Why Niche Selection Decides SEO Success Before Keywords Ever Do

[salsha07]

A lot of SEO work starts with keyword research, but from what I’ve seen, many problems are already locked in before that stage.

If the niche itself has weak demand, poor intent quality, or unclear commercial paths, no amount of keyword grouping or content optimization really fixes the outcome.

In contrast, when the niche is well chosen, keyword research becomes easier, content aligns naturally with intent, and even modest SEO efforts tend to compound better.

From my experience, SEO performance often reflects niche decisions more than keyword decisions.

Curious how others here look at this.

• Do you evaluate niche viability before touching keywords?
• What signals help you decide whether a niche is worth pursuing?
• Where do you see most people misjudge niches early on?

Interested to hear how experienced members approach this.

 

[washingtondc]

A good niche makes SEO work naturally, while a bad one can ruin your efforts no matter the keywords.

 

[tazarbm]

I disagree with everything except for the "unclear commercial paths" part (you do need to pick something that you can monetize somehow, otherwise you're doing it just for fun)

If you don't have keywords (or topics as some people prefer to call them nowadays even though topics are still keywords) to create content around how can you have a niche that you can tackle? Keywords -> niche, not the other way around.

many problems are already locked in before that stage.

which problems exactly?

poor intent quality

poor intent quality meaning? Intents have no quality, they just exist and are either commercial or informational, despite of the fact that companies like Semrush love inventing new terms like transactional or other bogus metric, just so they can overhype the value of their software.

People who google stuff are only interested in finding information or buying stuff, nobody googles stuff for the sake of purposely clicking on other links (ie. transactional intent)

Anyway, what's the poor intent quality all about? You people, I swear on my life, love inventing buzzwords every week...

 

[tazarbm]

sorry for the double post, 30 minutes have passed and can't edit my previous post anymore.

I just wanted to correct a typo that I've made: I wanted to say navigational intent instead of transactional. Semrush calls keywords that lead people to clicking on other links as "navigational intent" and that's what I was referring to when I said transactional intent (a bit tired at the moment, so please excuse my mistake)

The rest of my points remain...

 

[alangstudio]

Most misjudgments I see happen when people confuse traffic potential with business potential.
A niche can have plenty of keywords but still lack urgency, budget, or real problems to solve.
That’s usually where SEO efforts stall over time.

 

[Crazy Monkey]

I agree with this view. Before doing keyword research, I always look at the niche itself. I check real demand, buyer intent, competition level, and how people actually make money in that space. Many people jump into niches with traffic but no strong intent. That’s where most mistakes happen early.

 

[Play ON]

You're absolutely right, picking the right niche is the foundation and the keyword research is just the architecture on top of it.

 

[The Burger Boss]

I agree. Niche selection usually matters more than keyword selection. I always assess demand, intent quality, and monetization paths before keyword research, because weak niches don’t convert no matter how well content is optimized.

Most people misjudge niches by chasing volume without intent or assuming better SEO can fix structural demand problems. When the niche is right, SEO becomes much easier and compounds naturally.

 

[harpage]

A niche can have plenty of keywords but still lack urgency, budget, or real problems to solve.

Well said. I know a friend who got incredibly rich from ranking number 1 for a keyword with less than 100 search volume.

 

[nigunim]

I agree with this take. If the niche has no real demand, weak buyer intent or no clear monetization angle, keyword research just becomes busywork. I always sanity-check the niche first by looking at who's already making money there, how competitive the SERPs feel and whether searchers clearly want to buy, not just read. Most people misjudge niches by chasing volume instead of intent. A solid niche makes everything downstream in SEO much easier and more forgiving.

 

[SkullCrusher]

Most experienced SEOs assess niche viability first looking at real world demand, monetization paths, SERP intent clarity, and competitive depth because weak niches can’t be rescued by keyword tactics, while strong ones make everything downstream easier.

 

[HawkSEO Studios]

I agree niche choice sets the foundation long before keywords come into play. In my experience, a well-defined niche makes everything else more aligned and sustainable, while poor niche decisions are hard to fix later.

 

[salsha07]

Good points, and I think part of this comes down to how terms are being used.

I agree that keywords are essential for validating demand. You can’t work a niche in practice without understanding what people actually search for. Where I was coming from is that keyword data alone doesn’t always capture audience expectations, monetization paths, or competitive dynamics, which is what I loosely referred to as niche level decisions.

By poor intent quality, I wasn’t trying to introduce a new category of intent. I meant cases where the dominant intent around a topic leads to low engagement or weak commercial outcomes, even if search volume exists. Two informational queries can behave very differently in terms of downstream value.

Fair point on buzzwords though. Happy to clarify when wording creates confusion.

Appreciate you sharing your perspective.

sorry for the double post, 30 minutes have passed and can't edit my previous post anymore.

I just wanted to correct a typo that I've made: I wanted to say navigational intent instead of transactional. Semrush calls keywords that lead people to clicking on other links as "navigational intent" and that's what I was referring to when I said transactional intent (a bit tired at the moment, so please excuse my mistake)

The rest of my points remain...

 

[tazarbm]

By poor intent quality, I wasn’t trying to introduce a new category of intent. I meant cases where the dominant intent around a topic leads to low engagement or weak commercial outcomes, even if search volume exists. Two informational queries can behave very differently in terms of downstream value.

can you give example of 1 keyword or topic that has 2 different intents, and the dominant intent leads to low engagement or weak revenue (whatever weak means in this case)?

Because, for me, intent means nothing more than what type of a keyword it is (informational or commercial), and I don't think that it can lead to anything on its own.

It's the way in which you address the intent that generates the outcome, not the intent itself. But I might be wrong, so please mention 1 such keyword if you know of...

And thanks for replying, nowadays you hardly get any reply from thread makers, it looks like they're all bots or something

 

[Herry412]

Totally agree. Niche choice sets the ceiling before keywords even matter. I always check search intent quality, monetization paths, and competition level first. Most people misjudge niches by chasing volume without understanding intent or how hard it is to convert traffic.

 

[salsha07]

Good question, and fair pushback.

Here’s a simple example that shows what I meant, without inventing new intent categories.

Take the keyword “best CRM”.

On the surface, it’s commercial. But the dominant intent behind it is usually comparison and exploration, not immediate purchase. Most searchers want lists, pros and cons, and opinions. They browse, compare, and leave. Engagement can be fine, but direct revenue is often weak unless you have strong authority or downstream funnels.

Now compare that with “HubSpot CRM pricing”.

Still commercial, but the dominant intent is very different. The user already knows the product and is much closer to a decision. Engagement is more focused, and revenue potential is significantly higher, even if search volume is lower.

Both are commercial.
The difference is how close the intent is to action.

That’s what I meant by weak or strong outcomes tied to dominant intent. It’s not that intent creates results on its own, but some intents naturally lead to shallow engagement or delayed conversion unless you have exceptional positioning.

And you’re right that execution matters a lot. Content, angles, and funnels can absolutely improve outcomes. My point was that some intents require far more work to monetize than others, which is worth considering early.

Appreciate the discussion, and no bots here, just taking the time to reply properly.

can you give example of 1 keyword or topic that has 2 different intents, and the dominant intent leads to low engagement or weak revenue (whatever weak means in this case)?

Because, for me, intent means nothing more than what type of a keyword it is (informational or commercial), and I don't think that it can lead to anything on its own.

It's the way in which you address the intent that generates the outcome, not the intent itself. But I might be wrong, so please mention 1 such keyword if you know of...

And thanks for replying, nowadays you hardly get any reply from thread makers, it looks like they're all bots or something

 

[salsha07]

I agree with this take. If the niche has no real demand, weak buyer intent or no clear monetization angle, keyword research just becomes busywork. I always sanity-check the niche first by looking at who's already making money there, how competitive the SERPs feel and whether searchers clearly want to buy, not just read. Most people misjudge niches by chasing volume instead of intent. A solid niche makes everything downstream in SEO much easier and more forgiving.

Well put. I agree that sanity checking the niche against real buying behavior and SERP intent saves a lot of wasted effort later. When there’s clear commercial depth and existing players already making money, SEO tends to compound more naturally instead of feeling forced.

 

[tazarbm]

Appreciate the discussion, and no bots here, just taking the time to reply properly.

yeah, you don't sound like a bot

Take the keyword “best CRM”.

Now compare that with “HubSpot CRM pricing”

I can see why you believe these keywords have multiple intents, but for me the intent is the same (informational), despite of what Semrush says. What you're talking about seems to me more like perception rather than intent, but perception is not a thing yet (in SEO)... but probably it will get invented / implemented soon since the trend is to turn machines into living beings and perception is a living being's thing... we will see how this develops over the coming years...

Also, I understand that these 2 keywords are just an example to make a point and they might not be the best examples to support your general assessment that picking a niche based on keywords alone is not the way to go, but I'm pretty sure that I'd make more money from best CRM instead of HubSpot CRM pricing, because I can approach best CRM from many angles (overall quality of the various CRMs, their features, their add-ons, pricing, etc.) whereas HubSpot CRM pricing - even though very specific, therefore with clear intent (still informational intent though) - will be answered by google's AI anyway when they steal the pricing from other people's websites, so there's less potential of making money with this more specific keyword.

Anyway, I'm probably sounding like I'm spinning in circles while still end up agreeing with your take (niche -> keywords), but I'm still not agreeing with it. For me - when I cared about SEO - niche selection always came down to picking the keywords first. If you have no keywords that you believe you can rank for there's no niche no matter how many bells and whistles or other perks the niche comes with, simple as that!

But thanks for the clarifications, it's been interesting having this chat

Cheers!

 

[salsha07]

yeah, you don't sound like a bot



I can see why you believe these keywords have multiple intents, but for me the intent is the same (informational), despite of what Semrush says. What you're talking about seems to me more like perception rather than intent, but perception is not a thing yet (in SEO)... but probably it will get invented / implemented soon since the trend is to turn machines into living beings and perception is a living being's thing... we will see how this develops over the coming years...

Also, I understand that these 2 keywords are just an example to make a point and they might not be the best examples to support your general assessment that picking a niche based on keywords alone is not the way to go, but I'm pretty sure that I'd make more money from best CRM instead of HubSpot CRM pricing, because I can approach best CRM from many angles (overall quality of the various CRMs, their features, their add-ons, pricing, etc.) whereas HubSpot CRM pricing - even though very specific, therefore with clear intent (still informational intent though) - will be answered by google's AI anyway when they steal the pricing from other people's websites, so there's less potential of making money with this more specific keyword.

Anyway, I'm probably sounding like I'm spinning in circles while still end up agreeing with your take (niche -> keywords), but I'm still not agreeing with it. For me - when I cared about SEO - niche selection always came down to picking the keywords first. If you have no keywords that you believe you can rank for there's no niche no matter how many bells and whistles or other perks the niche comes with, simple as that!

But thanks for the clarifications, it's been interesting having this chat

Cheers!

I see where you’re coming from, and I think we’re closer in practice than it might sound on paper.

I agree that without rankable keywords and realistic SERPs there’s no SEO play. Keyword demand is a hard constraint and always part of the validation process. Where I tend to draw a distinction is that keyword data alone doesn’t always reflect budget strength, urgency, or how money actually flows in a space, which is what I loosely referred to as niche level risk.

I also agree that execution can flip outcomes, especially on broader queries like “best CRM”, but that usually assumes strong authority and funnels. For most average setups, those same keywords often look better in tools than they perform commercially.

So I wouldn’t frame it as keywords versus niche, more as keywords validating demand and the niche determining whether that demand translates into something sustainable.

Appreciate the thoughtful pushback. It’s been a good discussion.

 

[tazarbm]

keyword data alone doesn’t always reflect budget strength, urgency, or how money actually flows in a space, which is what I loosely referred to as niche level risk.

ok, if you put it like this it makes sense, so I'll agree on this part

So I wouldn’t frame it as keywords versus niche, more as keywords validating demand and the niche determining whether that demand translates into something sustainable.

got it