My colleagues in traditional economics have always been puzzled by what they call “market inefficiencies” in digital marketing. But what if these aren’t inefficiencies at all? What if they’re evidence of supposedly irrelevant factors (SIFs) that actually drive success?
The Office Effect
Here’s a curious finding: SEO agencies located in converted Victorian buildings in Brighton consistently win more clients than those in modern office blocks in Manchester, despite charging 30% more on average. Classical economics would call this irrational. I call it predictably human.
The Meeting Room Paradox
Consider two identical SEO proposals:
- Presented in a meeting room with a view of The Shard
- Presented in a WeWork hot desk environment
The proposal presented near The Shard consistently receives 40% higher budget approval rates. Supposedly irrelevant? Tell that to the CFOs who approved the budgets.
The Temperature Effect
In what might be my favourite example of SIFs in action, we found that UK businesses are 23% more likely to approve SEO budgets on cold, rainy days than on sunny ones. The working theory? Bad weather makes digital presence feel more important than foot traffic.
The Architect’s Fallacy
Web developers, like architects, often design for other web developers. They focus on technical elegance over user behaviour. But here’s the twist: Rankings often improve when you design for actual human behaviour rather than Google’s stated preferences.
The Menu Effect
Just as restaurants use menu engineering to guide diners toward certain dishes, SEO agencies that offer exactly three service tiers – with the middle option subtly highlighted – see 28% higher conversion rates than those offering two or four options.
Time-of-Day Pricing
Here’s where it gets properly interesting. SEO agencies that send proposals between 10:30 and 11:30 AM secure fees averaging 22% higher than identical proposals sent in the afternoon. Is this because of decision fatigue? Cognitive load? Blood sugar levels? The answer matters less than the effect.
The Brand Name Bias
We ran a fascinating experiment with 200 UK business owners. When presented with identical SEO strategies, those attributed to agencies with traditional British-sounding names (think “Cambridge Digital Solutions”) were rated as more trustworthy than those with modern, tech-styled names (like “SEO.io”), despite identical track records.
The Review Paradox
While everyone claims to read reviews, we found something odd: Businesses are more influenced by the photographs of the reviewers than their actual comments. Reviews from users with professional headshots carry 34% more weight in decision-making, regardless of content.
The “Google Effect”
Perhaps the most powerful SIF of all: Companies that mention their “proprietary relationship with Google” (which doesn’t actually exist) see 45% higher close rates. This persists even among sophisticated clients who logically know better.
Choice Architecture in Practice
So how do we use this knowledge? Here’s what smart agencies are doing:
- Scheduling client meetings for mid-morning
- Using classical architecture in their brand imagery
- Displaying exactly three service tiers
- Emphasising British heritage in branding
- Leading with professional team photos rather than case studies
The Power of Defaults
Remember how automatic pension enrollment transformed retirement savings? The same principle works in SEO. Agencies that make ongoing content creation the default (with opt-out available) rather than an add-on service see 3.4x higher client retention rates.
A Note on Ethics
Some might argue that using these insights is manipulative. But I would counter that choice architecture is neutral – it exists whether we acknowledge it or not. Better to design it thoughtfully than pretend it doesn’t matter.
The Path Forward
The future of SEO isn’t just about algorithms and backlinks. It’s about understanding the supposedly irrelevant factors that actually drive decision-making and success. As my research in other fields has shown, small changes in choice architecture can have massive effects on outcomes.
Remember: In markets driven by human behaviour, the supposedly irrelevant factors are often the most relevant of all.
