Remember early this week when I made a complete ass of myself by making personal accusations about Mike Grehan (instead of staying professional and on-topic). Well, Mike responded, in a manner that made me feel like I had just wet the bed while staying over at his house:

...I've received a full apology from the publisher who was having a bad hair [shoe?] day, or something. And that's good enough for me. I'm not one for holding grudges, apology accepted, water under the bridge and all that.

If you meet him in person, you'll understand why the most appropriate comparison that can be made to Mike in the world of Hollywood is Michael Caine (either that or Alan Rickman). We may have our disagreements, but there's a reason Mike goes atop the A-list of folks in this industry.

The post is long, and while it's a worthwhile read, I know there's some of you out there that just want the short summary. Since I can't bear the thought of readers not getting at least these pieces, here goes:

The word "arrogant" arose in my little roasting, I believe, because I used the words "a paltry $50k" in my column. This, mainly, I'm sure, from people who seem to believe I have no empathy with mom and pops who only have, say, $2000, perhaps, for a budget (this was mentioned in more than one follow up comment). Now let me take the same paragraph (from the ClickZ column) and swap it around a bit for those commentators who mentioned the mom and pops:

"Do a marketing audit before you take on a client and get a better understanding of what you're really up against. If the client offers you a paltry $50 to do some SEM work in a marketplace where competitors usually spend at least $2000 on TV, radio, press, and integrated online advertising, you may want to think twice."

Now, I ask, in all honesty: what would my ClickZ audience think if I used the latter example? Well... They would probably think I'd had a mental breakdown writing my column and was now en route to a hospital bed. To that audience it's just not a tangible example.

Clearly, Mike's ClickZ column isn't targeted towards those of us who took it personally. He goes on to describe a bit of his own personal history. My favorite bit is here:

One moment, there I was sitting in my big leather, executive chair in my swanky downtown office. I was running the PR side of a neat advertising agency, loving my clients and every minute of the job.

And then, almost overnight, there I was sitting at the end of my dining room table, with a laptop computer, printer, telephone... box of crayons... and a three year old propped on my knee.

My own experience was on the opposite end, being raised under an (exceptional) business woman's desk from day one and listening to conversations about print design and small business marketing at the same time I picked up my ABCs.

So, let me address the mom and pop thing again. Why don't I work with mom and pop outfits? What would I do for a mom and pop with only two grand to spend? That's what I was asked.

And my answer is: I'd do nothing. Nothing at all with them.

Is that because I'm arrogant and look down my nose at smaller outfits with tiny budgets? Absolutely not. It's because I can't bear the thought of failure.

I can't take exception to this without being a complete hypocrite. Although I started SEO work with a literal mom & pop, brick & mortar business, recent events have made me keenly aware of how hard it would be to take on more folks in that situation and still grow SEOmoz as a company. As I'm pulling my feet out of my mouth...

Take this situation for a moment. It's not mom and pop up against each other, it's authority site Vs authority site. Now lets assume I'm up against one of the great technical SEO wizards in this industry, like Dave Naylor, for instance.

So, I bring in another industry superstar on my team. Let's make that Mikkel deMib Svendson (just because I happen to know them both). Now I've asked Mikkel to monitor Dave's work and match it every step. What happens when the code is all used up. When they've zapped each other senseless and they're left there eyeball-to-eyeball (by the way, this assumes they are doing things in their best grey hats).

In this case, why wouldn't a marketing "pull" tactic be appropriate? Usage data is what's now required to get that extra oomph! Some greater awareness is needed to get more searchers either to search more or brand switch.

That's one of the best analogies I've heard about SEO in hyper-competitive spaces. He's right on the money, too. SEO can't operate in a vaccuum, it can't "be the business plan", it has to be a part of the business plan.

So, to sum up, while I still take exception to his statements about sandboxed SEOs being lazy or not doing their job, I also recognize that Mike is not operating in the same sphere of SEO, nor addressing the same customer base as (most of) the rest of us. He's also earned the right and the privilege to be beyond the kind of mud-slinging I dished out. He didn't earn that with his SEO talent or with his high budget clients, either. He earned it by having all those things and still taking the time to buy a nobody like me a drink when no one knew my name.

There's no reason to "suck up" to anyone in the SEO industry, but there are rules of fair play and I broke them. Let's hope I can hold my tongue better in the future, even if I do get a bit riled up.