Why most SEO failures are organizational, not technical

I’ve spent over 20 years in companies where SEO sat in different corners of the organization – sometimes as a full-time role, other times as a consultant called in to “find what’s wrong.” Across those roles, the same pattern kept showing up.

The technical fix was rarely what unlocked performance. It revealed symptoms, but it almost never explained why progress stalled.

No governance

The real constraints showed up earlier, long before anyone read my weekly SEO reports. They lived in reporting lines, decision rights, hiring choices, and in what teams were allowed to change without asking permission. 

When SEO struggled, it was usually because nobody rightfully owned the CMS templates, priorities conflicted across departments, or changes were made without anyone considering how they affected discoverability.

I did not have a word for the core problem at the time, but now I do – it’s governance, usually manifested by its absence.

Two workplaces in my career had the conditions that allowed SEO to work as intended. Ownership was clear.

Release pathways were predictable. Leaders understood that visibility was something you managed deliberately, not something you reacted to when traffic dipped.

Everywhere else, metadata and schema were not the limiting factor. Organizational behavior was.

Dig deeper: How to build an SEO-forward culture in enterprise organizations

Beware of drift

Once sales pressures dominate each quarter, even technically strong sites undergo small, reasonable changes:

• Navigation renamed by a new UX hire.
• Wording adjusted by a new hire on the content team.
• Templates adjusted for a marketing campaign.
• Titles “cleaned up” by someone outside the SEO loop.

None of these changes look dangerous in isolation – if you know before they occur.

Over time, they add up. Performance slides, and nobody can point to a single release or decision where things went wrong.

This is the part of SEO most industry commentary skips. Technical fixes are tangible and teachable. Organizational friction is not. Yet that friction is where SEO outcomes are decided, usually months before any visible decline.

SEO loses power when it lives in the wrong place

I’ve seen this drift hurt rankings, with SEO taking the blame. In one workplace, leadership brought in an agency to “fix” the problem, only for it to confirm what I’d already found: a lack of governance caused the decline.

Where SEO sits on the org chart determines whether you see decisions early or discover them after launch. It dictates whether changes ship in weeks or sit in the backlog for quarters.

I have worked with SEO embedded under marketing, product, IT, and broader omnichannel teams. Each placement created a different set of constraints.

When SEO sits too low, decisions that reshape visibility ship first and get reviewed later — if they are reviewed at all.

• Engineering adjusted components to support a new security feature. In one workplace, a new firewall meant to stop scraping also blocked our own SEO crawling tools.
• Product reorganized navigation to “simplify” the user journey. No one asked SEO how it would affect internal PageRank.
• Marketing “refreshed” content to match a campaign. Each change shifted page purpose, internal linking, and consistency — the exact signals search engines and AI systems use to understand what a site is about.

Dig deeper: SEO stakeholders: Align teams and prove ROI like a pro

Positioning the SEO function

Without a seat at the right table, SEO becomes a cleanup function.

When one operational unit owns SEO, the work starts to reflect that unit’s incentives.

• Under marketing, it becomes campaign-driven and short-term.
• Under IT, it competes with infrastructure work and release stability.
• Under product, it gets squeezed into roadmaps that prioritize features over discoverability.

The healthiest performance I’ve seen came from environments where SEO sat close enough to leadership to see decisions early, yet broad enough to coordinate with content, engineering, analytics, UX, and legal.

In one case, I was a high-priced consultant, and every recommendation was implemented. I haven’t repeated that experience since, but it made one thing clear: VP-level endorsement was critical. That client doubled organic traffic in eight months and tripled it over three years.

Unfortunately, the in-house SEO team is just another team that might not get the chance to excel. Placement is not everything, but it is the difference between influencing the decision and fixing the outcome.

Hiring mistakes

The second pattern that keeps showing up is hiring – and it surfaces long before any technical review.

Many SEO programs fail because organizations staff strategically important roles for execution, when what they really need is judgment and influence. This isn’t a talent shortage. It’s a screening problem

The SEO manager often wears multiple hats, with SEO as a minor one. When they don’t understand SEO requirements, they become a liability, and the C-suite rarely sees it.

Across many engagements, I watched seasoned professionals passed over for younger candidates who interviewed well, knew the tool names, and sounded confident.

HR teams defaulted to “team fit” because it was easier to assess than a candidate’s ability to handle ambiguity, challenge bad decisions, or influence work across departments.

SEO excellence depends on lived experience. Not years on a résumé, but having seen the failure modes up close:

• Migrations that wiped out templates.
• Restructures that deleted category pages.
• “Small” navigation changes that collapsed internal linking.

Those experiences build judgment. Judgment is what prevents repeat mistakes. Often, that expertise is hard to put in a résumé.

Without SEO domain literacy, hiring becomes theater. But we can’t blame HR, which has to hire people for all parts of the business. Its only expertise is HR.

Governance needs to step in.

One of the most reliable ways to improve recruitment outcomes is simple: let the SEO leader control the shortlist.

Fit still matters. Competence matters first. When the person accountable for results shapes the hiring funnel, the best candidates are chosen.

SEO roles require the ability to change decisions, not just diagnose problems. That skill does not show up in a résumé keyword scan.

Dig deeper: The top 5 strategic SEO mistakes enterprises make (and how to avoid them)

When priorities pull in different directions

Every department in a large organization has legitimate goals.

• Product wants momentum.
• Engineering wants predictable releases.
• Marketing wants campaign impact.
• Legal wants risk reduction.

Each team can justify its decisions – and SEO still absorbs the cost.

I have seen simple structural improvements delayed because engineering was focused on a different initiative.

At one workplace, I was asked how much sales would increase if my changes were implemented.

I have seen content refreshed for branding reasons that weakened high-converting pages. Each decision made sense locally. Collectively, they reshaped the site in ways nobody fully anticipated.

Today, we face an added risk: AI systems now evaluate content for synthesis. When content changes materially, an LLM may stop citing us as an authority on that topic.

Strong visibility governance can prevent that.

The organizations that struggled most weren’t the ones with conflict. They were the ones that failed to make trade-offs explicit.

What are we giving up in visibility to gain speed, consistency, or safety? When that question is never asked, SEO degrades quietly.

What improved outcomes was not a tool. It was governance: shared expectations and decision rights.

When teams understood how their work affected discoverability, alignment followed naturally. SEO stopped being the team that said “no” and became the function that clarified consequences.

International SEO improves when teams stop shipping locally good changes that are globally damaging. Local SEO improves when there is a single source of location truth.

Ownership gaps

Many SEO problems trace back to ownership gaps that only become visible once performance declines.

• Who owns the CMS templates?
• Who defines metadata standards?
• Who maintains structured data? Who approves content changes?

When these questions have no clear answer, decisions stall or happen inconsistently. The site evolves through convenience rather than intent.

In contrast, the healthiest organizations I worked with shared one trait: clarity.

People knew which decisions they owned and which ones required coordination. They did not rely on committees or heavy documentation because escalation paths were already understood.

When ownership is clear, decisions move. When ownership is fragmented, even straightforward SEO work becomes difficult.

Dig deeper: How to win SEO allies and influence the brand guardians

Healthy environments for SEO to succeed

Across my career, the strongest results came from environments where SEO had:

• Early involvement in upcoming changes.
• Predictable collaboration with engineering.
• Visibility into product goals.
• Clear authority over content standards.
• Stable templates and definitions.
• A reliable escalation path when priorities conflicted.
• Leaders who understood visibility as a long-term asset.

These organizations were not perfect. They were coherent.

People understood why consistency mattered. SEO was not a reactive service. It was part of the infrastructure.

What leaders can do now

If you lead SEO inside a complex organization, the most effective improvements come from small, deliberate shifts in how decisions get made:

• Place SEO where it can see and influence decisions early.
• Let SEO leaders – not HR – shape candidate shortlists.
• Hire for judgment and influence, not presentation.
• Create predictable access to product, engineering, content, analytics, and legal.
• Stabilize page purpose and structural definitions.
• Make the impact of changes visible before they ship.

These shifts do not require new software. They require decision clarity, discipline, and follow-through.

Visibility is an organizational outcome

SEO succeeds when an organization can make and enforce consistent decisions about how it presents itself. Technical work matters, but it can’t offset structures pulling in different directions.

The strongest SEO results I’ve seen came from teams that focused less on isolated optimizations and more on creating conditions where good decisions could survive change. That’s visibility governance.

When SEO performance falters, the most durable fixes usually start inside the organization.

Dig deeper: What 15 years in enterprise SEO taught me about people, power, and progress