Search is a tactile art.

At heart, I am a data guy. I run numbers, look at trends, see patterns and set direction based on what this all indicates. This is a great habit when dealing with several hundred campaigns' and oodles of money built up from $1 bids. Taking it all in, running it through database queries and custom routines makes fairly quick work of the tasks (hours vs days). However, this weekend I was reminded (again) that large number crunching projects are not the single answer to search's challenges. You have to get into it. Our campaign managers would probably rather I didn't. But I do. And the truth is,  I really enjoy it. It is very 'tactile'. You can almost feel the information as you pour through the campaigns. You get a sense of the relationship between the different campaigns, keywords, kw types, bids, positioning, QS, ad copy and so on. Some of our programs are made up of a dozen campaigns spending hundreds of thousands a month each while others are hundreds of campaigns spending thousands a month each. Both present unique challenges. But to do either kind well, you have to do more than look at reports, change bids and set up bid rules. You have to get dirty. Most SEM folks have done deep dives into their campaigns. But, do yourself a favor, and without any pretext, just start exploring your campaigns. Look for the little things that won't show up in an exception report, or be uncovered in a problem. Search is about nuances; and nuances, by definition are small and frequently unnoticed. But these are the little things that add up to big things. When we talk about the hard work of SEM, this is the kind of thing we really mean. 

And I think this is what makes good SEM folks unique. To put together a really good SEM program, you need to have a broad perspective, understand the objectives and the stategies. Not just of search, but for the whole marketing and advertising 'thing'. I frequently find myself in conversations about this with my teammates; we all have ideas about the direction we should go with the products and service we promote. But, then we are just as eager to jump into the gritty part of the SEM job. It is because we have an understanding of the larger effort that we know, almost instinctively, what nuances to leverage.

So, do yourself and your clients a favor. Get dirty.

The right perspective makes all the difference

This is an easy putt:

I have always promoted the idea that search marketers have to step beyond search to see what is really going in with their company or clients. To really add value, you have to know where you fit in, what obstacles you might face and what you might offer beyond the obvious. Sometimes, even often, the obstacles have nothing to do with the game of search. Take another look at that easy put... from a broader perspective. 

  

Kind of makes you rethink it, doesn't it? If you are only focusing on your narrow area, are there dangers, threats, or perhaps opportunities that you are missing?

Google Organic Ranking Changes...people keep crying

Why do so many continue to act surprised when Google alters the page rankings? Mark Simon has a perspective that I strongly share... Why does anyone allow their business to depend on the charity of Google's fickle page ranking? He chides both SEO experts and the clients that follow them unquestioningly.

I am not anti-SEO. I just think too much focus is placed on the engines and not enough on good communication. If you know SEO, the rest of this is going to bore you, unless you just feel like slamming my perspective ( I won't mind). For the rest, this is a primer with opinion.

Search engines want the consumers / users to have good experience post click. That is what will keep users coming back to the engine to search other topics. The point is, they want your site to serve the needs of the users. So, you need to focus on the user's needs. This sounds basic, but is too often forgotten.

So to that end, content, well structured and well organized, is paramount. Each page should be focused on a particular area of your business. If you sell bicycles and parts, putting the bikes and parts listed and described on one page dilutes the content. It makes it hard for users to zero in on the information they want. If someone is looking for bike tires, and it is buried somewhere among bikes, brakes, cranks and helmets, how will they find it. As it turns out, search engines aren't any better at figuring it out. In fact they are worse. They figure out what a page is about through the concentration of like clues and their occurrence relative to all other information. This is known as density... usually discussed as keyword density.  

The best way to help search engines match your pages with searches is to concentrate on narrow topics that are easily associated with likely keyword searches. Dedicating a page to tires (or even road tires and off-road tires), with appropriate content makes it easier for an engines to match it up to a search for, say... mountain bike tires. A dedicated page might appear 60% about these tires, where a 'junk' page with everything might appear to be less than 10% about it (just as an example). If you had to decide which page was more focused on tires, which one would you pick?  

The structure of the content is important too. Well thought out menu and page hierarchy allows the users to navigate to the content easily. It also happens to be a way for the engines to see the connection between the pages of our site and understand the nature of the content. Again, what is good for the user is also good for the engines. 

We hear a lot about the tags or coding. These are important, though the importance of some tags seems to ebb and flow. As good form, engines aside, proper code for alt tags, title tags, names, meta, etc should be followed. Some of the tags aid in usability, others make it easier to manage development. There are SEO folks who will tell you it matters a great deal and others will say, not so much. My view is simple. Don't be lazy, follow good form and you'll be ready should Google or Yahoo! switch things up again. Some of these tags are important now, others may become important(again).  

Links. Links. Links... The latest change from Google (it is rumored) is intended to defeat some of the paid linking schemes that are used. I don't know that this is so. However, I am not a fan of paid links. If we spend as much time focusing on the needs of the users, developing good content, working on the site / experience and developing good reciprocal linking partnerships that add value to the user experience, we may convert more of the users we get while attracting more links naturally. Oh, and not lose sleep worrying that Google might find us out.

Press releases are important. But, if they serve no other purpose than to try to create links to your site, fire your PR person and find a better use of your money. As with the rest of the SEO tactics, do they serve a broader need and add value to the business? If so, go full steam ahead and, by the way, add a link to your site (preferably to a section related to the release). 

You know there is more... there are whole books dedicated to SEO. But, the bottom line in any good SEO program is to focus first and foremost on the user. Only then should you put efforts toward improving your Google page ranking. And, for goodness sake, don't build a business model around SEO.

 

Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft...All boats rise

Take a look at the Comscore share data released today and one might say that Yahoo et al are losing ground to Google. As in the past Google has grown share, slightly, to 58.5% while Yahoo! has declined to 22.9% from 23.7%. But this surface veiw is not terribly telling.

comScore Core Search Report* October 2007 Total U.S. – Home/Work/University Locations Source: comScore qSearch 2.0
Core Search Entity	Share of Searches (%)
	Sep - 07	Oct -07	Point Change Oct-07 vs. Sep-07
Total Core Search	100.0%	100.0%	0.0
Google Sites	57.0%	58.5%	1.5
Yahoo! Sites	23.7%	22.9%	-0.8
Microsoft Sites	10.3%	9.7%	-0.6
Ask Network	4.7%	4.7%	0.0
Time Warner Network	4.3%	4.2%	-0.1

The fact is, search is rising, and all players are growing with it (Fox is an exception).

comScore Expanded Search Query Report October 2007 Total U.S. – Home/Work/University Locations Source: comScore qSearch 2.0
Expanded Search Entity	Search Queries (MM)
	Sep-07	Oct-07	Percent Change Oct-07 vs. Sep-07
Total Expanded Search	13,018	14,457	11.1%
Google Sites	6,593	7,468	13.3%
Google	5,388	6,184	14.8%
YouTube/All Other	1,205	1,284	6.5%
Yahoo! Sites	2,381	2,577	8.2%
Yahoo!	2,346	2,538	8.2%
All Other	35	39	11.4%
Microsoft Sites	999	1,044	4.5%
MSN-Windows Live	966	1,007	4.2%
Microsoft/All Other	33	37	12.1%
Time Warner Network	843	905	7.4%
AOL	397	433	9.1%
Mapquest/All Other	446	472	5.8%
Ask Network	445	493	10.8%
Ask.com	226	277	22.6%
MyWebSearch.com/ All Other	219	216	-1.4%
Fox Interactive Media	492	483	-1.8%
MySpace	483	475	-1.7%
All Other	9	8	-11.1%
eBay	445	472	6.1%
Craigslist.org	197	214	8.6%
Facebook.com	N/A	152	N/A
Amazon Sites	138	146	5.8%

Just thought I'd throw that out there...
 

Don't listen to what they say...see what they do.

Gord Hotchkiss wrote an interesting entry today on the decision making process and the short comings of market research. It reminded me of my time in CPG advertising where we delved into market research and tried to reconcile the information with what we saw in the SRI scanner data. Essentially, people were telling us that they were exercising more and eating healthy foods while cutting back on things like soft drinks and potato chips. Yet, according to the scanner data, these unhealthy foods were being consume in growing numbers. In other words, people were saying they were doing the smart thing, but actually doing something else. Gord's piece gets into the why of this and how it applies to search.

But, I think we all have it in our power to address this tendency of consumers to think they do one thing, while actually doing another. With search, we have the ability to track and test ad nauseam. According to the piece, people said they read the listings, but actually only scan the listings. So, what is better, a long sentence (okay, 70 chars isn't long, but can be well formed), or short phrases or individual words that are very targeted? We can test until the cow come home to find out WHAT people do, rather than what they say they do, or we think they do, or our bosses guess they do, or the client supposes they do... ad nauseam. 

People say they carefully read all or most of the listings. But, most of the activity (attention and clicks) go to the top. So, does this mean the 6 and lower listings are not valuable? No. Measured on a cost per, you may want a lot of 6 and over position ads rather than one or two 1-3rd position ads. If the bulk of the volume is up top, so is the competition. So, see if the 6+ performs. It may be better. Test.

The point is, while we should continue to read and absorb as much research and information as we can, our ultimate decisions must be based on real world actions, not academic inquiry. Fortunately, for us, search allows us to do this with our own experience, control and data. Take advantage of this. Let articles like Gord's provide the catalyse for new questions, direction and exploration for improvement rather than as quick answers.

Just do good things

Okay, so this is not really about search. But it is about relationships, business relationships. Seth Godin had a post about concealing things in marketing. It is more consumer focused, but widely applicable. It got me thinking about a problem I have seen repeatedly in nearly 20 years of marketing. Agencies try to spin results, shading numbers and show the good, while hiding the bad. I recall my first experience with a client service director at Leo Burnett in the early 90's who actually did NOT do this.

It was and still is rare to see. But, he said, outright and with expletives (to get his point across) that the brand manager was wrong and the numbers clearly showed the path to be foolish. We could have added several million dollars to the budget simply by agreeing with the brand manager and showing only those numbers that supported the wrong decision. But, the director refused. It was a proud day for our agency, and for me as a member of it. One of the many reasons I like working with Leapfrog is that we always move the metric to sales or revenue. There is no shading here. Client pays X and always gets Y. If it doesn't work, it is clear. Even as our clients ask us to take on more business outside our core programs, we work with them to develop a sales based metric in order to maintain the direct link between our effort and their revenue. There is no tap dancing the results. It works or it doesn't. Both in my professional work and my personal experience, I frequently find myself thinking: "Stop wasting time trying to make me feel good about the things you do. Just do good things." 

I wonder how much more productive companies would be if they spend as much time focused on doing good work rather than spinning bad results.

IAC Splits...Ask.com to benefit?

This week, IAC announced the renewal of their Google paid search relationship for 5 years, worth over $3.5B, as well as the planned split of the company’s 60+ brands over 5 independent public companies(press release): HSN Ticketmaster Interval Lending Tree IAC One of the objectives is to allow each business to focus on its core, grow and achieve a more realistic valuation. Our company advertises with IAC properties across the board. In my group, we work with Ask.com.

Recently,  I did a review of search result comparisons for the same searches on Ask, Google, Yahoo and Live. Bottom line, Ask's organic quality was very poor. I hope they focus on improving this aspect of the property. Unfortunately, though Ask is one of the premier IAC properties, there are still many properties competing for resources. I just hope the Google relationship is not a crutch and that they push for improved organic quality the same way they have pushed for developing user interface (3D) and off-line marketing.

Gord Hotchkiss put it much better than I can. But the bottom line is, they results have to be a higher quality.

Hiring for Search Engine Marketing

Our company has experience phenomenal growth over the past few years. We seem to be in a perpetual state of hiring. I am not complaining; the constant state of change, new ideas and challenges is what keeps me going. Being too steady would drive me nuts, boring me out of my mind.

So, all this change brings on a number of questions about SEM. One of the most frequently faced from clients and prospective employees is “what makes a good search marketer?” Given that the search group is one of the areas I oversee, this question is constantly on my mind. And, I have come to several conclusions.

First, SEM is the kind of marketing most marketing majors coming out of college want to do. It is extremely tangible. Your results are virtually immediate. You have nearly ultimate control. And, if your ideas pan out, you can prove it. Unfortunately, if you do not get into search early out of school(or direct marketing off-line), the tangibility of marketing is quickly lost. Running traditional advertising and marketing programs keeps us a couple of step removed from the ultimate goal: the Sale. It is not that these are ineffective tactics. It is that their impact is cumulative and the view to any one tactic’s effect is very hard to determine. So, keeping the initial marketing desire is key to SEM.

Second, I believe good marketers are naturally curious people. They want to know… everything. If a question comes up that is technically beyond their scope, they find a way to answer it. The boundaries of a position are irrelevant. Natural curiosity drives them to figure it out.  Good SEM is driven by good marketing. And good marketing is driven by curiosity.

So, where does SEM expertise come into play? Obviously, we need this. We must understand cause and affect within search. But, if you hire people who fulfill the first and second points, teaching them search marketing ins and outs is easy; much easier than teaching curiosity.

The idea of using search for branding is not new. It has been around for a few years and the notion has been validated by research that shows the synergy between search, display, and brand (post link here). However, as a direct branding vehicle, search is not there, yet.

Search 2.0 may be the next step for branding. Currently, video and image search is focused on SEO. This leaves too much to chance. If we are going to use the search space for branding then we will need to buy and place search ads for image and video. This will come.

The focus of search 1.0 is lower funnel, near purchase / action queries. As the searcher is closer to the sale, advertisers are willing to pay more. As technology facilitates more branding level ads, the experience makes sense farther up the funnel. In otherwords, Search 2.0.

If some one types in “car safety features”, I can see a video taking the searcher through the safety features of a new car, with a link to the site for more information. If the query is “[brand] dealer”, then the normal text ad linked to a dealer may make more sense. There are cross over terms where the right delivery may not be clear. Point is, the world of Search 2.0 will allow not only messaging, but media targeted toward intent.

What will challenge the engines is deriving a price point that will allow it to sustain branding efforts. In the auto world, search CPM equivalent can range from $600 to over $2000… hardly the economics of Branding. In general the average search CPM equivalent is roughly $560. When I bought general media, I would pay anywhere from $6 to $90 depending on the demo (12-16 teens was a real bear to hit). Targeted search need not come down to this level, and shouldn’t. But, it can not be the same as the current cost.

If we can solve the economics of this equation, then the media will prove to be a great benefit for Branding.

SEO, Engagement Base Content vs CGC

Consumer Generated Content. Really, we are looking at Engagement Based Content. This is far more than semantics. The first presents an aura of complete lack of control on the part of a company. The second recognizes the reality.

When we acknowledge that it is Engagement Based Content, we take a step toward changing our paradigm. We begin to recognize that even “original” content is really in response to stimuli that the creator experienced. With this in mind, we can see how positively powerful the internet is for companies. Not just in influencing consumer behavior, but, perhaps more importantly, allowing consumers to influence ours.

We have already built some of this into our ethos. There was a time when the financial risk to a company for a bad decision could be easily contained; thus allowing companies some latitude in the gray area between right and wrong. Now, in recognition of the likely Engagement Based Content that will be generated, companies have much more at risk, and are therefore more likely the follow the “right” path.

But it really goes way beyond that. With honest stimuli, companies can generate extremely positive responses in the marketplace. And it has to be honest, as the dishonest are quickly unveiled and skewered in the pike of Engagement Based Content.

I guess what I am getting at is that we have gone from a time when companies tried to make us “feel good about what happened”, to “making good things happen.”

By recognizing that content is generated in response to what happens, companies have a great opportunity to make good things happen and spawn a plethora of good content.

For those not involved in the world of Engagement Based Content, there is opportunity. They need to get there because, the content will come but they will have no input.

_____________________________________________________________________________
So, why does a guy who writes about search care about so much about Engagement Based Content? Because SEO is no longer just about your site; SEO is about the web content about your brand, products or services. As we think about CGC as Engagement Based Content, we begin to see how our SEO efforts really extend beyond our SERPS, but are about SERPS of content about “us.”

It becomes a time when we can demonstrate the dangers of bad decisions. Inbound links are great, but not if they are derived from bad press, derisive blogs or bad experiences posted on boards or personal pages. High rankings resulting from defective product stories are not positive.

I have often argued that SEMs have to get out of their comfort zone. They need to understand the whole business of the company, how it makes money the marketing goals and objectives and how all marketing efforts are built to support them. Understanding and trying to influence Engagement Based Content is simply one more part of this.

Influencing Engagement Based Content is harder than SEO. But, it is no less vital an effort. Nor is it a lone wolf tactic. It requires a pack to work together. Every pack needs a leader. If your company does not have one, then you should think about stepping up.

SEM meeting expectations is not good enough.

There are times when you make a connection between two things that are entirely not connected. That happened to me today on the way to the IAB Mixx conference in NY.

As I was walking down the isle on the plane, I saw the lady in the seat behind mine reach around and drop an empty water bottle on my seat. As I approached the row, I picked up the water bottle and, as politely as I could muster, asked “is this yours?” To which she replied “no.” And, you know, she was most likely telling the truth. It was probably left there by the prior passenger. But instead of just taking care of it herself, she dropped it on me.

Now I just shrugged, put the empty bottle between my bags on the floor in front of me and then threw it out when the attendants picked up trash. In other words, I just took care of it.

Then it struck me… this was the same mind set that I am seeing too often in SEM. Here is how it relates.

We have a very focused scope in our relationships with our clients. A scope in which search is a part, but not the whole. But, because of the way our team handles our core efforts in search, we very frequently have our clients ask us if we can handle their SEM in other areas; areas being handled by traditional SEM agencies. We have always approached these requests with great caution, a likely result of building our programs by putting our own money at risk, no the clients.

When we agree to take a look at it, what I frequently see is SEM from several years back. Somewhere, accountability for IMPROVING performance, not just meeting client expectations, got lost. It used to be easy to impress people outside of search, because they were so accustom to off-line metrics. SEM always looked good. But the improvements stopped there. And, if the client changed SEM agencies, the core problems persisted. While improvements were being gained in other marketing efforts, SEM remained stagnant. Each agency simply passed the empty bottle, the trash, on to the next.

This past year, for the first time at SMX, I heard a number of key SEM agencies talk about real improvement (they’ve been doing it, just not talking about it so much). Impact on sales trumped clicks or CTR. Cost per sale was more important than cost per click. Tracking performance to the sales has finally come out of the closet. This is great for those who embrace it. It may mean lower ad spend, and then lower compensation for SEMs. But, it is the right thing to do.

If the SEMs leave the trash around too long, the client will smell it and look for someone to clean it up. SEMs can not wait. If the clients ask if the SEM will track to the sale, then the SEM was derelict in evangelizing the better metric. Get there before the client, educate the client, even develop a proxy for cost per sale that can be phased out as the real metric is technically developed.

Good SEMs are there. But too many appear to be lagging. This is not good for them, or the industry.

Okay, Bears game is coming on, I gotta go.

Microsoft releases search research that says....

ADOTA: " Study Says Stop Sinking $$$ Into Search"

Ah crap, here we go again…
Okay, breathe.

First, if this is the way Microsoft manages the release of search information, no wonder they are a trailing third in the space. It is not that I think these numbers should be hidden, but they need more context. There are a few qualitative points to be made, then we can hit on the quantitative.

First,
“Most of the clicks to a web site came from users who had already visited”

Good. It shows a level awareness. However it does not indicate the propensity to go to the site to make a purchase at the time of intent. I can’t tell you how many times I have had clients insist that they do not need any directional advertising because “consumers already know who we are.” Yet, when we placed a bigger ad in the yellow pages, or improved their placement in search, or bought a listing in IYPs, they suddenly had a boon in “awareness”.

So,lets say you're...Microsoft. For the Office 2007 product, they have a dedicated URL that brings you to the sub-page on Microsoft.com… good move.

So, for a non-branded query for word processor, you can get this paid search ad.
[----image no longer available----]

If you have “Microsoft” in front of the query, you get the same url, with greater relevancy. Different ad. If the SEM knows what they are doing, the messages are targeted to the search query.



But, what if you type in “Microsoft”?  You get the same ad.



But you also get organic listings just below this. Now, taking this article to heart, one would counsel Microsoft to stop bidding on the term “Microsoft”. However, on closer inspection, the SERPs are confusing relative to the Office 2007 product. The organic link is not sales focused and the ability to convert a search is diminished.

This whole argument goes back to a post I did months back about branded keywords. Controlling the user experience greatly increases your chances of a conversion. Simply giving up branded keyword control to organic results is a sure fire way to get the very least benefit possible from search. You can quickly take conversion from the 60% percent of visits and flush it down the drain.

Add to that one question: If 60% of the visits were driven by branded keywords and 40% by others, what do you think the 60% will do if they don’t see your name during the search? Yes, some will simply type the url into the browser. Others will very likely conduct another, broader search and pick up more of your competitors (or just click on one of the competitors in the original search who bought your term). Not being there is foolish.

Reporting like ADOTA’s on studies like these is far too shortsighted.

Like all advertising, we should look for the synergies. Two studies were released recently that speak to this. Our analytics group does regression analysis to be able to attribute the relative influence of online and off line activity. I will never be one to discount the value of the Brand. However, using the Brand as a crutch, and fall back to no search support, is ill-advised. Studies like these need to be reported with more insight and objective analysis. Sure, “Study Says Stop Sinking $$$ Into Search” is a great headline, but it is inaccurate and, frankly irresponsible.

Google, one more step removed from what it was.

To gain a top spot at Google (above the search results), you had to have a minimum quality score. Then, if your bid was high enough, you could be eligible for a top spot. While occasionally frustrating, it stuck to the core Google principle that Quality was the driver.

A Change, mentioned in more detail below, now moves the metric for being in the top spot to a minimum ranking derived from a max bid. The shift is essentially this:

Your rank was derived from your bid and quality score. Your actual CPC was based on the amount you would have to pay to keep your rank just above the next lowest ranked ad. So, as long as your rank is above the next ad down, your actual cost could be less. If you are the top ranked ad, you can bid even more, but your actual CPC should not increase unless another advertiser increases the bid or quality if their ad, thereby causing your ad CPC to go up. If they go high enough, they pass you in the ranking, and your CPC is driven by the next lowest ranked ad.
[---- image no longer available-------]

In the example (demonstration only, not actual criteria), even though you bid $2.50, your actual cost is only $1.73, the amount needed to keep your rank just above the 2nd ranked ad. The actual CPC is even less than the next three advertisers.
 

Now, that is changing for the top spots. While you will never pay more than your max bid, Google is positioning the CPC calculation to charge you (potentially) significantly more, while justifying it by moving you from the first ad on the right side to the first ad, but on top.

They have a minimum CPC amount to make this happen, but it must be tied to a ranking score. So, now instead of insisting that an ad quality improve before moving to the top, Google is saying just stay where you are. They’ll set a minimum rank and if your ad can achieve that rank at a CPC rate somewhere less than your max bid, they’ll move you and charge you the CPC for a top spot.

 [-----------image no longer available---------]

So, in the example, instead of paying $1.73 CPC, they’ll use your quality score, divide it into the minimum ranking (1.75 in this example), and calculate the needed CPC to achieve the ranking. If it is less than your bid, your CPC moves from $1.73 to $2.30 (in this example) and you get moved from the right side to the top of the page.

So, the take away, watch your effective CPC. We do not know the true ranking, or min CPC to achieve the top spot. For some folks this may well be worth the premium to move from top right to top page. For others, you’ll need to adjust bids and work on quality (a never ending challenge anyway).

I suspect that there were two drivers to this: 1) Advertisers’ frustration at not being able to move, and 2) a revenue enhancement opportunity. It is just somewhat disappointing that Google, though stating that it has to be a high quality ad, is compromising on this principle and allowing us to buy our way to the top. That’s capitalism, I guess.

Thanks Tim & Jen for showing this to me...

Search marketing, display ads, brands...and our future

I know this is old news. I’ve said it, many others have said it also. Search and display advertising work together. Search is more than just directional. It is also brand… myopically the purview of display. But it is more than just having a search campaign, and a display campaign. It is important to keep these two coordinated to ensure optimum results.

Recently, two studies were released that lends credence to the interaction of search with the brand(Enqurio), and search and display (Yahoo! / ComScore) in a synergistic lift in results. First, the Yahoo!/ ComScore study on display and search together.

What I find interesting in this study is the disparity between online metrics (lift in pages views) and off-line metrics, lift in sales ($ per purchase or incremental sales).

	Search & Display	Search	Display
Lift in In-Store Purchasers	43%	26%	6%
Lift in Pages Viewed	68%	46%	37%
Lift in $ Per Purchaser: In-Store	83%	26%	11%
Lift in Incremental In-Store Dollars	90%	43%	15%

Display and search collectively did not demonstrate synergistic impact on page views. A 46% lift from search and 37% lift in display, collectively a 68% lift. There is a redundancy in the lift. In other words, some of the page views you received would have come with either search or display alone. Unfortunately, most online marketing analysis stops at this level.

Now take a look at incremental in-store sales; whether measure in $ / purchase, or total dollars spent, there is a synergistic lift. In other words, a lift beyond simply the lift percentage of the two ad types summed. In-store total dollars lift was 43% for search and 15% percent for display when run independently. If these two were simply complementary, we would expect a total dollars spent lift of 58% when run together, (adding the two together). If they were only partially complimentary (some redundancy, as in page views), then we would expect something less than 58%.

But, that is not what happens. In the case of search + display, 43% + 15% = a 90% lift in incremental in-store dollars. This is a classic case of the value of the whole being greater than the sum of it’s parts. The other off-line metrics show similar, though not as strong, synergy between the two.

So, there are two conclusions here:
1)    Where ever possible, measure every effort / campaign all the way to the sale. Stopping short (like page views) does not tell the real story. In this case it short-changed the program, in others, it may exaggerate it’s impact. Get to the sale.
2)    As I have said, search and display work together. SEMs need to learn, understand and partner with display advertising / marketers to optimize the programs.

To provide some sense of why these two things may work together, I turned to the second study. It was done by Enqurio this past July. Simply put, brands appearing in organic and paid listings earned a considerable lift in Brand awareness. The results for branded and non branded terms directionally were the same. I’ll just briefly hit on the non-branded.

“Fuel Efficient Cars” top organic and top paid listing combined helped Honda achieve a 16% lift in un-aided brand awareness (Roughly 50% up to 66%). One would think that Honda should be at the top of everyone’s list in this category, yet they had exceptional improvement with organic and paid top spots in search. Now, before you go and get discouraged thinking you have to get top in both, either one (paid or organic) on it’s own demonstrated very good lift, with paid doing marginally better.

I always say bring it to the sale, or as close as you can. Brand recognition is great, but almost meaningless if it does not encourage purchase. The study showed an 8% lift in intent to purchase with top spot in both organic and paid. This study had to stop at intent, but it is closer, and demonstrates the benefit of search on the brand and sales.

Both studies show that search marketers need to expand. Drop the blinders, embrace search not only for its direct marketing prowess, but also it’s brand building ability. Recognize, learn and leverage the synergy between search and display. Our world has changed, you need to stay ahead of the curve to maintain the value to your company or clients.