
Sterling, G. (2014, May 26). Seikaly & stewart v rainmaker. Retrieved August 8, 2018, from https://www.slideshare.net/gesterling/seikaly-stewart-v-rainmaker