Share your research on Google Author Photos and CTR

[goodroi]

Larry Kim over on Wordstream (no link for Larry cause I don't reward links to full page pop-ups :() did an attractive bit of research that is probably flawed but a good conversation starter.

First what is Larry talking about?
He looked at Wordstream's Adwords PPC for "negative keywords". He found his PPC CTR jumped from about 2.25% (with author photo) to about 3.25% (no photo) and concludes there is an impact between PPC & author pictures.

Why do I think Larry's research is flawed?
He is looking at a single keyword for just one month. That is too small a sample to be valid. Also it looks like he did not regularly monitor this keyword so we can't be sure if there was another PPC advertiser taking away clicks. I can think of a bunch of other reasons that could have swayed the results.

Does anyone else have any research or observations on how the removal of author pictures impacted the CTR to your site (PPC or organic)?

PS Google sucks, we know it. Keep your Google bashing & editorializing out of this thread because the adults want to have a productive conversation.

[Planet13]

I like Larry. He usually writes clearly for people whose grasp of adwords is tenuous (as is mine).

I think that he must be jumping to conclusions though. Not nearly enough data.

I will say that I normally appreciate author photos in the regular SERPs though. They have helped me to AVOID articles by a certain member of the SEO community who posts frequently on different sites.

[vandelayweb]

I had the same thoughts as you when I read the article goodroi. It was a valiant attempt, but the sample size was too small. Also it is difficult to replicate because there are so many variables on any given search that its almost impossible to isolate. I think only insiders at Google will ever know the true impact that removing authorship photos has had.