Things Doctors used to say were perfectly safe (or at least, that's the impression you got from ads)

What makes us think our generation is exempt from seeing history repeat itself? There are many past examples where people were led to believe that something that was regarded as safe, turned out to be very dangerous. 

Things we used to think were perfectly safe:

Smoking

DDT

Thimerosal

Teflon

Asbestos

Baby powder

Roundup

Atrazine

Mercurochrome

Glyphosate

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahmarder/dangerous-things-people-used-to-think-were-normal

http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/projects/legacy/personalcare.cfm

https://www.toptenz.net/10-deadly-things-we-used-to-think-were-safe.php 

Likewise, there have been a number of other things that we used to think were safe and healthy but turned out to be pretty bad for us.

• Hardcore Narcotics. ...
• Asbestos. ...
• Radioactive Toys. ...
• Radioactive Drinks. ...
• Bloodletting. ...
• Mercury. ...
• Lobotomies. ...
• Tapeworms.

https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement

UPDATED:

SEP 11, 2019

ORIGINAL:

SEP 13, 2018

When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking

Before studies showed that cigarettes caused cancer, tobacco companies recruited the medical community for their ads.

BECKY LITTLE

From the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

• Smoking and Pregnant – Just What the Doctor Ordered PtII

  « Previous 

  / 

  Next »

  By sallyedelstein / January 28, 2014 / Consumers, Health, Women / 3 comments
  

  (R) Vintage Winston Cigarette Ad 1954

   

  1954 was a good year for smokers and an even better one for the big tobacco companies.

  For a baby in utero…not so much.

  After the previous years blistering reports on the dangers of cigarettes,  1954 new years resolutions to quit smoking could now be forgotten ,  thanks to the January report of the Tobacco Institute Research Committee which gave the green light to smoking.

  Everyone was encouraged to let up and light up.

  It was still tens years before the Surgeon General’s landmark report concluded that there was a link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking, so until then my modern-thinking mother blissfully puffed away while pregnant with me.

  Pregnancy Pro

  My second time Mom had first hand knowledge on pregnancy and smoking. She knew frequent cigarette breaks came in mighty handy to quiet pregnancy jitters.

  Having successfully delivered a whopping four pound baby boy 2 years earlier, my baby-bound mother Betty was now a seasoned pro when it came to pregnancy and was happy to share her experiences with the nervous first-time mothers in the neighborhood.

  

  (L) Vintage ad North Star Blanket (R) Vintage Lucky Strike Cigarette Ad

  “It was really a pity,” she commented to Dad over breakfast one November morning, “when you consider how many young women still continued to enter pregnancy without first learning the real truth about being pregnant.”

  Now 5 months pregnant with me, Mom couldn’t wait to offer her wisdom to the gaggle of pregnant gals who would soon descend on our suburban home  for their weekly Kaffee Klatch.

  Lighting her usual post breakfast cigarette, Mom carefully measured out the Chock Full of Nuts coffee in her Mirro Matic percolator. Knowing how coffee was a great little picker upper for expectant mothers when they get that tired draggy feeling, she put up a big pot.

  Experience told her that there was  nothing more welcome to a gal in-the-family-way, than to put her feet up, have a cup or two of piping hot coffee with plenty o’ sugar for extra pep, and relax with a soothing cigarette. Mmmm! Heaven!

  Pregnancy on Parade

  By noon, a bevy of bellies in all stages of protrusions waddled into our kitchen.

  Decked out in an assortment of generously cut maternity separates that kept pace with modern times, these chatty women proved there was no need to be frumpy while pregnant

  

  Gathered around the cheery, yellow Formica kitchen dinette set in our kitchen the fretful first timers were overwhelmed with questions.

  Like so many ladies-in-waiting, they were suffering from f impending motherhood jitters, compounded by recent news concerning the hazards of smoking.

  “There seemed to be so many things to be afraid of nowadays,” voiced our neighbor Bunny echoing the concerns of the others who were nodding in agreement “Yesterday it was the H bomb, today it’s cigarette smoke that looms over us like a dreadful mushroom cloud.”

  In the past year, headlines about smoking and lung cancer had been getting bigger and scarier and naturally the baby-bound  women were bothered .

  When a scientific report by 2 doctors found that painting cigarette tar on the back of mice created cancer, a bombshell had been dropped. Audible gasps could be heard over smokers hacks coast to coast.

  The next salvo fired was when another doctor delivered a headline making speech in NYC  warning “the male population of the US would be decimated if cigarette smoking increases as it has in the past unless some steps are taken to remove the cancer-producing factor from cigarettes.”

  In late November 1953  Time Magazine declared that the the first definitive link between cancer and smoking “was proved beyond any doubt.”

  But doubt still remained.

  Ads movie stars  endorcements Movie stars smoke, athletes endorced it even society ladies lit up.

  You Can Take Your Doctors Word For It

  

  (L) A stylist lady-in-waiting circa 1954 (R) Vintage Camels ad  “What cigarette do you smoke doctor? When asked what cigarette they smoked the answers came in by the thousands..from general physicians, diagnosticians, surgeons, -yes, and nose and throat specialists too. The most named brand was Camels.”

  Now the apprehensive girls were all ears to what Mom had to say

  Fresh from her obstetricians appointment in the city, my mother was anxious to share what she had learned from her Park Avenue doctor.

  Mom went all misty eyed talking about Dr Orenstein.  All the girls felt that way about their own doctors and Mom understood why.

  No one was more trustworthy, more knowledgeable and more important in a pregnant gal’s life than her doctor.

  Lighting up another  Parliament, Mom began.

  “Despite all the worries,” she said assuredly “we girls were living in the best of times.”

  “Back in the pre-historic days,” she explained, “when their own mother’s were pregnant, a baby-bound lady had to pace herself with the number of smokes she could have.”

  “Doctors strictly advised limiting expectant mothers to only four cigarettes a day, to help wih digestion and soothe their pre-natal nerves . Pregnant women were advised to take it easy…. stick to AMA approved activities like reading cheerful books, knitting or chatting, but, heaven- forbid- nothing too controversial please!”

  But now thanks to modern research  “there was little need to alter the lifestyle of “today’s modern- thinking young mothers”…including smoking!

  Just What the Doctor Ordered Medical Authorities
  

  

  “Smoking Without Fear” by Don Cooley published in Sept. 1954 claimed you didn’t have to give up smoking. The 48 page low priced book sold at newsstands, appeared courtesy of the tobacco industry and it’s public relations firm Hill & Knowlton shortly after the first medical reports emerged saying cigarette smoking caused cancer. (R) Vintage Camels ad “More Doctors Smoke Camels”

  “Along with many of you, I was concerned about the possible injurious effect of smoking on my health after reading all the alarmist reports filled with scientific gobbledegook  pointing to the health hazards of cigarettes,” she said thoughtfully.

  “So I asked my doctor straight out if I should quit smoking!”

  “My doctor is a thoughtful man,” Mom  gushed,  “and after a little deliberation he said: ‘I think smoking does you more good than harm and I wouldn’t suggest that you quit.”

  Quoting from an article by a popular medical writer in Harpers Magazine he said “that the case against cigarettes is by no means proved and that cigarette has little or nothing to do with cancer of the lung.”

  

  These vintage ads from 1954 offer Testimonials from smokers who have smoked Camels for 35-40 years prove you can smoke and grow old! Even John Wayne boasts of 24 years of pleasurable smoking. Sadly this American icon would develop lung cancer in just 10 years time, dying of stomach cancer in 1979. He would eventually acknowledge his lung cancer was a result of his 6 pack a day cigarette habit.

  “Maybe its the mice who should quit smoking,” he said chuckling.

  Band of Brothers- Tobacco Institute Research Committee

  Stepping up to dispel the alarmist rumors was the Tobacco Institute Research Committee and their research.

  Handing Betty a booklet the group  had published entitled  “A Scientific Perspective on the Cigarette Controversy” the  doctor was sure it would put Moms mind at ease.

  To put Moms mind at ease, he handed Betty a booklet the group  had published entitled  “A Scientific Perspective on the Cigarette Controversy”

  The authoritative booklet ( written with the help of committees  PR firm ), distributed widely to the media and health practitioners all over the country ,  quoted 36 scientists questioning smoking’s link to health problems.

  

  Quoting 36 scientists  questioning smoking’s link to health problems, the authoritative booklet ( written with the help of committees  PR firm ) was  distributed widely to the media and health practitioners all over the country.

  Mom relayed the good news to the gals.

  The latest information from the Tobacco Industry Research Committee Report confirmed the obvious “that there was no proof that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer”

  

  Of course years later we would find out the Tobacco Industry Research Committee was set up as a shield for the industry, their real  mission being  to deliberately confuse the public about the risks of smoking and spread doubt over strong scientific evidence and the public wouldn’t know what to believe.

  Dr Orenstein explained to Mom  that the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, made up of esteemed scientists, university researchers  and notable physicians  was formed last December by the tobacco companies  who had banded together to look into the  health allegations.

  Their mission explained the doctor, was to reassure the public that the industry could responsibly investigate smoking and health issues.

  Science For Sale

  Mom recalled the large ad that ran in the paper in early January announcing the  “the formation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee.”

  Headlined “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” the 2 page ad  was placed in 448 newspapers.

  “Recent reports on experiments with mice have given wide publicity to a theory that cigarette smoking is in some way linked with lung cancer in human beings.”

   “Although conducted by doctors of professional standing these experiments are not regarded as conclusive in the field of cancer research.”

  

  Exactly 10 years before the January 1964 publication of the surgeon generals report , in January 1954 the tobacco industry banded together and announced in a double page ad “the formation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee. “
  Growing concern among the public of dangers of smoking caused the tobacco companies to join forces when the realized their industry was in trouble.

   Distinguished authorities point out:

   1. There is no agreement among authorities regarding what the cause of lung cancer is

  2. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.

  3. That statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many aspects of modern life.

   We believe the products we make are not injurious to health.

  

  The Tobacco Industry Research Committee was a brilliant counter offensive by the Tobacco industry that left both doctors and the public unsure how dangerous smoking really was,

   “For more than 300 years tobacco has given solace relaxation and enjoyment to mankind.

  At one time or another during those years critics have held it responsible for practically every disease of the human body. One by one these charges have been abandoned for lack of evidence.”

  The Proof is in the Smoking

  Dr Orenstein went on to tell Mom  that there was a beneficial side of smoking that is provable while tobacco has not been proven a killer.

  

  “Hows your disposition today” asks this Vintage Camels ad from 1955. “It’s only human to feel edgy when little annoyances pie up-thats why its wise to choose Camels”

  “It’s a fact  that moms to-be go through all sorts of mood swings…just ask any poor dad-to-be,” laughed the doctor. ” The fluctuations of  hormones make you moody and upset. That’s only natural. And because it was a psychological fact that smoking helps your disposition,” he continued, “everyday pleasures like smoking are so important.”

  “You see cigarettes are like a doctors prescription for calming nerves and fighting fatigue,”  Mom explained to the group

  Oh, Baby

  

  A healthy start is so important. Without a hint of irony, this vintage Camels ad (part of the More Drs Smoke Camels” campaign) on the (R) boasts how this little 5 year old girl might live to 100 “due to the amazing strides of medical science that have added years to life expectancy. Not only the expectancy of a longer life but a life far healthier. Thank medical science for that. Thank your doctor for that and thousands like him…” (L) Philip Morris claims their cigarette is as gentle as a baby

  And naturally it goes to reason what’s good for you is good for the baby!

  “So you see, it was important to educate yourself if you have concerns and worries,” Mom told the relieved gals. “Learning facts can help dispel some of the fears based on inaccurate information.”

  Reading aloud from her dog-eared copy of Pregnancy and You, the invaluable book her doctor had given her 2 years before, she explained

  “Smoking during pregnancy is no more or less injurious for the mother than smoking when not pregnant. We are not so sure about the fetus. It is known that some substance from the tobacco smoke, probably nicotine, passes from the mother’s blood stream to the infant’s via the placenta. The result is a temporary and harmless speeding up of the baby’s heart rate.”

  So relax and enjoy!

  Folks everywhere, including mothers-to-be could feel free to light up.

  My sugar coated kodacolor childhood would be be spent through a constant blue haze of cigarette smoke.

  © Sally Edelstein and Envisioning The American Dream, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Sally Edelstein and Envisioning The American Dream with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

  You Might Also Enjoy

  Smoking Just What the Doctor Ordered Pt I

What cigarette do doctors says causes less throat irritation? In the 1930s and 40s, tobacco companies would happily tell you it was theirs. Doctors hadn’t yet discovered a clear link between smoking and lung cancer, and a majority of them actually smoked cigarettes. So in cigarette ads, tobacco companies used doctors’ authority to make their claims about their cigarettes seem more legitimate.

To the modern-day reader, the pitching of cigarettes as healthy (even to youth and pregnant moms) and the use of doctors’ endorsements may appear horrifying. Yet before 1950, there wasn’t good evidence showing that cigarette smoking was bad for you.

A 1930 Lucky Strike advertisement. 

From the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

“People started to get worried in the ‘40s because lung cancer was spiking; the lung cancer death rate was going through the roof,” says Martha Gardner, a history and social sciences professor at Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. “People noticed that and were worried about it, but that didn’t mean they knew it was cigarettes.”

Yes, cigarettes did cause coughing and throat irritation. But companies used this to their advantage to promote their product as better than the competition. It wasn’t all cigarettes that gave you problems—it was just those other ones.

The first cigarette company to use physicians in their ads was American Tobacco, maker of Lucky Strikes. In 1930, it published an ad claiming “20,679 Physicians say ‘LUCKIES are less irritating’” to the throat. To get this number, the company’s ad agency had sent physicians cartons of Lucky Strike cigarettes and a letter asking if they thought Lucky Strikes were “less irritating to sensitive and tender throats than other cigarettes,” while noting “a good many people” had already said they were.

1937 Philip Morris advertisement claiming their brand cleared up irritation of the nose and throat.

From the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Unsurprisingly, many doctors responded positively to this biased, leading question, and Lucky Strike ads used their answers to imply their cigarettes must be medically better for your throat. In 1937, the Philip Morris company took that one step forward with a Saturday Evening Post ad claiming doctors had conducted a study showing “when smokers changed to Philip Morris, every case of irritation cleared completely and definitely improved.” What it didn’t mention was that Philip Morris had sponsored those doctors.

Philip Morris continued to advertise “studies” it sponsored through the 1940s, the decade that saw the introduction of penicillin. “The American public is thinking about medicine in such a positive way and science in a positive way,” says Gardner, who co-authored an American Journal of Public Health article about doctors in cigarette ads. “So framing it that way seems like it’ll help appeal to people.”

To this end, the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company created a Medical Relations Division and advertised it in medical journals. Reynolds began paying for research and then citing it in its ads like Philip Morris. In 1946, Reynolds launched an ad campaign with the slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” They’d solicited this “finding” by giving doctors a free carton of Camel cigarettes, and then asking what brand they smoked.

1946 cigarette advertisement launched by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

From the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

By the mid-1950s, when tobacco companies had to confront good evidence that their products caused lung cancer, advertising strategies started to shift. “What happens is, all the different cigarette companies kind of work together to try to promote the idea that…we don’t know yet if it’s harmful,” Gardner says. In 1954, these companies released “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” arguing that research showing a link between cancer and smoking was alarming but not conclusive. Therefore, the companies were forming a research committee to investigate the issue.

After this, cigarette ads stopped featuring doctors because this was no longer a convincing tactic. Doctors were coming out against cigarettes, culminating in 1964 with the U.S. Surgeon General’s report that smoking causes lung cancer, laryngeal cancer and chronic bronchitis.

Still, tobacco companies continued to maintain, through their research committee, that there was still a “controversy” over whether cigarettes were unhealthy until 1998. That year, the Tobacco Institute and the Committee for Tobacco Research (as it was then known) disbanded in accordance with a lawsuit settlement.

Cigarette Advertising Towards Young Americans

6

GALLERY

6 IMAGES

Soon after e-cigarettes debuted in Europe in 2006, tobacco companies began investing heavily in vaping. The Food and Drug Administration noted in 2018 that vaping was increasing at an alarming rate among teens, raising concern that more young people were becoming addicted to nicotine. In 2019, six deaths and hundreds of cases of vaping-related lung illness were reported. By September, 2019, the U.S. Health Secretary Alex Azar said the FDA planned to take flavored e-cigarettes off the market.

TAGS

MEDICINE

BY

 BECKY LITTLE

https://www.the100yearlifestyle.com/doctors-recommend-smoking/

YOU ARE HERE: HOME / HEALTH CARE 100 / DOCTORS RECOMMEND SMOKING?

Doctors Recommend Smoking?

SEPTEMBER 20, 2020 BY DR. ERIC PLASKER LEAVE A COMMENT

Share this:

• Email
• Print

It’s hard to believe that there was a time that doctors recommended smoking! “26,000 doctors recommend smoking” was a common Lucky Strike cigarette ad that blanketed all forms of media. Similar ads blanketed the media by Camel and many other brands. Cigarettes were considered so “safe” that they were marketed to children in the form of candy cigarettes!

From Cool to Catastrophe

What was once considered a cool, totally safe social activity, we now know is directly linked to cancer, lung disease, heart disease, stroke, and the list goes on. According to the CDC, “Smoking causes 90 percent of all lung cancer deaths and 80 percent of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).” It’s hard to believe that the FDA and CDC still allow these products to be marketed to the public!

Cigarettes are not the only example of this. Baby aspirin is another! Does one per day keep the doctor away? NO! Just the opposite is true.

In a large scale, seven-year study, researchers found no correlation between daily low-dose aspirin and reduced heart attack, stroke, or dementia, as it has been touted for years to do. In fact, what they did find was that daily aspirin intake was associated with increased risk of major bleeding, cancer, and death.

What about lowering your cholesterol? How about low-fat diets?

The reality is that with the introduction of low-fat diets came an increase in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Why? When you reduce or remove the content of fat, which is an essential component of our diet, food manufacturers add sugar, artificial flavors, and fillers in their place.

The hype on cholesterol is extremely concerning, especially with the connections being made to Statin drugs and dementia! Consider the following from researcher and author, Zoë Harcombe, “Cholesterol is found in nearly every cell of your body and is essential to good health. It plays a role in hormone production, digestion, the manufacture of vitamin D following sun exposure, and helps protect your cell membranes.”

So why then would we want to reduce this from our diet? And the link of cholesterol to heart disease has been discredited in study after study. We also know that cholesterol consumed in the diet, “has no impact on the cholesterol level in your blood.”

Beliefs Versus Truths

So many of the beliefs that people base their habits and opinions on are found later to be false. There was a time that people and society swore the world was flat!

Prehistoric beliefs related to smoking, aspirin and low fat can lead to unnecessary suffering. Germs, antibiotics, immunity, vaccines and healing in general are additional areas where our beliefs have become skewed and outdated.

Many people have prehistoric beliefs about chiropractic care. Chiropractic care, for example, is now realized to be one of the safest health care options available, 10,000 times safer than surgery according to a new Gallup Poll. Even more importantly, as a part, of a lifestyle, Chiropractic Lifestyle Care can help you stay healthy.

Open Your Mind. Trust Your Body!

It is very important to keep your mind open, find trusting resources over cool ones, and trust your innate intelligence. Be proactive in eliminating stress and interference from your brain, nervous system, mind and body. Use common sense and be strong enough to say yes to the things that are good for you and say no to the madness of the marketing machines.

Your 80, 90 or 100 is coming. Learn to love the things that are good for you and enjoy a sensational century.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm

https://www.candyfavorites.com/history-of-candy-cigarettes

http://theconversation.com/daily-low-dose-aspirin-doesnt-reduce-heart-attack-risk-in-healthy-people-103226

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/daily-aspirin-shows-no-benefit-healthy-older-adults

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-graphs-the-war-on-fat-was-a-mistake#section6

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/12/12/the-truth-about-cholesterol.aspx

https://www.cdc.gov/features/antibioticuse/index.html

https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/news/antidepressants-associated-with-increased-risk-of-suicidal-thoughts-in-healthy-adults/20201834.article?firstPass=false

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jun/02/thisweekssciencequestions.cancer

https://www.google.com/search?q=vaccines+inconclusive&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS903US903&oq=vaccines+inconclusive&aqs=chrome..69i57.5284j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

In 2008, Obama called science on vaccines 'inconclusive ...

www.politico.com › story › 2015/02 › obama-vaccines...

Feb 2, 2015 — As a senator and presidential candidate, he said he was “suspicious” about the link between vaccines and autism.

Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism - NCBI - NIH

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › books › NBK25349

Given the widespread use of vaccines, state mandates requiring vaccination of ... weak and inconclusive evidence of an association between NDDs and TCVs.

2004 · ‎Cited by 120 · ‎Related articles

Inconclusive Results | The BMJ

www.bmj.com › rapid-response › 2011/10/28 › inconclus...

Jun 6, 1998 — my son the MMR, Varicella and Prevnar vaccines because the Medical Community will NOT know if they are helping or hurting the masses for ...

Vaccine Injury Table - CDC

www.cdc.gov › pinkbook › downloads › appendices

PDF

laboratory testing is inconclusive. 7-30 days (not less than 7 days and not more than 30 days). Not applicable. <12 months. VI. Vaccines containing polio.

Vaccine Injury Table - HRSA

www.hrsa.gov › default › files › vaccinecompensation

PDF

—Vaccine-strain virus identified. Not applicable. —If strain determination is not done or if laboratory testing is inconclusive. ≤12 months. VI. Vaccines containing ...

What You Need to Know About the National Vaccine ... - HRSA

www.hrsa.gov › hrsa › vaccine-compensation › resources

PDF

What is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)? . ... What vaccines are covered by the VICP? ... or if laboratory testing is inconclusive.

Morbidity and Mortality - Page 403 - Google Books Result

books.google.com › books

CASES OF POLIO - LIKE ILLNESS FOLLOWING ORAL POLIO VACCINES ... Cases Following Type I Vaccine 4 ** 1 0 I I I I Inconclusive I I 1 Inconclusive I II Calif ...

Communicable diseases

Can You Buy Your Way to the First Page on Google Search?

in digital marketing /by Arnie Singer

Can you buy your way to the first page of Google search results, or even the first position?

I get cold calls regularly from people who claim they can do just that for a small recurring fee. Sounds intriguing. But is there any truth to it? (Ranking first for your company name doesn’t really count.)

There obviously is a way to get listed first in Google search for money. It’s called Google Ads (formerly Adwords). That’s the paid advertisements that you see at the top of your Google search results. If you’re willing to pay the highest price per click for your chosen keywords and your website is deemed relevant and useful to users by the Google search algorithm, then you have a pretty good chance of being able to snag the first position in the search results.

Being at the top of the page could equal a big payoff, or it could wipe out your bank account. It all depends on how much you stand to earn per sale and how big your ad budget is. But clearly, buying that top paid position for the right price is a pretty good possibility.

But how about organic search?

Can you buy your way to the top of the Google organic search results?

The simple answer is no.

Google doesn’t sell positions in organic search results. They wouldn’t be very “organic” if you could buy them, would they?

The way to climb the ladder to the top of organic search results is via SEO – search engine optimization – which according to Google is a combination of lots of factors with the main one being superior content that gives value to the reader along with an awesome user experience. And lots of high quality links that point to your content pages.

Can money buy great content and SEO?

It sure can.

With the right budget you can hire writers to create a steady stream of new content around your keywords. You can also hire a marketing team to share that content on social media and anywhere else your target prospects might be. They can form relationships with influential bloggers who might then let you publish a guest post or 2 and reach a new, huge target audience.

Large companies have the resources to do all of that and more. Many of them are. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t compete in your own niche, as long as you can refine the parameters of that niche. You probably won’t be able to compete for a keyword like “shoes”, but you do have a good chance of competing for “shoes in Smithtown, PA” (insert your own town, county, area, zipcode etc).

No matter how narrow you target, you still need good, optimized content on your website or blog to get Google’s attention and love. You also need to share that content to spread the word and possibly get inbound links. If you can do all of that on your own or in-house, go for it!

Most small and midsized business don’t have the expertise in-house, and they aren’t willing or able to invest in full time talent. That’s where digital marketing agencies come in. We can create your content, do your SEO and social media marketing for much less than it would cost you to do it in-house.

So, can you buy your way to the first page in Google? By investing in superior content, SEO and social media marketing, you’ve got a good fighting chance.

If you’d like to learn more about how to improve your website to attract more visitors and generate more leads, contact us now.