Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
In this episode of The James Dooley Podcast, host James Dooley sits down with long-time friend and industry heavyweight Craig Campbell to dig deep into the realities of modern SEO. They start by tackling SEO myths and the danger of out-of-date information being recycled as current best practice, especially around local SEO and Google Business Profiles. Craig explains how hard it is for beginners to know who to trust, stressing the importance of real-world testing over hearsay. The conversation then moves into what separates a good SEO from a great one—obsession with detail, relentless testing, and healthy debate within tight-knit mastermind groups. Using examples like Matthew Woodward and Cristiano Ronaldo, they frame greatness as the result of small, consistent edges rather than magic tricks. James then shares his hands-on experience with manual actions and algorithmic penalties, from unnatural link penalties and thin content to the brutal impact of Google’s Helpful Content Update on affiliate and display sites. He walks through recovery processes, reconsideration requests, and a candid case study of a high-investment gambling site that briefly recovered via a 301 redirect before crashing again. Together, James and Craig explore engagement signals, CTR manipulation, and the murky role of user behaviour in rankings, including dwell time and pogo-sticking. They also dive into business models and diversification: James explains why he prefers owning lead generation assets instead of working with traditional clients, and outlines his investments in tools and services like Giger, Indexceptional, AutoBlogging.ai, SearchHero, Local SEO Sharks, and his large-scale lead generation portfolio. The episode also highlights the value of Craig’s private mastermind, where specialists such as Slaw, Kyle Roof, and others share live tests on GMBs, links, images, and video rankings in a controlled, high-calibre environment. The conversation wraps up with banter about tight-fisted friend Carl Hudson, underscoring the mix of sharp strategy, hard truths, and humour that defines both James and Craig’s approach to SEO and business.
Creators and Guests
Host
James Dooley
James Dooley is a UK entrepreneur.
What is James Dooley Podcast?
James Dooley is a Manchester-based entrepreneur, investor, and SEO strategist. James Dooley founded FatRank and PromoSEO, two UK performance marketing agencies that deliver no-win-no-fee lead generation and digital growth systems for ambitious businesses. James Dooley positions himself as an Investorpreneur who invests in UK companies with high growth potential because he believes lead generation is the root of all business success.
The James Dooley Podcast explores the mindset, methods, and mechanics of modern entrepreneurship. James Dooley interviews leading marketers, founders, and innovators to reveal the strategies driving online dominance and business scalability. Each episode unpacks the reality of building a business without mentorship, showing how systems, data, and lead flow replace luck and guesswork.
James Dooley shares hard-earned lessons from scaling digital assets and managing SEO teams across more than 650 industries. James Dooley teaches how to convert leads into long-term revenue through brand positioning, technical SEO, and automation. James Dooley built his career on rank and rent, digital real estate, and performance-based marketing because these models align incentive with outcome.
After turning down dozens of podcast invitations, James Dooley now embraces the platform to share his insights on investorpreneurship, lead generation, AI-driven marketing, and reputation management. James Dooley frequently collaborates with elite entrepreneurs to discuss frameworks for scaling businesses, building authority, and mastering search.
James Dooley is also an expert in online reputation management (ORM), having built and rehabilitated corporate brands across the UK. His approach combines SEO precision, brand engineering, and social proof loops to influence both Google’s Knowledge Graph and public perception.
To feature James Dooley on your podcast or event, connect via social media. James Dooley regularly joins business panels and networking sessions to discuss entrepreneurship, brand growth, and the evolving future of SEO.
James:
Craig, how we doing?
Craig:
All good, mate, all good.
James:
So, managed to get you on a podcast finally, mate. It’s been a long time coming – for a long time unfortunately… or fortunately.
Let’s get straight into it: SEO myths in the industry – debunking SEO myths.
Obviously, from speaking to you over the years, we’ve heard a lot of stories, we’ve tested a lot of things together.
For anyone who's starting out, how do people know, with some of the training and info that’s out there, whether something’s an SEO myth or whether they should actually go down that route?
How Newbies Can Spot SEO Myths
Craig:
For me, that’s a very, very difficult one.
When you start out, you don’t know who to listen to. You could be saying one thing, someone over there could be saying something completely different.
When I started, I was watching maybe 5–10 people. Someone would say “Do this” or “Do that,” and without actually testing it, you’re going to run into trouble. You can’t go around doing things that are just hearsay.
We both know in SEO there’s a lot of hearsay. Even now, when you listen to people talking, you see folk still doing things that were working four or five years ago – which we know 100% don’t work now.
We had a conversation last night – I’m not going to mention names – but there was a particular person who mentioned something in local SEO that hasn’t worked for years. It just clearly doesn’t work.
There are people teaching stuff that maybe did work two or three years ago, or even six months ago, and newbies take that as gospel. It makes perfect sense to them because they’re new. But of course, Google is always changing.
So for me, it’s not always about “myths” – it’s often about how up-to-date the information is.
There are actual myths out there, sure, but a massive problem is out-of-date information, which there’s a hell of a lot of.
Even with online courses – I used to do a lot of them – trying to keep them up to date is almost impossible. Something that works for me this week might not be relevant next week.
Then people say:
“Ah, you’re a bullshitter,” or “That’s a myth,” or “That didn’t work,” whatever.
So I think the real challenge is differentiating between:
A true myth (stuff that never really worked), and
Stuff that just doesn’t work anymore because things have moved on.
And that’s the hardest thing.
Intent vs Malice With Bad Information
James:
I think what’s important here is that most of the misinformation being shared – I don’t think people are deliberately trying to send others down the wrong path.
They’ve probably just heard it, thought it sounds good, and next minute they’ve got it in their own slides or their own course – with no testing.
At that time, like we were talking about last night with Google Business Profiles and local SEO, there were some strategies working really well.
But Google patched it about three years ago.
Yet there are still people talking about those tactics on stage last week saying:
“You just need to do this, this and this.”
And we’re sitting there going:
“No, mate. That got patched three years ago. We tested it – about 98% of the time it didn’t work. It was absolutely conclusive.”
Yet people are still sharing that info.
I think it’s sad because, like you said, how do you break through the noise and understand what works and what doesn’t when you’re just listening to random people?
Good SEO vs Great SEO
James:
So from that, I’m going to jump onto the next question for you – a couple of quick-fire questions to start with.
What’s the difference between a good SEO and a great SEO, in your opinion?
Craig:
I think the difference is the small details.
A great SEO goes deep into the little details that most people ignore.
I’ve spoken to many SEOs over the years – some considered “good,” some considered “great.”
We both know we’re fans of Matthew Woodward. So what’s the difference between Matthew and another good SEO out there?
It’s the small attention to detail.
He’s a very technical guy, thinks about things differently, and he tests a hell of a lot. If you disagree, he can have a proper argument with you:
“No, that’s bullshit, you should do this.”
“Have you tried that?”
“Have you thought about this angle?”
That’s the difference between good and great.
Anyone can be a good SEO if they follow what works. But a great SEO is:
On top of everything,
Doing tests,
Trying things out,
Levelling up constantly.
Look at Cristiano Ronaldo – what’s the difference between him and another footballer? It’s small things: dedication, extra work, the extra 1%.
Some SEOs are just obsessed with SEO – they think about it even on Sundays.
You see it in group chats – people fighting at 6am on a Sunday about stuff (in a good way):
“No mate, that’s bullshit.”
“What about this?”
“I tried that.”
Those are healthy debates.
I don’t think a lot of other SEOs are prepared to take that on board – and that’s what makes people great. No one in those circles is like:
“I’ve got the biggest ego; I’m the best; I make the most money.”
It’s more about pushing each other.
James on Scaling vs Perfection
James:
You know what’s mad – I still see myself as an amateur SEO.
I’ve leveraged SEO massively for business and done very well from it, but I still see myself as an amateur.
Even last night I was asking you questions:
“What would you do here?”
“What would you do there?”
The reason I love our private groups and mastermind chats is that we’ll just call someone out:
“No, that doesn’t work.”
“That hasn’t worked for two years.”
You can’t really do that on stage at events, but in a private group I’ll throw you under the bus all day long:
“Craig, you’ve not done this. You need to test that.”
And you’ll do the same to me.
Then it becomes:
“Right, let’s have a competition. Let’s see who can rank this keyword and see what’s working in today’s algorithm.”
That’s what I love about our group – nobody’s shy about debating or saying “I disagree.”
Also, another difference between good and great SEOs, in my opinion, is:
Once we get the minor details and dedication right, it’s about systemising and scaling.
A lot of people suffer with the 3 Ps:
Prioritisation
Procrastination
Perfectionism
My SEO knowledge is probably not as good as 90% of the “good” SEOs out there – but I scale.
I scale well, and I don’t procrastinate.
That’s where our team has done very well: we’re good at scaling things with systems and processes.
Craig on James’s Strength: Scaling Ideas
Craig:
That’s something I would always say you’re good at – the ability to take something and then it grows arms and legs.
You’ll take a small piece of knowledge and blow it up, which is funny to watch – in a good way.
Manual Actions & Algorithmic Penalties
Craig:
Question for you now.
We’ve spoken about testing and changes with Google – their job is basically to stop us from manipulating the results.
We’ve seen recent updates: Helpful Content, manual actions, algorithmic penalties. Thousands of people are talking online about this.
I know you, in particular, deal with website recoveries.
From here and now – to give people current information – what have you seen with websites getting algorithmic or manual penalties, and how have you been able to recover them? Any tips?
James on Unnatural Links Penalties & Recovery
James:
There are a lot of different manual penalties you can get.
One of the easiest to get out of – and we do very well with – is unnatural links penalties.
Some people say:
“Oh, I can’t remember the last time someone had an unnatural links penalty.”
It happens every single week.
Literally every single week there are people getting them. We’re in the know because people come to us for that service.
What works well is:
Extract every single backlink in the profile
Use tools like Majestic, Ahrefs, Semrush, Google Search Console, Link Research Tools.
Put them into a system and work out what you think is toxic.
But before that, you actually need to show Google that you’ve tried to reach out to these domains to get the bad links removed – especially ones you don’t control.
You’ve got to do that as part of the reconsideration request. That’s a very important part that most people don’t do.
Then they come to us saying:
“I’ve done five reconsideration requests and they’ve not even responded.”
And we’re like:
“You’ve not followed what they asked you to do.”
So you’ve got to:
Try manual outreach to remove links
Document that effort
Then be pretty aggressive with your disavow file
Anything with any kind of toxicity – get it in the disavow.
Then you submit the reconsideration request.
Right now, it’s taking about 12 weeks on average for Google to come back.
Previously, during Covid, it was nearly 12 months.
We’ve got a very good success rate because:
We follow exactly what they want
We use specific wording in the reconsideration requests
James on Pure Spam & Thin Content
James:
With regards to Pure Spam, that’s a very difficult one to get out of – almost to the point it’s not worth it.
Even if you do recover, rankings usually don’t come back, so it’s almost worthless. In most cases, it’s better to just move on and build another site.
For thin content:
Go through pages that aren’t ranking
Pages that aren’t getting impressions
Pages that could be low quality
Be really aggressive with content pruning – get rid of those pages.
Then do the reconsideration request.
You can get sites back from thin content manual actions.
Algorithmic Penalties & the Helpful Content Update
James:
Those are the manual actions.
For algorithmic penalties, the worst I’ve ever seen is the Helpful Content Update – specifically for display ad and affiliate sites.
I’ve seen sites that:
Halved in traffic
Flatlined
Halved again
Flatlined again
And some of these are really good sites in my opinion:
Strong topical authority
Good quality links
Good quality, optimised content
I think some good sites have been caught up alongside bad ones – some have wrongly been hit.
Plus we’ve seen the rise of Reddit and user-generated content sites taking over.
There’s been a big intent shift from Google – they don’t want to rank loads of similar-looking sites that all use Surfer SEO and correlation tools.
Google’s trying not to show 10 clone sites.
People ask: “Is affiliate marketing dead?”
Go type in:
“best TVs”
“best [whatever]”
There are still affiliate sites ranking. So it’s not dead – you just need to change your approach.
Do I know the exact recovery approach yet? Not fully.
We’re testing:
Disavows (where needed)
Content pruning
Improving content that’s not getting clicks
Making sure the entities are aligned with the core entity of the site
Filling gaps for topical authority
Basically doing what you always taught us years ago when you were training my team:
Good quality content
Strong topical authority
Technically sound site
Solid internal linking
Good off-page (social signals, quality links)
Same fundamentals – but quality thresholds have gone up.
That’s what we’re trying for algorithmic recoveries.
The Gambling Site Case Study & 301 Experiment
James:
One particular website – the gambling one (we both know which one, but I won’t name it) – took a big dive in traffic.
You did a lot of testing. You did a 301 redirect and it recovered for two weeks… and then fell off a cliff again.
Tell us a bit more about that and what your plans are next. Not everything can be successful – not everyone can sit here and say:
“I did this, I did that, it all worked.”
There are pain points in SEO – and that’s one of yours. A very successful website you’ve spent god knows how much money on.
James Explains the 301 Recovery That Failed
James:
So, what we heard from some people was:
“All you need to do is a 301” or “Do a cross-domain canonical.”
Then we spoke to more technical people saying:
“Cross-domain canonicals don’t work in that way; you need to do 301s.”
We tried both on two different sites:
One with a cross-site canonical – nothing happened, no recovery.
The other with a domain change using 301 redirects.
That one was getting about 10 clicks a day, but previously it was getting 10,000 clicks a day.
We did the 301s and two days later – boom – everything jumped back:
Position 1 for the main terms in casino, slots, bingo
Looked like we’d cracked it
We did page-by-page redirects to a new domain.
It lasted 17 days, then nosedived again.
Here’s what frustrates me with the industry:
I could’ve taken that graph, cut it off on day 17 and gone:
“I recovered this site. I’m the expert at recoveries.”
And people do that – they post the “up” bit but not the crash afterwards.
Same with CTR manipulation:
They pump CTR, get jumps
Overcook it or stop
Then the site tanks or drops below where it started
But they still show the screenshot:
“Look, I went from #7 to #1 with my CTR technique.”
What they don’t say is:
They ran it for 48 hours
It hit #1 for 24 hours
Then dropped back worse than before
That’s where a lot of myths come from.
Back to the 301:
Next steps – we’re going to try everything we know:
Maybe do a press release / digital PR campaign to inject a lot of links and see if that sparks something
We found 107 new pages we’re missing that could support topical authority
Around 90 pages that aren’t good enough and should probably be pruned
Some areas where we went too wide – topic dilution
We’ll:
Prune back
Improve existing content
Look at intent shifts using tools like Nightwatch / MarketMuse / POP (Kyle Roof’s stuff)
Re-optimise pages based on current SERP intent
Basically, we’ll try everything.
But at some point, I might just park it, leave it, and focus on other sites that are working.
There’s only so much money you can throw at it before you’re no longer getting ROI.
So yes, it’s a big loss – we’ve spent a lot on that site – but we also have a lot of sites doing really well.
We’re at both ends of the spectrum:
Some sites flying
Some big ones decimated
I can’t sit here and pretend I know exactly what’s going on with that gambling site.
Craig Confirms They Tried Everything Before 301
Craig:
I’m assuming before you did the 301 redirect you did the disavows, content pruning and all that?
James:
Everything.
We did everything everyone in the industry told us:
Fixed crawl errors in Search Console
Cleaned internal linking
Ensured every page was within two clicks of the homepage
Built a technically sound site – fast load times (~0.7s)
Solid content, well structured
Maybe we’re missing some pages, maybe some needed deleting – maybe it’s cost of information retrieval or something.
But when I look at the sites that are ranking now:
They’ve got more “bad” pages
They’ve got more toxic links
Some of my own other sites – that I don’t think are as good – are outranking it.
So I’m being honest – for that particular site, I’m clueless.
Other sites I own have flown and I’m like:
“Why are THEY doing so well?”
It’s bizarre – that’s the random ranking factor, the Google dance.
That’s why diversification is important.
Don’t throw all your eggs in one basket. Don’t just have one big affiliate site.
Try to diversify. I probably diversify too much – you’re always calling me that guy who diversifies everything.
If You Could Ask a Google Engineer One Question…
Craig:
Right, a question for you.
If you could ask a Google engineer one question about a ranking factor – and he had to answer honestly – what would you ask?
James:
I have thought about this for the last couple of days because I saw this question beforehand. It’s a really difficult one.
For me, the thing that interests me most is engagement signals.
We understand:
On-page
Link building
Even CTR to a certain extent
But the engagement side – I don’t think anyone fully understands:
How Google uses that data
Whether it’s coming from social media
Whether from paid ads
CTR
Email blasts
We see massive jumps when we send traffic to pages. We all know “position 7 to position 2” can happen when you send traffic.
But I’d love to nail a Google engineer on:
How are they really using engagement data?
How much weight is on it vs links/content?
We know links work. We know content works. Engagement has worked for years as well, but the mechanics of it – that’s what I’d ask about.
Engagement, Dwell Time, Pogo Sticking
James:
Because then you’ve got:
Dwell time
Pogo sticking
Pages per session
And there’s a big debate there.
Example:
If someone goes on my website, I present the exact info they want and a phone number. They call me. Then they go back to Google and click result #2 to get another quote; and maybe result #3 for a third quote.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t like the number one result.
If Google penalises me because they pogo back to SERPs to get more quotes, that’s not fair – that’s just normal user behaviour.
Same with affiliate sites – people land on “best lawnmowers,” they click an affiliate link to Amazon and leave.
They’ve only visited one page – but they’ve had a great user experience.
So if Google is judging those sites badly because there’s only one page per session, that’s flawed.
So yeah, it’d be an amazing question to ask a Google engineer.
If You Were Google – What Would You Dial Up/Down?
James:
One more question for you on Google.
If you owned Google – you’re majority shareholder – and you could turn the dial up or down on ranking factors:
Would you turn Reddit and user-generated content down a bit?
Would you promote links more?
If you did, would it be relevance? traffic? sheer power?
What would you dial up within Google’s search results to yield better results?
Craig:
That’s a really tough one.
I get why Reddit and similar sites have had a boost – but people will always abuse whatever gets boosted.
Same with links. If Google said tomorrow:
“All you need is relevant links with traffic,”
Everyone would pile in and systemise / manipulate that.
We all know people do link building – guest posts, digital PR, etc.
What’s a “good quality” link now?
Does it need traffic?
Does the page need to be relevant?
Does the whole domain need to be relevant?
Or is it just the content around the anchor?
These are all things they could fine-tune.
I don’t know if I’d actually turn links up – I think links are too easy to manipulate.
On-page – I’m not sure how much more you could dial that up now.
So for me it would be engagement, but it has to be refined engagement, like we said:
They shouldn’t hammer an affiliate site for doing its job properly
They shouldn’t hammer a lead gen site just because users want multiple quotes
I’d like to tweak that part of the algorithm.
I think a lot of sites have been hit that shouldn’t have – especially in helpful content / algorithmic updates.
So I’d tweak the engagement + quality signals better, rather than cranking links or on-page.
How James Decides What to Test (and Not Waste Millions)
Craig:
Going back to testing – you are the type of guy where someone says something to you on a night out, and next day your office whiteboard is wiped and your team are like:
“What the hell? We’re doing this today, that, that, that.”
Which is good – but like anything, you’ve only got so much staff and money.
How do you decide what to test and what to ignore? There’s so much nonsense out there.
James:
Great question. I’ve wasted millions on testing because I used to listen to everyone.
I eventually realised a lot of people are just rehashing Chinese whispers.
Now I:
Listen to the right people
Go to people who are experts in their lane
If I’m getting my roof done, I get a roofer, not a plumber.
Same in SEO:
For GMB, I’ll go to Slawar (Slawomir) – one of the best GMB guys in my opinion
Instead of me testing everything he says, I just give him one of my GMBs and say “Go rank it.”
If he ranks it, I know he knows what he’s doing. I’ll just subcontract to the expert. I don’t need to test his method – I just care that it delivers the outcome.
For in-house testing, we focus on core basics:
Technical
Topical authority
What is good quality content
What is a good quality link and does it move the needle
Power posts etc.
Anything outside that, I’m like:
“Prove it to me.”
You say this tactic works? Fine – here’s a site or page:
“Rank this from position 5 to position 1.”
A lot of them don’t show me. That tells me everything.
So that’s saved us a lot of money.
Also: cowork groups, masterminds.
I don’t need to test as much now because:
The expert in their lane is testing every day
They want to be the most innovative and best in their lane
So I let:
GMB experts test for GMB
On-page experts test for on-page
Link experts build/testing links
And I just plug into their knowledge.
Craig’s Mastermind & Why It’s Valuable
James:
I want to touch on something – your mastermind group.
You don’t promote it enough. I know you don’t like pitching or selling; you prefer providing value.
But people need to know about it.
It’s an amazing mastermind that has people like Slaw and other experts in the group.
It’s less than £100 a month to join, they get weekly calls, and loads of people are testing things live.
I don’t need to test as much anymore because:
Whoever is the expert in their lane is running tests every single day.
That alone is worth the money.
Craig:
I’ve promoted it gently, just to see how it all worked out.
Like you say, there’s a lot of value and a lot of different people with different skills:
Guys in America
Guys in India
People doing GMBs, CTR, reviews, etc.
We test a lot and we have fun competitions:
Image ranking
Video ranking
GMB games
CTR tests
We also learn weird things from testing.
For example, in an image ranking test:
Magic PR was up against me
He launched a press release at the last minute with Yahoo Finance etc.
I had to think outside the box with time zones to beat him
We also found weird stuff like:
Someone buying an exact match domain
Someone else setting up a GMB
Google auto-assigning the GMB to the EMD owner
We thought someone had “stolen” the GMB – turns out it was auto-assigned by Google.
So we learned that through testing.
We like doing those tests in a private environment, not in public where everything gets spammed.
There’s about 100 people in the mastermind – good people, smart in their own areas.
We’ve had a few bad eggs before, which is why I’m reluctant to scale it to 1,000 people and ruin the vibe.
But, yeah – if anyone wants to join, that’s what it is.
James’s Portfolio: Giger, Indexceptional, AutoBlogging, SearchHero, Local SEO Sharks & Lead Gen
Craig:
Couple of quick-fire questions about your stuff.
You’ve been around a while and you’re into everything. You’ve invested loads of money, got websites in all sorts of niches, but also:
Giger
Indexceptional
AutoBlogging.ai
SearchHero
Local SEO Sharks
And obviously lead generation sites
Let’s talk about lead gen first.
Even talking to Slaw last night – he wants to do it for clients, whereas you’re like:
“Nah, why do it for clients? Own the website, own the GMB, and sell the leads.”
I love that model. A lot of people don’t have the confidence or cash flow to do that though.
Then also, every time I do a live stream, people say they’re sick of clients and agency life, and they want a different way to make money.
I think lead generation is perfect for that.
So, talk about:
Why you own the websites
How you find people to buy the leads (before or after building sites)
James:
First off, why we own the websites:
I don’t want clients telling me:
“I prefer a red site”
“Make the buttons brown”
I want to build sites for conversion and for Google, not for a client’s “favourite colour.”
So:
I pick a theme and colour scheme that suits the niche
I write content the way Google wants, not the way the client “likes”
I focus on data and stats, not opinions
It’s my site.
You want leads for a product or service? I’ll get you leads. Forget how I’ll get there – that’s my job.
I make sure we:
Build out the site properly
Control all the assets
Generate leads consistently
Then I go down the rabbit hole to find new niches, build more sites, generate more leads – and the businesses we partner with make a lot of money.
It’s the best deal for UK businesses that fit our model because we guarantee them ROI.
We pre-qualify heavily – they need to:
Be able to handle volume
Have sales teams
Work in multiple areas ideally
For the smaller businesses who can’t handle our lead gen model, that’s where Local SEO Sharks comes in:
Overseas SEOs
Lower budgets
Local-only clients (like “plumber in London”)
We charge cheaper rates because the work is done overseas, but we still keep quality high.
James on His Tools & Investments
James:
Giger & Indexceptional – indexing tools
Indexing became a massive problem, especially with mass AI content
We want them to be the #1 and #2 indexing tools on the market
It’s guaranteed indexation or you don’t pay
Not just using Google API – multiple methods combined
AutoBlogging.ai
Produces a lot of our content
Scott Ken has spent 12+ months improving prompts every day
Founder Vibha is constantly innovating
Focused on:
No fluff
Good sentence structure
Right entities
Content that ranks, not just “pretty AI text”
SearchHero
Link building agency
Difference vs others: Power Posts
We try to rank the guest post itself for the keyword you want your money page to rank for
Like Reverse Sink or Swim 2.0 / on steroids
Aim: dominate the SERPs with both your money site & the guest posts
Local SEO Sharks
Overseas SEO team for low-budget clients
Great for local businesses who can’t fit into our lead gen model
Mainly UK, some US
All of these complement each other and support the lead gen ecosystem.
The Carl Hudson Joke & Outro
Craig:
Right, last question that wasn’t written down – still about SEO.
Has that tight bastard Carl Hudson ever bought you anything or paid you from SEO yet?
He’s the most tight-fisted person I’ve ever met. Honestly, he could peel an orange in his pocket.
He does well in business, and he’s the last one to go to the bar.
I don’t think he’s ever bought a meal. I don’t think he’s ever once gone to the bar and bought a round.
So if anyone ever sees Carl Hudson at an event – get him to the bar.
If you do, I’ll give you £100 myself for doing it, because he’s very tight.
Anyway, it’s been a pleasure, Craig. Always good to talk. See you again soon.
Craig:
No worries. Cheers, mate.