Search and social media marketing spend remains strong – new report | Econsultancy

Search and social media marketing spend remains strong – new report | Econsultancy.

Good news @Havas Media Brussels we have focussed a consequent part of our development on Search & SoMe

“Digital marketing budgets in search engine and social media marketing are continuing to rise despite challenging economic conditions, according to research released today.

The UK Search Engine Benchmark Report, published in association with NetBooster, has for the past five years shown that companies have continuously invested in the opportunities present in SEO, paid search and social media marketing.

According to the research, based on a survey of over 300 UK in-house marketers and over 200 agency employees, nearly two-thirds of companies (62%) plan to increase their social media spending within the next 12 months, with 57% increasing spending on SEO and almost half (49%) increasing spending on paid search.

Over a third of companies (38%) are spending in excess of £100,000 on paid search advertising each year, with 12% spending similarly in SEO.

The report also found that the three most commonly cited barriers to success in paid search were the strength of competition, keywords being too expensive, and a lack of budget, with over a third of companies citing these three challenges as some of their most significant issues.

The most commonly cited barrier to success in SEO was listed as a lack of resource, with 42% of companies stating that this was a problem. Such findings are in line with the trend towards higher cost-per-click rates and an increasing emphasis on the production of high quality, original content for SEO.

Commenting on the research, Edward Cowell, SEO Director at NetBooster said:

This year has been a period of the most rapid and interesting change we’ve seen in digital and search for a long time. I am delighted to say that the search sector is still evolving at pace, and the outlook for investment in search marketing remains positive.

Andrew Warren-Payne is a Research Analyst at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter or Google+. 

Google Search Just Got 1,000 Times Smarter

Google Search Just Got 1,000 Times Smarter.

The Google Search of the future is here. Now. Today. The long-talked-about semantic web — Google prefers “Knowledge Graph” — is rolling out across all Google Search tools, and our most fundamental online task may never be the same again.

Starting today, a vast portion of Google Search results will work with you to intuit what you really meant by that search entry. Type in an ambiguous query like “Kings” (which could mean royalty, a sports team or a now-cancelled TV show), and a new window will appear on the right side of your result literally asking you which entity you meant. Click on one of those options and your results will be filtered for that search entity.

To understand the gravity of this change, you need to know about the fundamental changes going on behind the scenes at Google Search. As we outlined in our report earlier this year, Google is switching from simple keyword recognition to the identification of entities, nodes and relationships. In this world, “New York” is not simply the combination of two keywords that can be recognized. It’s understood by Google as a state in the U.S. surrounded by other states, the Atlantic Ocean and with a whole bunch of other, relevant attributes.

As Ben Gomes, Google Fellow, put it, Google is essentially switching “from strings to things.”

To build this world of things, Google is tapping a variety of knowledge databases, including Freebase, which it bought in 2010, Wikipedia, Google Local, Google Maps and Google Shopping. Currently, Google’s Knowledge Graph has over 500 million people, places and things and those things have at least 3.5 billion attributes.

That’s a lot of things. According to Google, search users will see these new knowledge graph results at least as often as they see Google Maps in results. In fact, this update will have a greater initial impact than the updates that brought Google Images, videos, news and books, combined. It’s big and it’s probably going to be everywhere.

---

Summaries of Good Stuff

---

In addition to the window which will help users find the right “thing,” Google will also surface summaries for things, which, again, will try to be somewhat comprehensive by tapping into the various databases of knowledge. A search for Frank Lloyd Wright, for instance, will return a brief summary, photos of Wright, images of his famous projects and perhaps, most interestingly, related “things.” People who search for Wright are also looking for other notable architects. It’s a feature that may remind users of Amazon’s penchant for delivering “people who liked this book also bought or searched for this one” results.

Gomes said that the search results are tailored to deliver information that best relates to the initial search result. So the details delivered about a female astronaut will likely outline her space travel record, because that’s what people who search for her are, according to Google, most interested in.

How the Knowledge Graph Works. Click to see full graph example

Since this is a knowledge graph (“Web” might be a better word), the results are designed to help you dig more deeply into related topics. Google showed us how someone might start by searching for a local amusement park, find an interesting rollercoaster as one of the “things” that relates to the park and end up digging in on details about that coaster and other similar rides. It’s a “skeleton of knowledge that allows you to explore information on the web,” said Gomes.

There is the potential, Gomes added, of serendipitous discovery. The more you dig into things, the more things you learn about.

Of course, not every “thing” is the right thing. Wikipedia is, for example, a community-sourced encyclopedia that is known for both its breadth and depth of information and the occasional whoppers of misinformation it stores. Google’s Knowledge Graph includes an error reporting system. When users find misinformation, Google will share it with the source and the knowledge graph will get just a little bit smarter

For now, though, the Knowledge Graph is not getting any smarter about you. If you search for an ambiguous topic and then guide Google Search to the more defined set of results, the same query later will not go directly to that filtered information — at least not yet. “We don’t have anything to announce for personalization,” said Gomes.

---

The Competition

---

Google’s chief search competitor, Microsoft Bing, also has millions of entities, but it’s not aiming for the purely semantic model of search results. Instead, Bing execs told Mashable that it’s focusing, in part, on much smaller set of segments that its users typically search on (i.e.: restaurants, hotels, movies) and trying to surface relevant information regarding those segments. A search result for hotels, for example, might include reservation tools. And while Google search now blends in Google+ results, Bing’s latest instantiation has moved social information to the right side of its search results page

It’s unclear for now how the Google Knowledge Graph, which pushes aside keyword results in favor of relationships and artificial intelligence, impacts all the Search Engine Optimization (SEO) many web sites have done to push their search rank ever higher. Also unknown is how, if at all, Google’s sea change will impact Google+. Gomes revealed that some Google+ changes were coming “independent of this” update and that Google will be talking about them separately.

Eventually, Google’s search will get smarter and will stop asking for your help to understand your query and start answering complex questions like “What is the coldest lake in the world in July?” It doesn’t matter why you want to know that, just that, someday, the right answer will be a click away on Google Search.

Google’s Knowledge Graph will roll out across the U.S. (and on all Google platforms: desktop, mobile, tablet) in the coming days. Eventually, it will go global. Give it a try and let us know what you think of the brand new Google Search in the comments.

Analyst: Mobile To Overtake PC For Local Search By 2015

Analyst: Mobile To Overtake PC For Local Search By 2015.

Analyst firm BIA/Kelsey has projected that by 2015 there will be more local searches coming from smartphones than PCs  in the US. It’s a bold prediction and one that has logical merit: smartphone search volumes are growing faster than search on the PC. While local search is at least 20 percent of total queries on the PC (per Google) it’s at least 40 percent of smartphone queries, also according to Google.

Mobile vs. PC Local Search Volumes (BIA/Kelsey Forecast)

Source: BIA/Kelsey (2012)

In some categories such as restaurants and travel, mobile searches represent 15 – 20 percent or more of overall query volumes. There can be no dispute that mobile search is now a huge phenomenon. But will it eclipse PC local search query volume in three years?

Let’s think out loud a bit, shall we?

50 Billion Local Queries on the PC

Using the Google 20 percent figure as a guide we can estimate that in March there were approximately 3.7 billion local searches on the PC in the US. In the absence of significant month over month growth that would translate into roughly 44 billion annual local queries coming through US search engines on the PC. But let’s assume modest local query growth and say there will be something on the order of 50 billion local queries on search engines in the US in 2012. (The number could be higher of course.)

Now, how many local-mobile search queries are there?

Answering that question depends on whether we include app-based local search (e.g., Yelp, Foursquare, yellow pages apps, Urbanspoon, etc.). Data from comScore, Localeze and 15 Miles finds that half of US mobile consumers (survey respondents) say they use apps at least some of the time for local search. However, we don’t know the frequency or the volume of in-app search because no one is really tracking those numbers today.

Let’s limit the definition of “mobile search” to browser based search through one of the major US search engines. However right now Google represents about 95 percent of the total “mobile search” market in the US.

12 Billion Local Queries on Smartphones

If there are roughly 125 million smartphone owners in the US (50 percent of 250 million mobile subscribers) and a large number of smartphone owners do an average 20 mobile searches per month, then there are something like 30 billion mobile searches annually right now in the US. (Let’s leave out tablets of this discussion.) If 40 percent of that overall mobile search volume is local, that would mean roughly 12 billion annual local searches on mobile devices. (This number may be slightly inflated today.)

We can assume growth in smartphone penetration and some growth in per-person mobile search query volume — though this assumption is a wild card for several reasons. It also may be a bit risky to assume that the percentage of overall mobile search that is local will continue to climb significantly, though it could reach 50 percent (which is what Microsoft says it is today on Bing).

Let’s assume smartphone penetration reaches 75 percent (say 187 million people) and each person does 40 mobile searches per month (doubling our per-person monthly query assumption). That translates into 90 billion annual mobile queries. If the local percentage of mobile search volume grows to 50 percent, we’d have 45 billion annual local-mobile search queries.

That event would get us pretty close to PC-mobile local search parity, if there weren’t dramatic PC local search growth. However a number of factual assumptions must come to pass. And the future is not guaranteed to look like the past.

What If the Paradigm Shifts?

The proliferation of mobile apps (whether native or HTML5) combined with the rise of Siri and other voice assistants could mean that browser-based mobile search doesn’t grow much over time. Google has cited figures of 130 percent year over year mobile search growth. But there are reasons to believe that the current PC search model on the smartphone small screen will be supplanted, at least to some degree in the relatively near future.

More than a couple of years out it all starts to get very speculative, since mobile is evolving so rapidly. However, regardless of whether the BIA forecast comes true in three years — I don’t think it can without including in-app search volumes — it’s certainly directionally accurate. And one day in the relatively near future it’s clear that people will be using mobile devices to find local information as much or more than their laptops and desktop PCs.

Social vs Search

social-vs-search-infographic_475.gif (475×1686).

Paid Search, Mobile Spending Increase in Q1 2012 – Search Engine Watch (#SEW)

Paid Search, Mobile Spending Increase in Q1 2012 – Search Engine Watch (#SEW).

Marketers Spending More on Mobile

Adobe’s report has U.S. marketers increasing their mobile ad spend to 8 percent of all search spend, while those in the U.K. allotted 11 percent to mobile in Q1. Tablets alone accounted for 4.25 percent. Adobe predicts mobile and tablet advertising will continue to appeal to advertisers in the short term, given their “disproportionately” low CPCs, compared to desktop PCs.

IgnitionOne put the amount of U.S. paid search spend dedicated to mobile slightly higher, at 12.4 percent. This represents an overall increase in mobile search spend of 221.1 percent over the same quarter last year, though the report warns that this growth rate has slowed since Q4 2011. Clicks on mobile ads increased 246.1 percent YoY.

Yahoo/Bing Increase Market Share, But Kill Their ROI Advantage Over Google

According to IgnitionOne, Yahoo/Bing had their best quarter since Q2 2010, with a 46.4 percent increase in U.S. search advertising spend YoY. For their part, Google saw lower but no less impressive 26.6 percent growth YoY. Compared to Q4 2011 (the holiday season), Bing actually saw total ad spend increase 14.3 percent, while Google’s spend fell 5.4 percent.

Adobe notes that Google’s CPC fell 5 percent over last year, while Yahoo/Bing CPC rates were 18 percent higher YoY.

“As a result, the Bing/Yahoo ROI advantage over Google no longer exists,” says the report. “Note that when Yahoo Japan converted to the Google ad serving platform from Bing/Yahoo, CPC rates dropped significantly. This indicates that Google, on average, charges a lower premium to search advertisers.”

Outlook for Rest of 2012

Marketers are missing out if they’re not targeting mobile, said Roger Barnette, President of IgnitionOne.

“While the growth in mobile ad spend has been an ongoing trend, I am impressed by the level of activity and click-throughs on tablets. This should be a wakeup call for marketers who are not yet leveraging search advertising on these devices,” Barnette said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Adobe predicts U.S. search spend will increase 10 to 15 percent throughout 2012, with tablets and mobile taking up to 20 percent of all search spend by Q4 2012. Marin Software also recently predicted that smart mobile devices will account for a full 25 percent of paid search clicks on Google by the end of 2012.

Adobe also offers a bit of advice to marketers in their report: “In a rational marketplace, the CPC rates on tablets should be identical to desktop CPC rates if the conversion rates are comparable. Furthermore, current trends indicate that tablets may cannibalize smartphone and desktop search spend as investments continue to shift to tablet devices.”

Consumers Concerned About Personalized Search Results – eMarketer

Consumers Concerned About Personalized Search Results – eMarketer.

Nearly half of internet users prefer standardized search results

Search and social media are becoming more interconnected, particularly as Google works to integrate social media content into its search results.

In January 2012, Google announced that, as of March 1, 2012, search results on Google.com will incorporate content from users’ Google+ social network, highlighting links, photos and comments from Google+ within search results. This has led to some concern from users, particularly about privacy.

AYTM Market Research asked US internet users if they liked the idea of personalized search results. Of respondents, 15.5% said yes, they would like personalized search results, while 39.1% said yes, but that they were also concerned with privacy. Additionally, 45.4% said they would prefer everyone to see the same search results.

RKG, a search marketing company, found in its “Digital Marketing Report Q4 2011” that 83.5% of the organic search traffic of companies worldwide was through Google. While Google is by far the most popular search engine, another concern with Google’s search-and-social plan is that Google+ may not fully represent consumers’ social media lives.

According to AYTM, only 19.3% of respondents actively use Google+, while an additional 20.3% have an account but do not use it. Nearly one-fifth of respondents (19.5%) reported that they don’t know what Google+ is.

Twitter, in particular, took offense to Google’s plan to integrate Google+ content into search results, while not including that of Twitter and Facebook. Twitter and Google previously had a relationship where Twitter content showed up in Google’s real-time search results, but the two companies were unable to come to an agreement to continue the partnership in July 2011.

In a statement, Twitter said, “As we’ve seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter; as a result, Twitter accounts and Tweets are often the most relevant results [for world events and breaking news]. We’re concerned that as a result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone.”

Google faces an uphill battle as it works to connect its social content to search results, including determining how users prefer to connect the two. No matter what happens with Google+, though, marketers must find a balance with search and social media marketing, as the two are becoming more connected every day.

How can marketers use TV ads to drive people online? | Econsultancy

How can marketers use TV ads to drive people online? | Econsultancy.

In a multichannel environment, brands and marketers need to think carefully about how customers will respond to offline advertising. 

If people see a product or service they like, will they open up their laptops and type the URL used on the ad into a search engine? Will they search for the brand online instead? Or will they use the smartphone in their pocket?

For example, if I see an advert for a car and type the make and model into Google, I want to see a landing page that matches my expectations; providing details of the car, some nice photos and videos, and a link to find my local dealer, or book a test drive.

Whether this was the aim of the ad or not, TV campaigns will drive spikes in search activity online.

According to a recent study by Efficient Frontier, TV ads can drive an 80% rise in branded search.

In the study, searches during an eight-week TV ad campaign will typically jump between 60 to 80% on the brand name, and between 40 and 60% on generic terms related to the brand.

Why get people to search online?

Online offers an immediate response mechanism for viewers of TV ads. It allows brands an opportunity to capitalise instantly of the effect of the ad.

If a customer has seen a pair of shoes they like on an M&S ad for instance, they can head online and purchase it within minutes.

If it’s a car insurance advert, customers can open their laptops and start the quotation process straight away.

Even when the product or service cannot be purchased online, then the internet offers a way to capture customer details, for people to book an appointment or a test drive within minutes of the ad.

People are increasingly using different kinds of media while they are watching TV. With laptops, smartphones and tablet computers like the iPad, many viewers are likely to have the internet at their fingertips while watching TV.

For example, a recent IAB study found that 49% of mobile internet users will often watch TV while browsing on their phones.

This offers an excellent opportunity for marketers to get viewers to respond to TV ads by going online.

What kinds of tactics can brands use to get viewers of TV ads to search online?

Place a URL in the ad

An obvious way to do it – the URL both indicates that a brand is online, and directs the viewer exactly where they need to go, though how many users type the exact web address into their browsers is questionable.

This is becoming common practice in the majority of TV and print advertising. A recent survey by Nominet found that 65% of all UK print and television advertising now includes a web address.

There is a disparity between print and TV though; 83% of print ads now feature a URL compared with just 61% of TV ads, a missed opportunity, especially when you consider the higher costs of TV advertising.

A URL in an ad gives customers a response mechanism and, if they type in the correct web address, they’ll go to a dedicated landing page.

Unique URLs also provide a mechanism for marketers to track response to offline advertising.

However, URLs need to be memorable, and not too long, otherwise people will make mistakes.

Search calls to action

Another option is to direct people to search for a particular word or phrase online.

Users often prefer to search for navigation purposes online, rather than using the browser bar to type in the web address and go directly to a website.

The fact that major online destinations like Facebook, eBay and Amazon regularly feature in lists of top searched keywords is evidence of this behaviour.

Given that people responding to ads online, it makes sense to take account of this behaviour, and direct users to search for a particular term.

This approach has the added advantage of making the offline campaign more trackable, as brands and advertisers can monitor any spikes in searches for keywords and phrases used in offline advertising.

There are some potential drawbacks to this approach though. Firstly, the use of a unique search keyword or phrase tells competitors about your search strategy, and gives them the opportunity to bid on these terms and hijack traffic driven by the ads.

Make it easy for users to search for the brand or product

Whether you include a URL or a search call to action on the ad or not, it’s likely that many people will respond to ads by searching for the brand or product name online.

This is often the easiest way for users to respond to ads, so brands need to have done their homework so that they are highly visible in the search results pages for these terms.

Facebook landing pages

Another recent trend has been for brands to direct viewers and readers on TV and print ads to a Facebook page.

This is something Ford has been doing in its recent campaign for the new Focus, and visitors arrive at a landing page with videos and information about the car.

This approach can help brands to build a following on the site, as hopefully users will arrive at the Facebook page while logged into their own account.

Then, if they hit the ‘like’ button, the page will also be promoted to that user’s Facebook friends.

Create a unique phrase or character

By using Aleksandr the meerkat, and inviting viewers to search for Compare the Meerkat, the insurance firm managed to create a clear call to action which, given the unique nature of the search phrase, made It easier for them to ensure that the landing page was highly visible in search results.

It was also an excellent way of saving money on paid search. When the campaign was launched in 2009, the cost per click for the word ‘meerkat’ was 5p, compared to £5 for the keyword ‘market’.

This allowed Compare the Market to achieve search visibility in a highly competitive market at a fraction of the normal cost.

QR codes

The use of QR codes isn’t yet widespread, and mobile users do have to download a code reader application before they can scan them, but this does offer a potentially valuable direct response mechanism.

By showing QR codes in offline ads, brands could send mobile users straight to a dedicated landing page, a video showing the product, or a voucher to be redeemed at their local store.

SMS 

According to a recent MMA/Lightspeed survey, 31% of UK consumers would be more likely to respond to an ad if there was a mobile response mechanism on offer.

The same survey found that sending a keyword by SMS to a shortcode was the most widely recognised mobile response mechanism.

Directing searchers to the correct landing page

Getting people to search online after viewing an ad is just the first part of the challenge. Next, they need to be directed to the correct website or landing page, and this is all about having the right search strategy in place.

SEO

This is something that should be planned well in advance so that brand and non-brand search terms are in high enough positions to capture the extra search traffic that TV ads will generate.

How hard this is to achieve will depend on the brand and product name. If you have a more generic brand or product name, then creating a unique search phrase or URL may be an alternative strategy.

Ford has managed to get the SEO right, and people searching for the Ford Fiesta currently being advertised on TV shouldn’t have any trouble finding the right page:

Paid search 

The one guaranteed way to top the search engines around the time of TV ad campaigns is buy the related paid search keywords and phrases.

While brands may be worried about spending on paid search straight after a TV advertising campaign, they will often see higher than average conversion rates, which should justify the extra expenditure.

Tips for landing pages

Getting users to respond to ads by searching online is just the first step. To make the most of these leads, an effective landing page is the next step.

Create mobile-friendly landing pages

People are increasing watching TV or reading newspapers while using their mobiles to access the internet, and are increasingly likely to use their phones to respond to ads.

If they do this, only to find a slow-loading page that has not been optimised for mobiles, containing Flash elements and videos that won’t work, then the effort made by the advertiser to get a response has been wasted.

Brands don’t need to ‘dumb down’ landing pages just to cater fro mobile users, they can simply detect the device accessing the page and divert mobile and tablet users to the most suitable version.

Clear link from main homepage to landing page

Brands may have included a URL or a clear search call to action in the ad which leads to a dedicated micro site, but many people will just end up at the brand’s main homepage anyway.

These visitors should be able to see a link to the micro site and images or copy that matches what they have just seen in the offline advertising.

For example, though Ford’s ad campaign for the new Focus invites users to its Facebook page, visitors to its website will immediately see links and information related to the new car and the ad campaign.

Include clear calls to action on landing pages

Whatever the purpose of the landing page is, inviting people to make a purchase, sign up for newsletters, or book a test drive, it should be unmistakably clear to visitors.

Your landing page should include clear calls to action that make the next step you want visitors to take as clear as possible.

Continue the ad experience onto the landing page

If customers have taken the trouble to head to your landing page after seeing the TV or print ad, then it must have been effective.

Continue this effect through to the landing page by using images, language and even video which matches the offline ad and reinforces the message you were aiming for.

In Ford’s landing page for the current Fiesta campaign, visitors can see an annotated version of the TV ad, as well as a wealth of information on the new car:

Add sharing options

If you have created a great TV ad and attracted visitors to your landing page, make it easy for them to share it with others, and extend the reach of your campaign for free.

Add links to allow users to easily share the content with friends via email or social media sites.

Don’t ask too much

If you are asking people to submit their details or sign up for a quote, then make the process as smooth as possible.

Asking for too much information at this stage risks frightening them off and wasting the investment you made getting them there.

Don’t drive people away by asking for anything you don’t actually need.

Provide a range of contact options for visitors

You may have created the perfect landing page, but some people will still not respond, so give them options.

Provide different contact options, including email addresses, contact forms, phone numbers, so they can choose how they would like to contact you.

Measuring the success of TV campaigns

Here are a few ways you can measure how effective TV ads have been in driving traffic online.

Ask customers

If customers have arrived at your site, you can simply ask which media channel influenced their decision to visit.

However, if you make this a compulsory field during the checkout or registration process, then the answers given may be less reliable.

Monitor brand traffic

A simple measure of the impact of an offline campaign is the traffic driven by your brand keywords.

If a TV advert has encouraged people to think about your brand then you should see more people searching for your brand.

Hybrid traffic

Hybrid traffic combines a brand term with either generic or specific terms.

This could be a combination of brand name and product in the term, or some other feature from the ad. This would show that this search traffic is directly related to the ad.

Catchphrase Traffic

Some of the best adverts create memorable slogans or catch phrases. If you have optimised for this phrase, and people are responding to the ad, you may well see more traffic based on this.

Geographic analysis

Many analytic packages allow you to view where in the country traffic has come from. This is ideal if you are running a geographic specific campaign, on regional TV for example.

Paid search clicks

As with brand search terms, you should see a higher click through rate from paid search ads related to the TV campaign.

Conversions / sign ups

The conversions from traffic related to the TV ads, or for the products advertised, should give an idea of the ad’s success.

Unique URLs

If you have a URL that is unique to a TV ad campaign, then traffic to this address will be directly attributable to the ad in question.

Is Social Taking Over Search ?

To Boost Organic Clickthrough Rate, Look to Paid Search CPC – eMarketer

via To Boost Organic Clickthrough Rate, Look to Paid Search CPC – eMarketer.

MAY 12, 2011

Increased organic listing rank on cheaper AdWords terms leads to higher clickthrough rate

Search marketing objectives may vary, but all search marketers share a common goal: top placements on page 1 of search engine results.

Unlike paid search, which lets advertisers simply buy top position, search engine optimization (SEO) earns marketers premium page rank through careful website optimization on select keywords. Because SEO can take days or even months to increase natural page rank, marketers must be more selective and deliberate in choosing which keywords to optimize.

Findings from Optify suggest one way for marketers to prioritize SEO efforts is by considering the value of each keyword in Google AdWords, then using the average CPC to determine potential organic listing clickthrough rate.

The study looked at terms that were both expensive (keyword phrases costing more than $1.50 per click) and cheap (phrases with CPCs less than $0.25) for Google AdWords advertisers to determine whether paid search CPC had an impact on organic listing clickthrough rate.

For terms that had low paid-search prices, the organic clickthrough rate for page 1 placement on Google was 87.5%, compared to only 37.3% for organic results tied to more expensive keywords.

In fact, the average rank 1 clickthrough rate for organic results tied to cheaper terms was 31.8%, almost double the 17.1% clickthrough rate at rank 1 for natural results tied to more expensive paid search CPCs.

The disparity in organic clickthrough widens even further as listing rank decreases; it more than triples at rank 2 for cheap (13.8%) and expensive terms (4.3%).

Expensive CPCs are often the result of increased advertiser competition for a given keyword. For such keywords, Google typically displays up to three paid listing ads in the top center of the search engine results page. Inevitably, this forces natural listings further down the page. Lower-CPC keywords often have fewer advertisers, allowing natural results to move up the page and capture more clicks.

Marketers most concerned with increasing clickthrough rate who are unable to secure rank 1 position organically for more expensive keywords would be wise to shift their efforts to optimizing organic listing positions for cheaper keywords, even at lower ranks.

Although increased clickthrough rate often suggests higher relevancy, which often leads to an increase in website traffic, marketers should not mistake clickthrough rate with traffic volume. SEO marketers should estimate potential traffic gains for each keyword to determine the optimal listing position for increased traffic and clickthrough rate.

Keep your business ahead of the digital curve. Learn more about becoming an eMarketer Total Access client today.

Check out today’s other article, “Brands Shift Focus of Mobile Outreach.”

Actionable Media Attribution and Analytics for Search Marketers – Search Engine Watch (SEW)

via Actionable Media Attribution and Analytics for Search Marketers – Search Engine Watch (SEW).

Actionable Media Attribution and Analytics for Search Marketers

Roger Barnette | May 6, 2011 | 0 Comments

Attribution of digital marketing efforts — across elements such as paid search, organic search, display and social media — gets no shortage of discussion among search marketers today. This is for good reason. Technology has enabled marketers to understand how their distinct marketing efforts impact each other.

Meanwhile, consumers are transitioning much of the purchase funnel online, which makes attribution analysis even more important. But questions persist: Is the effort required for proper attribution worth the payoff, and what do I do with the data when I get it?

Specifically, there are distinct ways that marketers should be using funnel analysis and attribution to impact their ROI:

1. Centralized tracking which de-duplicates performance across digital marketing channels to avoid “double-paying” for conversions across multiple vendors.
2. High level funnel analysis to support media mix decisions and understand assisting interactions between different types of media.
3. A feedback mechanism into bid optimization, which values media in a consistent manner with a marketer’s attribution model.

The following is a quick scenario about one of our customers (a national hotel chain running search and display) and how they took advantage of all three benefits above. It provides a useful and illustrative real-world example of how attribution can positively impact our ROI.

This customer had been using last click attribution for several years. As a result, all of the originating and assisting media was greatly under-credited in the day-to-day attribution accounting.

De-duplication of actions had already been eliminated as an early challenge. The first step in the attribution analysis was to examine the funnel position of the marketing channels.

We discovered that non-brand keywords and brand-display tended to appear early in the funnel process, while brand search and retargeted display tended to “close the deal.”

Once we understood the relationship between each of these marketing channels and funnel position and analyzed the data further, we ended up recommending a “spread” model for this customerâ��s attribution, one where revenue and action credit was divided fractionally across various clicks and impressions.

The spread model still favored the last exposure, but the analysis accounted for media where the marketer had more headroom for efficient spending that would end up feeding the funnel, but hadn’t been perceived to be efficient enough (on a last click model) to justify additional spending.

After the attribution model was changed, our paid search portfolio optimization algorithm started shifting spend up the funnel to keywords that had been bid down previously. This kicked off a virtuous cycle where top of funnel search ended up assisting brand search and display retargeting, both of which were extremely cost effective at closing the deal.

The optimization algorithms automatically started feeding the top of the funnel. Overall efficiency improved across all of their marketing channels, which in turn meant budgets could be raised while sticking to the same CPA goals that the marketer had been targeting before.

More budget shifted up the funnel created more efficiency, until we reached a point of stasis around the desired CPA goal across all media channels.

The new model allowed the marketer to spend 42 percent more on paid search and earn 34 percent more revenue attributed to paid search, while still growing their overall funnel volume significantly and maintaining a flat ROAS across all media.

Attribution modeling and analytics can be vital to the success of a marketing campaign, but only if the attribution analytics are actionable and fed back directly into the optimization of your campaigns.

For this marketer and others who have adopted attribution and automated these learnings to feed their media optimization, the return is most certainly worth the effort.