7/1/09

Getting the Right Website & SEO Firm For Your Practice

I met with a law firm that just spent 10K on a website that unfortunately could have been done for 5 dollars per month (keep in mind, all that was provided to this firm was the hosting and a very simple template, nothing else). I hate coming across situations like this because I know they were taken advantage of but they simply did not know enough to make the right decisions.

There were over 100 pages of content on this site, ALL of it written by the firm. There were over 400 inbound links that had zero relevancy and zero page rank and a majority were either internal links or links from some photo site.

This website also had zero optimization done to it by this “SEO” Firm.

The person who is now in charge knows they got ripped off but cannot do anything about it at this time.

The older partners do not believe in the Internet, the younger partners know the power of the Internet and wanted a real presence online that would bring in business from clients that do not get referred to them.

Because of this rather large disconnect, they kept spending money here and money there. So what was originally about a $6,000 cost ballooned into $10,000. 6K was far too much for what they got and this money was spent because besides the template that was supplied and the hosting, NOTHING else has been done by this website company. The actual cost is not relevant though if the ROI is solid month after month. If you spend $3,000 per month but realize $25,000 in returns then you are making a great investment.

I am going to provide a very simple test for anyone contemplating a website for their business. Go online to Google (They get between 60-65% of all searches) and type in a random phrase like, “dui attorney denver” and see which websites show up on the first page. See who built those sites. But do this for a dozen or so random phrases so you can get a good idea of who to call. If the web design firm you are working with cannot show results like this then walk away.

No comments: