Sponsored Links v. Unpaid Search Results

[maniactive]

Recently, I read an unbelievable & fantastic bit of research summary in the Washington Post. And by "unbelievable & fantastic", I mean in its truest sense, not in the marketing-hype sense!

Here's what I read in a July 17, 2003 article by Leslie Walker (Web Giants Seek Fortune in Search Ads):

"Researchers at ComScore Networks recently found that people who click on sponsored links in search results are twice as likely to buy something as people who click on unpaid search results after running the same query."

I found this statement incredible (again, true meaning of the word!) My own stats and the stats of many of my clients don't seem to support this statement: in many cases, unpaid listings outsell the paid listings!

But the article went on with another quote:

"ComScore also found that paid search links had four times the click-through rate of unpaid search results for the same queries."

Ummmmmm. . . .once again, my stats show the opposite, meaning that I tend to show more click-throughs on our unpaid listings. It makes me wonder if I'm doing something right with optimization, or doing something wrong with the copywriting on my paid listings!

Bottom line: I'm also wondering if anybody else is experiencing the unbelievable, fantastic, incredible feelings that I'm having about paid v. unpaid. I need a reality check: anybody have any comments?

[LauraB]

I too have problems with those stats.

We have a client that spends quite a lot on Google Adwords, when we initially began our SEO campaign for him the two of us went to Google we entered his selected keyword phrase and searched 26 pages before finding his site. Neither of us even looked at the paid listing! Where he of course could be found.

My point is that there are still people out there that have little use for sponsored links. If you don't come up in the listings you lose them.

[zbatia]

Keep in mind that all those research results are paid by some vendors or even sponsored by certain vendors. Do you understand what I mean?

I don't trust those papers. Every web site experiences different results because multiple conditions could be applied. It depends on how many sponsored links you have paid and how many unsponsored you have. You have to be truly paranoic to count it and have pure results.
At least I know that sponsored links work (I see my Google bills $x,xxx.00). At the same time, the popular page that people hit pretty often could result in the same sale if not more...

[fathom]

Originally Posted by maniactive

"Researchers at ComScore Networks recently found that people who click on sponsored links in search results are twice as likely to buy something as people who click on unpaid search results after running the same query."

This is a reasonable conclusion and totally inline with human psyche.

A newspaper for instance - people do not usually go looking to buy something from a column, article, or headlines, they read to be "informed" (.e.g SERP's).

Those with a need tend to investigate the "classifies" (AdWords)

And some companies maximize readership (frontpage ads) for impulse buyers, or special interests (business or travel section) similiar to Premium Listings.

Ads are normally developed/designed for people with a need and to capitalize on that need. Thus this data is reasonable.

I found this statement incredible (again, true meaning of the word!) My own stats and the stats of many of my clients don't seem to support this statement: in many cases, unpaid listings outsell the paid listings!

Often true - but this does not mean the data is faulty. This could be website disorientation, lack of information, usability problems or 1,000 other possible issues.

We are a global society built on commercial advertisements - it is quite reasonable that offline psyche also plays a part of onlines buting habits.

"ComScore also found that paid search links had four times the click-through rate of unpaid search results for the same queries."

Since the data sources were not mentioned nor did they break it down two possibilities become apparent.

Few search engines with sponsored listings place these listings after or on the same "on-screen" level of SERP's.

Thus most sponsored listing appear immediately to the users, and in some instances (like Overture) on extremely competitive terms don't have any "free stuff".

Ummmmmm. . . .once again, my stats show the opposite, meaning that I tend to show more click-throughs on our unpaid listings. It makes me wonder if I'm doing something right with optimization, or doing something wrong with the copywriting on my paid listings!

Like you I am at a lose (stats do not indicate this) however a possible explanation as stated before depending on the data sources used the results could have a significant margin of error.

Bottom line: I'm also wondering if anybody else is experiencing the unbelievable, fantastic, incredible feelings that I'm having about paid v. unpaid. I need a reality check: anybody have any comments?

hmmm... Most advertising complements other adversting channels and rarely do they conflict. I never recommend to anyone - don't use this or that "if they have the budget".

When it comes down to it... the risk of NOT advertising (free or paid) is worse than the risk of any advertising.

[alsoran]

maniactive wrote:
"Researchers at ComScore Networks recently found that people who click on sponsored links in search results are twice as likely to buy something as people who click on unpaid search results after running the same query."

I found this statement incredible (again, true meaning of the word!) My own stats and the stats of many of my clients don't seem to support this statement: in many cases, unpaid listings outsell the paid listings!.."

One can understand your dilemma. I read a recent article by Scott Gardner ( The Battle of PPC vs. SEM at http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2003/aug/1prt.html ,where what he says is in line with your experience, though contrary to Post's article.

[simonm]

I saw a very similar article by 'Dr David Smith' who effectively stated that nobody used traditional search engines while everybody used overture. ie that if you wanted a result you had to pay to be at the top of overture.

I use any search engine I can get onto and can compare results from same search terms used to find the same page on both Google and Overture. Eg, for a three word 'business' search term I am 6th place on Google, Overture 1st place).

Over the course of this year I have had almost 200 times the visitors through Google.com as I have had from overture! And that excludes the regional Google and Yahoo searches!

Incidentally, msn.com yealds about 100 times more responses than overture for that search term.

Where the term is more generic, the ratio declines, however comparing all visitors between Google and overture I show a 200 to one comparison.

[Ande]

I used to read these type of reports. But, now I feel they should include the statement "Sponsored Message" with the title.

They read like an advertisement for those not familiar with search engine placement. As pointed out by fathom, "Since the data sources were not mentioned nor did they break it down two possibilities become apparent." These so called "experts" didn't even put any facts in the article to back up their claims.

While trying to build my own SEO I tested a couple of these companies. They said to input a search term to see what my current unpaid position was. They came back with the same statement that my website wasn't in the first 500 results returned.

I then went to the search engines and typed in the same search term and my website came back in either the #1 or #2 positions of the Search Engines.

There went the credibility and integrity of such companies. We don't have time to check each one of them out to see who is honest and who is just another hidden advertisement. So, we will just continue on with our own SEO program and not spend $xx,xxx,xxx.00 for click throughs we are already getting.

(Customer Testimonial)
I and my customers have also switched to a different internet search procedure. We now use Copernic Agent for 95% of all of our internet searches. This Meta-Search Engine accesses all of the search engines and directories at the same time and returns results in the same amount of time it takes to use just one search engine. Plus, we can search specific catagories for what we are searching for.

We only use individual search engines when necessary.

[alsoran]

From our discussions above, I feel we know the answer....which is the Post's article is probably *doctored*. It seems a ploy to deflect the fact that Google enjoys overwhelming popularity (SearchEngineWatch report at http://www.searchenginewatch.com/rep...le.php/2156451 ) at the expense of other search engines.

[webgod60]

You all seem to be trying to push one service or another. I for one am not looking to buy something every time I search. To deal with sponsored links is a pain, and I lean to the search engines that do not use them. Unfortunately Google used to be the king, but now they have chased away millions because of their greed, fueled by your greed.

[LauraB]

Unfortunately Google used to be the king, but now they have chased away millions because of their greed, fueled by your greed.

Whoa there! For a first post this is somewhat harsh! I do not think of the folks who travel these pages as greedy! We are for the most part extremely giving of ourselves, our help, our time, and our advice to each other. To come in here and say otherwise is uncalled for!

Back to the subject at hand - please.

[cbp]

You all seem to be trying to push one service or another.

Where have I ever done that?

CBP

[Mel]

Researchers at ComScore Networks recently found that people who click on sponsored links in search results are twice as likely to buy something as people who click on unpaid search results after running the same query."

As with many sponsored messages you have to read the passages word by word and line by line, and what they don't say is often more important than what they do.

They are saying the IF someone clicks on a sponsored link they are twice as likely to buy, as opposed to those who click on an unpaid link, but what they are NOT saying is how often are the paid links clicked on as opposed to the unpaid links?

IE if only one in 50 clickers use the paid link, while the other 49 use the unpaid link, you will still get lots more sales from your unpaid links even if the conversion ratio of the paid links is 100% higher.

[ronniethedodger]

Originally Posted by Mel

They are saying the IF someone clicks on a sponsored link they are twice as likely to buy, as opposed to those who click on an unpaid link, but what they are NOT saying is how often are the paid links clicked on as opposed to the unpaid links?

You hit the nail right on the head Mel. The statement is misleading. And it skews it in favor of the paid advertising.

We would have to see the entire article at the Post and see what context that paragraph was taken out of. Was there more that followed this statement?

It may be a true statement. But if you get 1 million unpaid clickers who buy 5% of the time as opposed to just 100,000 paid clickers who buy 10% of the time....my money is on the unpaid listings.