ADOTA: “ Study Says Stop Sinking $$$ Into Search”
Ah crap, here we go again…
Okay, breathe.
First, if this is the way Microsoft manages the release of search information, no wonder they are a trailing third in the space. It is not that I think these numbers should be hidden, but they need more context. There are a few qualitative points to be made, then we can hit on the quantitative.
First,
“Most of the clicks to a web site came from users who had already visited”
Good. It shows a level awareness. However it does not indicate the propensity to go to the site to make a purchase at the time of intent. I can’t tell you how many times I have had clients insist that they do not need any directional advertising because “consumers already know who we are.” Yet, when we placed a bigger ad in the yellow pages, or improved their placement in search, or bought a listing in IYPs, they suddenly had a boon in “awareness”.
So,lets say you’re…Microsoft. For the Office 2007 product, they have a dedicated URL that brings you to the sub-page on Microsoft.com… good move.
So, for a non-branded query for word processor, you can get this paid search ad.
[----image no longer available----]
If you have “Microsoft” in front of the query, you get the same url, with greater relevancy. Different ad. If the SEM knows what they are doing, the messages are targeted to the search query.
But, what if you type in “Microsoft”? You get the same ad.
But you also get organic listings just below this. Now, taking this article to heart, one would counsel Microsoft to stop bidding on the term “Microsoft”. However, on closer inspection, the SERPs are confusing relative to the Office 2007 product. The organic link is not sales focused and the ability to convert a search is diminished.
This whole argument goes back to a post I did months back about branded keywords. Controlling the user experience greatly increases your chances of a conversion. Simply giving up branded keyword control to organic results is a sure fire way to get the very least benefit possible from search. You can quickly take conversion from the 60% percent of visits and flush it down the drain.
Add to that one question: If 60% of the visits were driven by branded keywords and 40% by others, what do you think the 60% will do if they don’t see your name during the search? Yes, some will simply type the url into the browser. Others will very likely conduct another, broader search and pick up more of your competitors (or just click on one of the competitors in the original search who bought your term). Not being there is foolish.
Reporting like ADOTA’s on studies like these is far too shortsighted.
Like all advertising, we should look for the synergies. Two studies were released recently that speak to this. Our analytics group does regression analysis to be able to attribute the relative influence of online and off line activity. I will never be one to discount the value of the Brand. However, using the Brand as a crutch, and fall back to no search support, is ill-advised. Studies like these need to be reported with more insight and objective analysis. Sure, “Study Says Stop Sinking $$$ Into Search” is a great headline, but it is inaccurate and, frankly irresponsible.
hours spent on its properties worldwide. At 3,920MM hours, MS tops the next runner up (Google) by over 56%. Given the nature of these two companies, this differential should not be too surprising. Google has many contacts at smaller durations, MS fewer contacts at longer engagements.
market place reason to care.
