Close
Join 237,000 weekly readers and receive practical marketing advice for FREE.
MarketingSherpa's Case Studies, New Research Data, How-tos, Interviews and Articles

Enter your email below to join thousands of marketers and get FREE weekly newsletters with practical Case Studies, research and training, as well as MarketingSherpa updates and promotions.

 

Please refer to our Privacy Policy and About Us page for contact details.

No thanks, take me to MarketingSherpa

First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Text HTML
Feb 21, 2006
Blog Post

Two New Studies Show Google Clicks Don't Convert as Well

SUMMARY: No summary available.
By Anne Holland, President

Funny, the biggest Net marketing trend these days I hear when interviewing people is Google hate. "Everyone loves them, they have the best brand in the world, but really they stink!" is a typical rant. I think most of it is due to human nature more than any research.

You know: Google is massive, Google is insanely powerful, Google and Bill Gates both have a "G" in their names. Jealously and fear are very powerful.

Last week, not one but two separate research studies were released revealing "Ta da!" that Google clicks are not quite up to snuff compared to other search engines. (Link to more info below.)

First, BIGresearch released a study with the key finding, ‘Yahoo Tops Search Engines for Influence to Purchase.’ (Note: These folks mainly study the consumer marketing world, not B-to-B.)

The next day, Web analytics firm WebSideStory released a study showing the following conversion stats across their many clients:

AOL traffic 6.17% MSN traffic 6.03% Yahoo traffic 4.07% Google traffic 3.83%

However dramatic this data, you should also realize (as I do) that the average marketer is often buying up to tens of thousands more keywords from Google than they are, in particular from AOL or MSN, so of course conversions would be lower. Broader terms equals lower conversions (but often cheaper CPC and better ROI).

Also, whether or not clicks from Google’s non-search AdSense network are included is not noted. If they are (and I bet they are) lower conversions would make sense as contextual ads almost invariably pull lower conversions than search ads. Duh.

OK, while I’m not the biggest Google fan in the world (it’s hard to unwaveringly adore a company that holds massive power over your bottom line -– as Google does for all of us who rely to some degree on search traffic), I suspect this anti-Google research is in some part a very human backlash against its gargantuan-ness.

My recommendations in response to these studies?

#1. If you're focusing ONLY on Google get thyself onto additional mainstream search engines, niche engines, and/or shopping engines. As we've documented for two years now in our Search Marketing Benchmark Guide, a sizeable portion of the online marketplace uses search engines that sometimes are not Google.

A smart direct response marketer would never mail only one list unremittingly. Why focus on a single search engine?

#2. If you are lumping in contextual ads with your search ad buy, as far too many marketers are, split these campaigns and track them separately.

Just because an AdSense campaign has the "Google" name on it doesn't mean it's going to perform as well as ads that actually appear on Google.

#3. Search optimization (SEO) is generally far less expensive than an aggressive paid search campaign to get the same amount of traffic. Plus, the effects are longer lasting, and conversions are frequently in the same range (or even higher) than paid ads on engines.

This year marketers will spend roughly 1/8th of their search budgets on SEO, and 7/8th on paid search ads. That's really stupid. (Lemmings, cliff … you get the picture.)

#4. Don't use any search engine's free analytics program to track your conversions. Why would you give someone who sells you ads all the data they need to decide if they should put the price up higher?

It astonishes me that marketers who would never publicly reveal their conversion data will hand over the keys to the data castle in exchange for a little free software. Google may be an awfully nice brand, with awfully nice people, but this is business, remember?

Since when do you allow an ad sales rep inside your books?

Anyway, rant over. Here's a link to my other blog over at ContentBiz where I first discussed this data last week and gave links to studies: http://blog.contentbiz.com/
See Also:

Post a Comment

Note: Comments are lightly moderated. We post all comments without editing as long as they
(a) relate to the topic at hand,
(b) do not contain offensive content, and
(c) are not overt sales pitches for your company's own products/services.










To help us prevent spam, please type the numbers
(including dashes) you see in the image below.*

Invalid entry - please re-enter




*Please Note: Your comment will not appear immediately --
article comments are approved by a moderator.

Improve your marketing

Join our thousands of weekly Case Study readers. Enter your email address below to receive MarketingSherpa news, updates, and promotions:
Note: Already a subscriber? Want to add a subscription?
Click Here to Manage Subscriptions