Actually the question isn't clear. If affiliate deals are included in 'pay for performance' (which makes sense, but I hadn't thought of that when I voted) then I doubt there are SEOs out there that DO NOT do revenue share of some sort. (maybe except some in house SEOs).

But as an SEO there are all kinds of targets a client might have, and not all of those translate into revenue share as a viable option for the SEO.

Affiliate is "pay for revenue" in my book.

It would appear that 87% of the total are in the never-sometimes range. This is a reasonable result, because it is difficult if a client wants only rankings, or needs traffic via search, to determine a pay-for-performance contract. When this is the case it does require alot of up-front work and constant monitoring. If their goal is rank #1 it may be a good chunk of time before that happens. Between now and then- we all have to eat, and their traffic will increase each week until then.

-Derek

I dont offer this kind of pay for performance for my SEO services simply because I have to invest my time and money and effort doing the SEO and I expect to be paid for that. Results can not be guaranteed always - if someone just bought a domain they cant expect to hit top pages just because they did good SEO.

I have no idea why anyone would work for only a pay for performance. If you were going to do that with a client and SEO services, why not simply build the site and own the site, and sell the same product yourself? You could be doing all the work upfront, and working with some kind of a client deadline, and never ever get any money from your client at all. LOL

The concept of pay for performance is asinine. Look, as a company, no SEO company or SEO marketer should be paid for work predicated on performance. It just doesn't work like this since no SEO can guarantee results. I liken SEO to a tax accountant. You pay the professional to do the work - but that accountant can't guarantee that you will never get an IRS audit.

Now most importantly is this - it never pays to do pay for performance unless the contract stipulates that after gaining one milestone, the payout is something like $100K. Then it would be worth it - maybe.

But most importantly is this - is the SEO is working pay for performance, why would the SEO do all that work for only a small payout? Why not own the website, the domain, and all the assets, and get paid 100%?

Pay for Performance is a backwards way of looking at offering SEO services. Bottomline is this - if I got the knowledge and skills, and you are the guy needing SEO, I got all the cards, you don't. You can't come to me and say, get me results and I'll pay you.

As an SEO customer, I think some of these comments are indicative of the general feeling of self-importance within the industry.

Comments such as, 'Why not own the website, the domain, and all the assets, and get paid 100%?' and '...why not simply build the site and own the site, and sell the same product yourself?' are utterly ridiculous and shamefully arrogant. Here are a few reasons for you: business set-up costs, brand creation, product design and manufacture, expert customer service...

In my opinion, being the experts in their particular field, SEO companies need to set targets in order to measure performance. If they don't meet these targets, they don't get paid--as in any other industry. It's up to SEO companies to skillfully set realistic targets with their clients.

Otherwise we may just opt to increase our website popularity using other forms of marketing.

I believe PPR (Pay Per Ranking) is the best pricing method for both client and SEO company sides.