|Does Google provide less traffic than commonly perceived?|
|Wanted to share this since long time...it seems this is the right forum so now posting here. |
Though it might held true for established websites...but still need your thoughts on the same.
Based on the close analysis of all the sites that we own. On an average google is effectively sending non-branded 4% traffic. I have excluded navigational search queries and brand search queries. So core keywords only contributed to 4% of overall SEO visits. This does not include visits generated through SEM.
I have purely segregated the SEO campaign effectiveness into brands and non-brands. We rank among top 5 for almost 95% of our keywords targeted.
Would love to see how your SEO is performing only assessing core keywords. Which might again suggest that google is not actually giving the amount of traffic effectively*** that the general public assumes.
For some sites, we are now feeling whether we should pass on SEO budget to customer service oriented schemes, though we might stick to SEM. Because instead of navigational search visits directing from google, we would expect our loyal visitors to come directly to our site through direct browser interface.
|Apart from bookamrking, we would also like to know how to encourage loyal visitors to visit website through direct navigation and not google. |
Thanks for reading,
[edited by: Andy_Langton at 12:29 pm (utc) on Apr 29, 2012]
I don't really agree, I'm afraid, and I believe the data doesn't support the idea that Google is not a good source of traffic. A few things I believe are relevant:
- The total number of searches at Google is still rising each year - so the total potential traffic is increasing
- In terms of brand, in most industries there are more searches for non-brand than brand queries
There are some things that may contribute to what you're saying, though.
- There are more sites competing, so it is harder to get sufficient visibility to attract clicks
- SEO as a paid service needs to account for return on investment, and prove to be cost effective. If in your industry, or taking into account the level of competition, SEO is not cost efficient, then you should look elsewhere with your marketing spend.
But generally speaking, I don't know too many industries where SEO is not suitable purely because there is not enough search volume.
Google is like poker. If you are good at poker you can win millions and if you aren't good you can lose it all. That does not mean poker has no money potential or that Google has no traffic potential.
If you have doubts about SEO or Google I encourage you to leave the industry. I suggest that course of action mostly for selfish reasons. It will make it easier for my sites to continue making money by having to deal with less competition :)
Google is not like poker itself, it's more like the dealer. Not part of the game but overseeing everything, or so they think. Thankfully if you don't like this dealer you're free to play at another table.
Although Google is growing every year, it is also:
1. Handling more clicks itself through properties that it owns (youtube, blogger, maps) and handling more queries itself through one box (movies, weather, facts).
2. Giving a greater share of clicks to SEM by making ads MUCH more prominent.
I suspect that we may be near peak SEO referrals as there is little room for Google to grow its market share and Google continues to handle ever more clicks itself.
|It will make it easier for my sites to continue making money by having to deal with less competition :) |
mmm...makes sense for you isn't it
That surely made me smile bro :)
|1. Handling more clicks itself through properties that it owns (youtube, blogger, maps) and handling more queries itself through one box (movies, weather, facts). |
Bang on deadsea, that might be one of the reason why we are seeing huge decline in terms of SEO visits proportionately as compared to previous years.
|Apart from bookmarking, we would also like to know how to encourage loyal visitors to visit website through direct navigation and not google. |
Wanted feedback on this aspect too ;)
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:27 pm (utc) on May 5, 2012]
I think Google provides a lot MORE than percieved, partly because a lot of webmasters like to lie about the amount of direct traffic they actually get.
I would suggest offline advertising. It does work wonders. Infact what you are trying to do is what google wants these days i.e. not to focus on SEO/google traffic. I would say that your focus on getting direct visits is the right choice, unlike what a few others say here.