|SEO v/s PPC: Which is better|
| 9:32 am on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Hi Everybody, i'm new to this forums , very glad to post thread in this forums, can anyone give best solution for this problem, which is the better SEO or PPC, in my suggestion. SEO web advertising rocks. PPC ads rule. These replies cannot be given easily offhand and within an instant. Both these forms have their own advantages and disadvantages.
But i need which is the best here, i couldn't just this , post your suggestion and information here, it will be useful for all
| 4:17 am on Dec 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
PPC is the way to go. SEO is a good way to SUPPLEMENT your offerings, but it's not something you would put all your eggs into. PPC is guarenteed traffic, SEO improves your chance at more traffic.
| 5:12 pm on Dec 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You have to look at what are you trying to accomplish. Most likely, you are trying to maximize your ROI.
Yes, PPC is guaranteed traffic, but it's also a guaranteed cost. And it's a cost for each click. And that click is worthless if the clicker doesn't end up buying anything.
After the initial "cost," SEO traffic is free. If a clicker doesn't end up buying anything, that particular click-in didn't cost you anything.
In general, we've found that PPC traffic converts less well than SEO traffic, and some PPC traffic converts less well than other PPC traffic. Obviously, your mileage may vary. That's where continual testing and re-evaluation comes into play.
Now, neither PPC nor SEO is a do-once-and-forget situation. Both require continual measuring and tweaking and testing and re-evaluating. SEO changes take longer to track, whereas PPC changes can be tracked immediately (depending on how you are tracking your results).
In my book, both are required. In some niches/markets, SEO should take priority, whereas in others PPC should take priority.
[edited by: LifeinAsia at 5:13 pm (utc) on Dec. 3, 2007]
| 3:17 pm on Dec 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I agree that both SEO and PPC should be employed to be successful. I think that the key for both practices is contextual relevance.
I know we strive to improve our contextual targeting in our content recognition all the time. That way, the ads that we serve convert better for our advertisers.
I agree with the other posts here that testing and measuring are the way to go. Some times you will see fantastic results form unlikely places.
| 10:52 pm on Dec 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
AdWeek had a nice article Dec 14th on how Honda's use of SEM & SEO led to varying increases in unaided brand recall.
Do a Google search for "Adweek Honda search" and it should be the first result. Key datapoints from the article:
"Honda's brand association went from 48 percent when it was not on the results page to 59 percent when it occupied the top slot in the natural results. When in the top ad slot, Honda got an even bigger lift, to 64 percent. The side ad listings increased brand association, but not as significantly as those at the top of the page.
Similarly, purchase consideration rose from 57 percent in the control to 61 percent with the top organic result and 65 percent when Honda was in the first ad slot, too. For aided brand recall, the top organic meant a 44 percent increase, combined with the top ad listing yielded a 63 percent bump."
| 4:33 am on Dec 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
fwiw i heard several times during pubcon this year that side-by-side on a google serp, the organic position does 3-4 times the clicks as the paid position.
| 4:33 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have often heard this about organic vs ppc.
Do you (or anyone else) know of any documentation to validate this?
We have a travel site with great organic positioning and most of our ppc campaigns have brought in much less numbers for the same term then their organic counterpart.
Also, the conversions for us are terrible for ppc vs. organic.
| 4:58 am on Jan 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Side by side comparisons this may be true, however, if you occupy the coveted first ad spot in the shaded blue area Above the SERP's I'm sure that is not the case, and that the paid ad gets Far more traffic than the #1 SERP.
| 6:08 am on Jan 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
i mean physically side by side on the screen.
certainly within column, higher works better.
i can't remember if the principle applied for the paid ad next to a paid ad case...
| 4:34 pm on Apr 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
In my opinion SEO is better due to the simple fact that it's free, and if done correctly, can be far more effective than PPC engines. If your site is SEO good enough, you will be taking sales from the other sites that are paying for the PPC engines. I've seen it happen before. It's all about dedicating a lot of your time promoting your site. Link backs from well known, established sites with a high page rank are essential for a top position in Google also.
[edited by: jatar_k at 9:37 pm (utc) on May 2, 2008]
| 1:29 pm on Apr 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
My personal experience says if you start a PPC campaign for a site that is ranked well, it may be that you will lose some of the ranks.
| 1:49 pm on Apr 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|SEO v/s PPC: Which is better? |
I find myself saying this quite a bit lately but "it is all relative".
PPC is only going to apply in certain instances.
SEO is across the board.
I've seen PPC Campaigns that far exceed the revenue generated from organic SEO. And, I've seen vice-versa. PPC budgets are a determining factor.
I typically recommend both in addition to a host of other options. SEO and PPC are just two pieces of the pie, and its a big pie. :)
| 4:47 pm on May 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
For our sites, PPC gets as many clicks as a #1 natural rank, if they both appear on the same results page. In other words, they split the clicks 50-50.
Simultaneous PPC and natural top ranks will get about 50% more clicks overall than a top natural listing alone, according to a Nielsen-Reel study at least a year old.
Simultaneous PPC and natural top ranks will cause you to be paying for some visits you would have gotten anyway if only the organic listing had been there. With PPC in those cases, you are paying for visits that would have cost you nothing if you hadn't had the PPC running. This is from a Semphonic study last year. The amount of cannibalization varies from engine to engine. In Semphonic's data, Google had the least cannibalization, MSN the most. Their study only looked at branded terms, not generic terms.
Their stats showed that for MSN, you may pay for 100 clicks but 50 of them would have come to your site anyway via the top organic listing. This means, of course, that you are paying twice as much per click for those 50 "extra" visits as you thought.
If you do all the math, you learn you can get more visits if you remove funding from terms where you have top natural ranks and spend that money on important terms where you have no natural ranks. But there's a break point. The "important terms where you have bad natural ranks" need to cost less than the ones you discontinue. Make it more complicated by using the adjusted cost of those discontinued terms, i.e. the cost per incremental visit, not the cost per click.
I know this is complicated because I'm trying to stay brief. The semphonic paper is worth reading (go to their site).
Finally, I don't know about losing natural rank if you buy the PPC term. We haven't seen this happening, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.