expertSEM

First, let me begin by saying Dave Pasternack knows what he is talking about. His column has been an informative and interesting resource for some time. He knows online advertising and he knows search engine marketing. That’s his forte and that’s how he’s made his fame.

However, Dave needs to brush up on his use of rhetoric and literary devices. I realize writing conventions aren’t his thing, yet he has taken the position as columnist and thus opened himself up criticism in this realm. Dave needs to reach back to lessons learned in English 101, specifically that trying section on rhetorical fallacies—methods of argument one should avoid because they are considered illogical, cheap and sometimes unethical. Rising above these fallacies can prove difficult even for the most talented rhetorician, and often professionals intentionally use fallacies to argue their position. While they may prove to be an effective rhetorical tool, fallacies should be avoided at all costs.

Alright, enough preaching. Let me illustrate Dave’s non sequitur. In his most recent column (“MadMen and online ad men: Is advertising really better today?”), Dave (yet again) compares online advertising strategies to rocket science: “Detecting and fixing broken online ad campaigns isn’t rocket science.” This same comparison was made a few months ago with regards to search engine marketers, causing an uproar in the search marketing community and subsequent blog frenzy.

Many were angry that Dave could so coldly disregard the worth of his profession and disrespect his fellow search marketers. I, on the other hand, was irritated with his analogy. Of course search marketers aren’t rocket scientists; they’re search marketers. It’s like comparing apples and oranges, which is actually another phrase I’ve never understood because they’re both fruit and aren’t complete opposites. How about: It’s like comparing fingernails and sailboats. I think that’s dissimilar enough.

It’s easy to ascertain what Dave is implying—rocket science requires the intellect of a genius and search marketing or detecting broken campaigns does not. Understood. Yet, if you accept this stretched analogy, there is still the issue of overuse. Dave caused some turmoil in the industry after his initial use of “rocket science.” He became known for that statement. This second (or maybe more, I’ve missed a column or two) use of the phrase reveals a lack of creativity. My unsolicited advice is to come up with a more clever analogy or find a different phrase. After all, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to open up a thesaurus.