Posts filed under 'E-Marketing Advice'
The Basics
Response Rate by Position
- The top three organic listings are viewed 100% of the time, with lower positioned listings getting incrementally less attention as follows: rank 4 (85%), rank 5 (60%) rank 6 & 7 (50%), rank 8 and 9 (30%), rank 10 (10%).
Source: Eyetools, Enquiro & Did-it.com Eyetracking Study.
- The top paid search listing is viewed 50% of the time, with lower positioned listings getting incrementally less attention as follows: rank 2 (40%), rank 3 (30%), rank 4 (20%), rank 5-8 (10%)
Source: Eyetools, Enquiro & Did-it.com Eyetracking Study.
Conversion Rates for Paid v.s Organic Search Listings
- Conversion rates for paid vs. organic listings are nearly identical, with B-to-C conversion rates for paid search at about 3.40% vers 3.13% for organic search results.
The Retail Channel
- 25% of conversions occurring from users who click on more than one ad
- Branded search offer the highest conversion rate (9.3%) occurring when a user’s first and last click resulted on searching for a branded term.
- When the first click was the result of a nonbranded search and the last click on a branded search, the conversion rate was slightly lower at 8.73%.
- For searchers who began their search using a nonbranded term, but ended with a branded query, conversion rates were seven times higher than when they used only nonbranded terms.
- Only 8.4% of searchers used multiple unique keywords, but they accounted for nearly 20% of transactions.
Source: 360i and SearchIgnite
Market Growth for Paid Search
- The average number of active keywords in Q1 2006 was up 36% compared with Q1 2005
- The total number of clicks to paid search ads rose 24%
- Sales from paid search ads increased by 72%, as measured in dollars
During the December 2005 holiday season, nearly 30% of clicks came from keywords costing .50 per click or more, but that proportion dropped to 20% in March 2006
Source: Doubleclick Performics 50 Search Trend Report Q1 2006
- Search spend increased by 44% from 2004 to 2005, with advertisers spending 5.75 billion in search in 2005 and 64% from 2005 to 2006 (or 9.45 billion) (Source: SEMPO)
- In 2006, SEM programs were primarily funded by shifting budgets from offline media including print magazines (20%), Direct mail (16%), TV advertising (13%), newspaper advertising (13%) (Source: SEMPO)
March 10th, 2007
I get this question a lot and so I decided to blog it. After all, my clients can’t be the only ones who are wondering.
<====================>
The content network is part of Google’s network of sites that display Google ads unrelated to keywords. The ads show up beside content that is contextually relevant to the keywords you’re bidding on. You can enable content-targeting at the campaign level (as opposed to the Ad Group level) and you still pay per click. There are often many more impressions (times your ads show up) when you implement content-targeting, but the clickthrough rates are usually much lower because it’s a more passive type of advertising than keyword search. Here is a link to Google’s help page which summarizes the content network and gives examples of some of the sites that are displaying Google ads:
https://adwords.google.com/select/afc.html
And here is an example of a Web page that is displaying Google ads (note the ads at the left of the page beneath the link that says “Ads by Google”):
http://www.wikipregnancy.com
Yahoo and MSN both offer versions of content-targeting, but Google’s network seems to be the most comprehensive. It’s important to test the performance of content-targeted ads because some categories can literally rack up millions of impressions in mere weeks, which translate into thousands or tens of thousands of clicks and can become very expensive. These ads generally don’t convert as well as keyword ads, so if you’re managing a campaign to a specific ROI goal or CPA, content-targeting may blow your performance out of the water (in a bad way).
March 1st, 2007
What does search marketing have to do with breastfeeding?
I’m glad you asked! A popular search marketing blogger, Jennifer Laycock, is the editor of Search Engine Guide, but also maintains a breastfeeding blog called The Lactivitist. Apparently she’s been selling t-shirts featuring a slightly revised version of the slogan, “The Other White Meat” which has gotten the pork folks all upset. They sent this work-from-home mom who is promoting the value of breastfeeding a threatening, lawyerly letter. This is riduculous, and you can read the sordid details on The Lactivist right….here.
Why am I even mentioning this? Well, because I want to lend my support as a fellow female search marketer and former breastfeeding mom (with child #1, anyway). I also love, love LOVe how great this entire situation exemplifies the power of search marketing and the blogging community online - and i’m not even an active member of this particular blogging community. I’m just someone with a Web site who can contribute a measly little link, that when combined with lots of other links from blogs - large and small - will most certainly have the National Pork Board deeply regretting its decision to pick on someone who knows a thing or two about search marketing.
By the way, Back off National Pork Board.
February 2nd, 2007
The Search Engine Marketing Professionals Organization (SEMPO) (of which I am a member) opened its cyber doors to the SEMPO Institute yesterday with an online course on search engine fundamentals.
Just about anyone is eligible to enroll which can be done at the SEMPO Web site right HERE. There are currently two course - SEM Fundamentals which is ready to accept students now and SEM Advanced. The advanced course will be released in the spring.
I’m proud to say that I wrote a module for this course (check me out in the list of SEMPO Institute Authors, Executive Team & Contributors) here. My Lesson is on Search Branding and Campaign Integration, but authors are not being listed with the actual courses they wrote because the entire project is a collaborative effort. Still, couldn’t resist plugging my module on my own blog now could I??
Danny Sullivan’s Blog, Search Engine Land, has a nice concise list of what’s included in the Fundamentals Course. Good stuff.
January 24th, 2007
I’m not one to make big sweeping predictions, mostly because I’m often buried to the eyeballs with work and just trying to muddle through it all. However, in the name of refreshing my blog’s content (one of my 2007 New Year’s Resolutions) and in light of the fact that 2006 was a great year for the search marketing industry, I’ve decided to make an exception.
Full disclosure: My predictions for search marketing in 2007 will be highly influenced by my own involvement with search. Thus, I do not deny that there is more than a little bit of ego involved in the following list. Can I help it? I can’t resist the self-fulfilling prophecy style of annual predictions, particularly when I stand to benefit by being fully in the thick of things.
So, without further ado, here are my search marketing predictions for 2007.
-
Relevancy makes a comeback. Okay, so maybe relevancy with regards to great search marketing never went away, but I’ll tell you this, I’ve seen many advertisers spending scads of money on SEO and paid search without spending any time ensuring their web site is relevant to the keywords they’re bidding on. I’m not talking about adding articles and product information to your web site, though that is important of course. I’m talking about customizing your landing pages so that they are relevant to your ad copy and the keywords you’re bidding on. I’m talking about bidding on keywords that actually make you money and deleting keywords that don’t, even if you really love them. Even if your CEO wants to see his company come up for “blue widgets” when all you sell on the Web site are the green ones. I’m talking about actually reviewing the ads you created for Google three years ago and see which ones work (if any) and which ones are sabatoging your campaign. 2007 is going to be the year of relevant and great and (did I say?) relevant content.
-
Search is used as a branding tool. Okay, well so much for relevancy. I do believe that relevancy in the form of campaign optimization will be a huge trend throughout 2007, but I also believe search will be leveraged for branding purposes more than ever this year. I’m not so sure that’s a good thing. I do so love relevancy.
-
Searchers Look Beyond Google. The most exciting prediction for 2007 (in my opinion) are the sites, old and new, that encroach on Google’s current domination of search. I’m not just talking about Yahoo, MSN and AOL. I’m talking about sites like eBay, Amazon, Shopping.com, Business.com, Craig’s List, CitySearch, Realtor.com, Rentals.com, Expedia, CheapTickets, RottenTomatoes (movie reviews), and just about any web site that focuses on one specific industry sector or topic AND that people use as a starting point for search (as opposed to always starting at Google or another popular search engine). I think this is a sign that use of the Web is maturing because they now realize they have more than one resource to find information. It’s also an aspect of
Web 2.0 - that is, new and emerging companies, business models and technologies are springing up every day to meet the needs of searchers.
-
Keyword costs will skyrocket. Without even quoting any statistics, I can tell you this will be an ongoing and escalating issue in 2007. The very nature of Google’s
Quality Score index, plus Yahoo’s new platform which supposedly mimics the Quality Score concept will cause the price of keywords to go up notwithstanding increasing competition as more and more advertisers move their media dollars into paid search.
-
Search Marketing will kick all other tactics’ ass. Not exactly demure of me to word it like this, but the point is not that search marketing is, will be and always was one of the most effective forms of reaching consumers and driving sales – EVER – but that marketing managers, CEO’s, COO’s and grizzled old ad execs will finally, finally, FINALLY realize the truth of this and (for heaven’s sake) start integrating search into their overall media mix in a way that doesn’t force them to defer to the one computer geek in the company who always gets stuck redoing the web site and figuring out how to retrieve someone’s deleted in box.
There’s so much more to say, but I’ll end here or I’ll never get this posted.
January 12th, 2007
There’s no arguing that setting up a paid search campaign on Google, Yahoo, MSN or any number of second tier search engines (e.g., Ask.com, Business.com, etc.) is a great way to test the waters with online advertising.
Paid search campaigns can be up and running in less than a week (assuming you have your keyword list and ad copy ready to go), they cost very little to deploy if you’re managing them internally and you can start with a very small budget (unlike other media channels that have minimum spends for a fixed ad buy – magazine insertions, for example.)
Considering this, is it any wonder that paid search spending has grown 26% from 2005 to 2006 and eMarketer predicts search spending will reach 10 billion by 2009?
But if you’re new to search marketing, or if your company has just begun to truly invest in this very response-driven form of media, then you may be in for a surprise when the results of your campaign are not what you expected.
The disillusionment of search
I’ve seen it happen again again. Advertisers have some initial success with their search campaign so they increase their budget, expand their venues beyond Google or Yahoo and triple their keyword list only to find that they are now paying more for the same or, quite often, less traffic, leads and sales. Why does this happen? Who is at fault? Well, probably you.
Search campaigns are like snowflakes – each one uniquely different due to a dizzying array of variables that range from the precise keyword list to the number of ad groups right down to the landing page or pages.
However, when search campaigns fail it’s generally easy to pin point the same handful of problems regardless of how the campaign is set up or what keywords you’re bidding on.
Unrealistic expectations. Search marketing is a wonderful thing and when it works it REALLY works. But search is not magic. Say it with me, folks - “search is not magic!” If someone clicks on your search ad and gets to your web site, don’t pat yourself on the back yet. It’s way too early to celebrate. If this certain someone clicks on your ad and leaves your web site without converting in some way, then you have failed. (ok, group hug and let’s move on). If you expect your tiny 95 character Google ad to do ALL the work for you, then you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. You need to have an actual marketing strategy in place that considers lots of things from landing page layout to ongoing customer relationship management.
Increasing competition. You’ve probably just discovered that search marketing is an excellent event-driven marketing tool that you can ramp up quickly to coincide with many things such as a Mother’s Day Sale or a trade show where you’re exhibiting. You may have also realized that search is an excellent sustainable source of traffic, leads and/or sales. And guess what? So has everyone else. This means that the cost per click for your keywords is rising, particularly for highly competitive categories. A higher cost per click means a higher cost per acquisition. Do the math before raising the bid.
Poor campaign measurement. This one would seem to be a no brainer, but it plagues the search industry like the ever-present common cold. If you are putting most or all of your marketing dollars into search – and that could mean thousands per day or week for some companies, then you absolutely need to measure the results properly or YOU WILL FAIL. This can be a problem if you don’t close a sale directly from your web site, but rely on a sales team to actually seal the deal. ComScore reports that 60 to 90 percent of search-generated leads convert offline. There are companies such as eStara and Liveperson.com that provide tools for tracking click-to-call conversions from search and other online marketing initiatives. Understanding what terms actually convert is the best way to optimize your search campaign because it means you can ditch terms that cost you money without converting. It’s really that simple.
Poor landing pages. If you’re not creating landing pages with specific goals in mind, then you’re doing search wrong. All landing pages are NOT created equal. If you want people to register so you can send them e-mails and marketing messages, then your landing page should look different than someone who wants people to buy a product. Likewise, if you’re selling a service or nontangible goods like hosting or a music subscription (e.g., Vonage, GoDaddy, Rhapsody.com), then your landing page should be created with that goal in mind.
Search Marketing in a Vacuum. In very few instances, a search campaign can contribute sustainable leads or sales on a consistent basis without the cost going up. But for most advertisers, search will grow increasingly expensive and sales, leads or traffic will fluctuate from month to month. That’s why it’s important to develop a complete marketing strategy that goes above and beyond search. To make your search dollars work harder for you, make sure you have an arsenal of marketing tactics to support the campaign. E-mail marketing, blogs, press releases and articles are just a few examples of how you can mix it up a little without breaking the bank.
Search marketing is not as straightforward as it seems. When setting expectations for how your campaign should perform, keep the above in mind and try to not to get too stressed out. After all, it’s only media!
November 29th, 2006
I had the baffling experience today of asking an agency to clarify if there were any changes to media placement from Q2 to Q3 in a specific campaign and getting a very vague response which amounted to, “”Yes, we definitely optimize our campaign for media performance.”
Let me clarify that I was in a unique position of not actually being the media planner for the campaign, but rather, I was acting as the analyst for my client. I was tasked with reviewing quarterly performance for a long-term e-mail marketing program that gets its e-mail subscribers (enrollments) primarily via online media.
This is an odd perspective for me. I’m usually in the driver’s seat when it comes to getting leads, and not in a position of analyzing overall performance results on a campaign that I had absolutely nothing to do with planning or implementing.
It surprised me that the only response to my inquiry about optimization was a, ”Yep, we optimize the media and reallocate budgets according to what vendor performs best.” In reviewing the stats, it appeared otherwise. I saw that enrollments from all paid media sources had actually decreased from Q2 to Q3 (except for one vendor which was added in the middle of Q3). So my reaction was…”huh?”
The plot thickens
The agency said they optimize the media, but the media performance proved otherwise. Not only did enrollments coming in from paid media sources consistently decline from Q2 to Q3, the the number of search enrollments was decreasing steadily going as far back as Q1. Now, there could be some valid reasons for this that have nothing to do with optimization (or lack thereof) and these include:
- The media budget was reduced from Q2 to Q3
- There was some type of change on the vendor side (e.g., a CPA network lost a major publisher, an e-mail list was not used from one month to the next, etc.)
- The creative changed drastically and tanked OR the same creative was used for the same list/site/channel for too long and thus lost its dazzle (ad burnout)
- Mars and Saturn were not perfectly aligned in their orbits
But seriously, even if the budget was reduced and/or a combination of the above contributed to the overall poor performance from Q2 to Q3, it is the responsibitility of the media agency to figure out (to the best of their ability) what happened to cause the campaign to perform poorly and what could be done to improve performance.
If it’s something very simple, e.g., a budget reduction, then the next thing they should be looking at is the total number of leads compared with the total budget. For example, did leads decrease comparatively to the budget decrease or did they decrease at a lower rate than the percentage the budget was decreased (e.g., if you decrease your budget by 40% but your leads/sales only decrease by 15% then you’re doing something right). If you’re doing something right, you then need to figure out what it is so you can reproduce that media magic throughout Q4 and beyond.
Don’t accept, “we optimize your media for performance” as a good answer. Make your agency go deeper than that with details about what they think is actually working (or not) based on the actual performance metrics.
A line graph that shows your conversions going down down down from quarter to quarter needs some supporting insights about why this is happening and some actionable recommendations about what should be done to change the direction of that trend.
November 3rd, 2006
A recent Atlas Digital Marketing Insight titled, “The Combined Impact of Search and Display Advertising,” reveals some interesting stats about the combined use of online display ads (banners) and clicks on search ads in the same campaign.
The study, tracked across 11 advertisers for the month of April 2006 showed that:
- Campaigns combining search and display ads provided a 22% conversion rate lift compared with search alone
- Users exposed to both display and search ads convert at a rate of 400% better than display alone
- Search and display conversion rate varies quite a bit (as much as 8x) between advertisers, so it’s very important to monitor your campaign to see how well it converts when display ads (or search ads) are added to the mix
- Users who viewed three or more impressions in combination with one search click had better results than those who viewed one or two impressions (although too much of a good thing, e.g., two many impressions had the opposite effect)
It comes as no surprise to me that display ads such as banners which have long been paired with branding campaigns (as opposed “response”) can actually help foster conversion when paired with search ads. I’ve worked on a variety of online marketing campaigns and it’s always the ones that incorporate multiple tactics (e-mail, search, CPA, SEO) that are the most successful. When you are thinking about your 2007 media plan, it is important to look beyond any one tactic to the big picture when trying to achieve overall success.
How can you apply the above knowledge to your own campaigns?
One way to start experimenting with banner ads and other display ads is via Google’s content network which allows advertisers to upload a variety of creative types to an existing Adwords campaign. Banners associated with keyword-targeted campaigns are displayed on a CPC basis. Advertisers can also create a banner-only campaign on select content sites (this is called “site-targeting” in Google). Banner only site targeted campaigns are charged on a CPM basis via a bidding system. It is still comparatively cheap to start off with display advertising through Google’s content network since you aren’t paying a premium CPM for impressions.
Content networks (in addition to Google’s AdSense network) such as ContextWeb present another option to get a lot of exposure on from your ads for a fairly low CPM (image ads are generally charged on a CPM basis) on premium web sites where the CPM is ordinarily very high.
An important take away from this report is the importance of using multiple channels to reach your target audience. Sure, search marketing is great and very often it’s effective, but it’s not the only way to reach your target audience. As search becomes more expensive, getting an adequate return on investment will become more difficult.
Increasing your campaign’s performance (and achieving your ROI goals) may be as simple as differentiating the media you use to reach people. It will surely set you apart from advertisers who stay stubbornly focused on one tactic, be it search or otherwise.
November 2nd, 2006
Let’s face it, search ads aren’t known for their eye candy factor. They are bare bones marketing to the extreme: three lines of text (in some cases a lot less) with one measly link allowed per ad.
Ironically, the fact that they are so effective has a lot to do with how they look. At most points of the online shopping continuum, there’s the search ad. Its lackluster presence beside the things we desire is what makes it effective. These ads are thoughtfully placed to the right of the organic search results and/or main page content. Sometimes they appear below the search box, but always as text ads – nothing too flashy or distracting.
Admittedly, consumers often click on search ads because they don’t realize that they are, in fact, ads (in spite of the “Sponsored Links” label that appears above them, in most cases). Consumers also don’t get pissed off at search ads the way they do with more intrusive forms of advertising such as, well, EVERYTHING else. Let’s face it – pop ups, unwanted e-mail, TV commercials, long-winded and loud radio ads, and big-ass banners that require you to click on an “X” to close them are annoying.
The internet pop bottle began to lose its fizz back in 2000-2001 or so and one of the main symptoms of this phenomenon was the alarming rate of banner clickthrough decline. Studies showed people not only weren’t clicking on anything long and rectangular at the top of the page, they were avoiding looking at them altogether. There’s even a term for it – it’s called “banner blindness.”
Search ads quietly began to replace traditional banner ads as the hot new form of online media because they lacked the bells and whistles that the “traditional” online ads boasted, not in spite of it. There was no flash, no rotating pictures, no cute animations or sexy fonts – yet people were clicking.
And they’re still clicking, but now the landscape is changing…again. With the influx of broadband into the mainstream (Nielson/Netratings reported that 72% of at-home Internet users in the U.S. had broadband as of June 2006), the Internet is becoming a richly visual place to be.
This does not mean that “traditional” search ads are going the way of the old time banner. But, as marketers, we do need to think about the role that our text ads play in our overall campaign strategy and how we can leverage visual tools such as thumbnail images (think “Froogle”), photos and graphics (think Image Search) and video (e.g., YouTube, vlogs, Google Video) in conjunction with search technology to get even more response out of our online ad campaigns and continue to generate excitement from our clients.
I don’t think that plain Jane text ads will ever go the way of banners – at least not when they are associated with keyword searches at the engine-level (as opposed to contextual ads). Still, it’s important for search marketers to think beyond keywords and text to the end result – conversion. And when it comes to selling something, a picture definitely says a thousand words.
September 29th, 2006
A recent post on Google’s Adwords blog alerted me to the existence of the Google Adwords Philosophy which is as quaint and whimsical as the Unicorn slide show my 5-year-old insists we watch every night on YouTube.
But seriously, while I respect the well-intentioned folks at Google who took the time to outline a philosophy that is clearly built on integrity and the promotion of a good user experience, I can’t shake the feeling that they just don’t quite get it.
Here are a few quotes that gave me pause:
“By focusing on our users’ satisfaction and ensuring their confidence in the ads we deliver, we’re able to provide you with an audience that’s both highly targeted and highly receptive to your message.”
Um, no. Okay, well maybe. You’re able to provide us with an audience that’s highly targeted and highly receptive because YOU ARE A SEARCH ENGINE and you have brilliant engineers that figured out how to tie this technology into a keyword-targeted ad platform. But, let’s be honest, paid search isn’t successful because you’re Google, it’s successful because it taps into the core of what pepole want.
Search engine users are receptive because that’s the nature of search, not because of Google’s obsessive desire to serve the perfect search ad. So please stop charging us more money based on arbitrary landing page criteria, or CTRs or other cryptic factors that are of no help to us, as advertisers.
“At its heart the AdWords program is simple: we bring our users and advertisers together at the moment when their interests intersect.”
Sure, ok. This is true at Google.com and other SEARCH partners that serve ads tied to keyword queries, but it’s definitely not true for site or content targeting. Nuh-uh. A fact that Richard from Apogee very aptly points out. Richard says, “People browsing sites displaying AdSense ads are NOT “‘customers who are actively looking for exactly what they have to offer.’” Right on, Richard. The difference between content-targeting and keyword-targeting is fodder for another post, so I’ll resist going into detail about that now.
“Yet, in order to maintain a safe and unbiased advertising program, there are certain things about our system that we cannot share…If we were to detail the specific ’signals’ we look for when reviewing the clicks, malicious users could use the information to the disadvantage of other advertisers and to the AdWords system itself.”
Ok, so it’s for our own protection. How very George Bush of Google. In all fairness, I respect that Google and Yahoo both are more transparent than other forms of media. You can monitor results in real-time, view conversion down to the keyword level, generate on-the-fly reports quickly and launch a campaign wicked fast (again, compared with other forms of media). Still, I feel a bit squirmy when Google mentions all that blah blah blah about transparency when my work day is often filled with quality score mysteries and puzzling quotes by Eric Schmidt (Google’s CEO) about click fraud.
No matter how well-intentioned Google, Yahoo, MSN or any other PPC search ad provider is when it comes to the quality of the ads served, at the end of the day they absolutely must remember that they are selling media. This makes them media vendors. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t search engines, and that we don’t still love them (group hug!) It just means that advertisers need not always take second place to Web site users.
Advertisers help fund the miracle that is Google. Most of us are not asking Google (or Yahoo) to cheat its users or display ads that aren’t relevant - obviously we benefit from highly targeted relevant ads just like you do - but I personally would love for Google (and Yahoo) to be a bit more media savvy (hint: MAKE THE IO PROCESS SIMPLER).
Admit you’re a media company. ADMIT IT!!!
September 21st, 2006
Next Posts
Previous Posts
