Google Research: The Impact of Organic Ranking on Ad Click Incrementality

[engine]

Google Research: The Impact of Organic Ranking on Ad Click Incrementality [research.google.com]

In an earlier study, we reported that on average 89% of the visits to the advertiser’s site from search ad clicks were incremental. In this research, we examine how the ranking of an advertiser’s organic listings on the search results page affects the incrementality of ad clicks expressed through Incremental Ad Clicks (IAC) and as estimated by Search Ads Pause models. A meta-analysis of 390 Search Ads Pause studies highlights the limited opportunity for clicks from organic search results to substitute for ad clicks when the ads are turned off. On average, 81% of ad impressions and 66% of ad clicks occur in the absence of an associated organic search result. We find that having an associated organic search result in rank one does not necessarily mean a low IAC. On average, 50% of the ad clicks that occur with a top rank organic result are incremental, compared to 100% of the ad clicks being incremental in the absence of an associated organic result.

PDF [research.google.com...]

[tedster]

This quote from the PDF helped me understand what the report is saying:

Some advertisers are skeptical of advertising on keywords for which they rank high in the organic search results because they believe that the majority of the ad clicks from such search ad campaigns mostly occur at the expense of clicks from organic search results. In effect, they believe that the incremental traffic from high ranking keywords­­typically branded terms­­is low or zero.

[scooterdude]

Thanks, I was just about to plead for an English language version :)


So, G say, advertise anyway, yer organic rankings are not as sweet as adwords ?

[tedster]

As I understand it, the idea is that there is very little "cannibalization" if you rank organically and run Adwords. The traffic gained from running ads is incremental - adding on to the organic traffic for the most part.

I've seen other studies that indicate this, and some of my clients have seen it in action. At the same time, this was a wide scale study - and in any one specific case, YMMV.

[rlange]

tedster wrote:
As I understand it, the idea is that there is very little "cannibalization" if you rank organically and run Adwords. The traffic gained from running ads is incremental - adding on to the organic traffic for the most part.

I'm not sure I understand the implications of these results. Are there people out there who only click on the search ads? Are there people who click on both the search ad and organic result?

Is this explained in the report? (Only asking in case it can be answered before I actually read the thing.)

Edit: Actually, it sounds like those might be answered by the previous study.

--
Ryan

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Until Google fixes the fact that, for some searches, only 20% of web searchers can even SEE organic result #4 above the fold(only 50% see #1 !) this is a relatively trivial topic. In other words if you are NOT ranked #1-#3 you may as well go for adwords. That's the REAL truth here, and Google knows it. By Google's own standards, as described in their layout algorithm update, their results are classified spam.

source(with example image):http://www.seobook.com/how-google-instant-changes-seo-landscape

edit: By not advertising you are potentially not seen immediately by HALF of searches unless they scroll down. For that reason alone - advertise on everything.

[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 4:35 pm (utc) on Mar 28, 2012]

[netmeg]

Having become rather cynical about Google, I dunno that I'd place a lot of faith in what THEY say about it. But my own experience seems to back it up, so I advertise on everything.

[randle]

Well, its certainly some interesting research, and after a quick read through it warrants a more comprehensive examination; gotta be a useful nugget or two in there somewhere.

I agree with their conclusion, but not because of the placement on the results page, but because their different types of searches that react differently to the unique landing experiences you get from each.

A click is not just a click; it represents a unique visitor and ultimately everything comes down to some sort of conversion. A person who clicks on a paid ad often has unique motivations, expectations and what we have found specifically; immediacy.

We have found what the research has found, a high organic ranking does not replace the need for a paid placement. However, if we serve up the exact same landing experience to the paid crowd, as we do to the organic crowd our conversion rates plummet.

[greenleaves]

Wow, amazing how I could figure this out without a PHD. It is actually very logical.

Sometimes it doesn't canibalize:
When the competition are using adwords and there is plenty of competition. (in which case you are avoiding losing sales to the competition)

Sometimes it does canibalize:
When your competition doesn't use adwords and there is little to no-competition in your niche. (in which case clients would find you anyway)

You'd think they didn't need a user study to figure out that which is logical, and that if they did, the results would not be 'news'

[CainIV]

We tested this with a few clients and found that brand-related keywords only helped being aggressively advertised in Google.

We also found attribution between the two different channels - meaning, Adwords actually helped SEO revenue and vice versa (for those brand related phrases) even though the client ranks within the top 3 spots for their targeted keyword.

[dvduval]

So Google has determined that spending more money with Google is good. Should one be concerned this might be biased?