Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: open
Consumers are distrustful of search engine sponsored listings and click on such links fewer than twice in every 10 searches, new research has revealed.
However, these low click through rates should not be seen as bad news for Google et al, according to the Penn State University analysis of sponsored-link click throughs using actual search engine data.
"While the click through was only about 16 per cent, this a real boon for search engines," said Jim Jansen, an assistant professor in the College of Information Sciences and Technology at Penn State and lead author of the report.
People search for: song lyrics, recipes, medical advice, news of the day, homework help, special interest articles, and an endless variety of other searches -- all with absolutely no intention of spending a dime.
Taking that fact, and the following into consideration, I'd say the 16% CTR could be true "for this study", but is based on a flawed test model.
The study is based on results from Dogpile [dogpile.com] which displays sponsored results intermixed with natural results -- with only a subtle indication of which are which.
My SEO and SEM experience seems to show that users have become savvy enough to click on natural results when searching for "information", and click on sponsored links, (or "contextual ads"), when they're actively shopping or ready to buy.
Had the same study been done on Google or Yahoo, I'd say the CTR would be much lower -- my guess would be 2% to 5% CTR on "sponsored results".
The average surfer is impatient and unlikely to completely distinguish between organic and sponsored links.
I don't believe that's true unless they just got on the net yesterday.
When ads first started appearing, people developed a "blind spot" to the ads, (first mentally blocking out banner ads, then mentally blocking out the "skyscraper" "sponsored links" and contextual ads on the right).
I think people are aware of what they click -- but now it's instinctual to avoid clicking "ads" unless they want to buy something and the ad matches their search.
It only takes a few clicks searches ending up at eBay, Amazon, Alibaba, etc., for people to learn the difference.
Of course if you have an ad in the premium position which is very targeted to the search query, a very high CTR can be achieved (20% plus). Ads lower down should get clicks too, pushing the CTR of Google ads up.
I am sure that AWA has said in the past that the average click through rate for Google ads hovers just over 2%, so with 10 or 11 ads on a page the CTR on Google ads would be 20% or 22% on average.
The 16% figure represents the occasions you mention of 10 or 11 ads at an average CTR of 2% each plus the a great deal of serps only have a 2 or 3 ads. Different queries yield different quantities and quality of ads therefore some queries may only on average get 3% CTR across all advertisers while others may yield 35%, lots of variables in this equation.
One thing worth mentioning is the that this study was done using dogpile where although sponsored links are very informally labeled (the sponsored link appears on the address line in the same color as the URL) and are not clearly separated from the organic listings. I would tend to believe this would cause the CTR to be higher but apparently that article begs to differ. Yet it's worth noting that the meta search engine dogpile.com was used for the study, and they continue to keep the organic and paid ads blended (I say they get a higher CTR than the Google paid ads separated style serps.) Google is much to large to get away with that blending paid ads into organic listings crap, everyone throws a fit when a large search engine even thinks about doing that.
On that thought we are moving into a phase of advertising where people are willing to turn their tv on and watch collections of funny paid ads as the actual show with breaks in between that contain more paid ads. Can you imagine if for one day google eliminated organic serps and replaced them with only sponsored links? They'd make a fortune, but search volume would immediately and dramatically begin to decline. There's not nearly enough paid ads covering the very broad spectrum of search queries to pull that off, nor do the actual quality of the sites appearing in the organic listings and paid listings compare well enough at this point. It takes years of careful site building to get good organic serps, but I'll usurp your organic listing in ranking in 10 minutes of adwords ad setup time....It just costs exponentially more as of yesterday now that google will take your maximum CPC and eat it for breakfast See this thread for more info on that [webmasterworld.com]
And I'll bet that it even comes fairly close to that for the subset of the population that hangs out here (and has a couple grand in the bank) - for some products - even though we're more likely to peek at the url and just type it in...
For some things obviously higher - for some things obviously lower.
Just how mainstream - just how expensive - just how many ads showing,
What day it is - what time it is - what month it is - and demographically I find quite a spread within the top 3 search engines - and not just income - but AGE and Occupational Industry seem the most contrasting - among the users of one search engine to another.
We all have a good idea of what search engine techies use - what search engine 16 year-old girls use - and what our parent's use. And I'd say 75% of our grandparents online are using the search engine that came pre-programmed with the pc - or pre-programmed with their isp. - so many variables so little time. - but dogpile average searcher ctr is useless to me. Show me the money!
What I'm saying is more than just an opinion - but still highly variable, as mentioned - but it seems to related to this topic - if it's not - please be polite - I'm deaf, dumb, blind, and drunk.