When it comes to talking about the search engines, we inevitably get to (if not immediately get to) market share. There are three sources most frequently quoted: Nielsen/NetRatings, comScore and Hitwise. A lot of attention is paid to these guys when they release the numbers. Personally, I do not follow these numbers with great rigor. Rather, I prefer to follow the performance of our individual search programs which span the more and lesser used engines. If there is a major share shift (unlikely), I’ll see it before the reports come out.
That said, there is a long term view that the ratings can provide. I think following Danny Sullivan’s perspective is good (essentially, not reading anything into changes that do not consistently breakthrough share bands). If you follow the measurements, it helps to have a perspective on how they get their numbers. This is not a statistical description (I’m not qualified); just a top line. For a good review take a look are Matt Belkin’s blog. He covers pros and cons of the panel vs click stream data methodologies.
Nielsen/ NetRatings utilizes a panel method (computer resident tracking)(NetView) and site-side technology (StieCensus) launched in September 2005 (Integrated to overcome the cookie deletion issues).
comScore’s uses a panel method via qSearch with proxy technology tracking the users web behavior.
Hitwise uses ISP data to anonymously collect click stream data.
One thing to keep in mind is that these players are also tying site traffic analytics into off line data – shopping, behavior, demographics, lifestyles, etc. So, search market share is really a small part of what they do. It just tends to get the most attention.
If you follow the engines (U.S.), you know that Google is huge (48 -60%), Yahoo! is big (25-30%), Live is small (9-12%), Ask and AOL are smaller (about 5%) and the rest are tiny.
Okay, I didn’t throw out the actual numbers. That’s because the true measure of the search engines’ strength is how they perform for your program. It’s the relative ROI that is important to you. So, keep an eye for any major changes in the engine share, but don’t ever lose site of your results. (SeachEngineWatch is a good place for the numbers.)
Look at some of the smaller players. There is a difference between share and efficiency. I have seen some small players come in with decent ROI (better than the big three). While they are not individually scalable, in aggregate, they can add net program efficiency.
For example, if a keyword on Google has a CPC of $0.90 and converts at 25%, your cost per conversion is $3.60. If, on MIVA, your conversion is only 5%, but your CPC is $0.10, then your cost per conversion is $2.00. Now, Google may get you 10,000 conversions and the aggregate of the others may only be 100, but at a 45% discount, these can be very efficient.
The key here is measurement. If you can not track to the conversion, these sites can just as easily be money losers. If they only convert at 1%, then your cost per conversion jumps to $10. While this is true with the big engines, most search marketers pay attention to them. The big ones are the fire hoses that we turn off right away vs the little ones which are tiny drips that we let go too long. Good metrics helps prevent this mistake on either end of the spectrum.
Until now, I have not touched on click fraud. I don’t discount it by any means. But, to me it is a different, though related, discussion. If you have your metrics in place, even if there is click fraud, you’ll be able to mitigate it, or even profit in spite of it. It is difficult to continue a program where you believe you are the victim of click fraud. But, if it meets your ROI, continue to program and address the click fraud issue later.
No comments:
Post a Comment