CTR on Google

Sponsored vs Natural vs Adwords

[kris]

Dose anyone know what the average click through rates are on Google? I know this will vary depending on the search terms used but is there a general average we can look at?

% of people who click on the sponsored at the top?
% who go straight for the natural istings?
% of Adwords clicks?

[instand1]

my (educated?) guess:
10 - 15% of people click on the sponsored at the top.
70 - 100% who go straight for the natural listings.
2 - 20% go to Adwords clicks.
(does not add up to 100%, I know, but there are many searches without any AdWords)

One indicator for the CTR of an AdWord: The fully drawn green bar means: More than 1% CTR.
If all 8 slots are full: at least 8%, probably much more.

The sponsored link on top is said to have at least double CTR compared with AdWords.

[mosley700]

In my experience, a good Adwords campaign is 100 times more effective than a number one position in the SERPs.
With Adwords, you choose the description, not the bot.
With Adwords, your Widget sponsorship shows even when the user has typed in a combination of words you never thought to target.
A marketing director of a larger dot com recently said, "Search engine optimization is playing the lottery. You cannot be assured of any results."

[europeforvisitors]

A marketing director of a larger dot com recently said, "Search engine optimization is playing the lottery. You cannot be assured of any results."

I'm not in the e-commerce business, but I can see the value of both SEO and AdWords or other PPC listings. When SEO works, it obviously can be very cost-effective, and it's less risky than having all of your marketing and promotional eggs in one basket.

In a way, SEO is like public relations: although results can never be guaranteed, it offers a chance to benefit from the media's (in case, the search engine's) credibility.

[chiyo]

>>"Search engine optimization is playing the lottery. You cannot be assured of any results."
<<

You cannot be assured of Adwords results too. You still have to "optimise" for Adwords. Competitors will come in and compete for your keywords. In some cases Adwords keywords is far too expensive and SEO is more cost effective, particularly in the case where you are developing or branding a whole site rather than a particualar product or service.

Also

SEO also means that when you stop paying, your benefit continues, possible for quite a substantial time. Stop paying for adwords, and referrals stop straight away.

Personally I find a mix the best.

But good question. I dont have a clue what CTR generally is best.

[mosley700]

>>You cannot be assured of Adwords results too.<<

I think the point he was making is that with adwords you only pay for what you get.
We just sold a website to a competitor for several thousand dollars. In under a month it went to PR0. That's playing the lottery. For my money, and this is just my personal choice, I would rather optimize a site at the start, and then leave it be SEO-wise. I feel our marketing budget is better spent with pay per performance.
SEO, in comparison, can be hit or miss.