Benefits of organic SEO as opposed to PPC

[Psychobel]

Apologies if the data I need is posted elsewhere.

I have a client who initially wanted to do organic SEO but now is looking for a quite detailed document explaininhg the benefits of organic SEO as opposed to dumping all his spend into PPC. I need some hard verifiable facts as to how people shop and search. I shall be digging out a few bits and pieces myself of course but I was also hoping to capitalise on your joint wisdom. Any advice will be gratefully and humbly received, as usual

[incrediblehelp]

hmmmm, lots of benefits for each.

Once you work on clients website and they are willing to be involved and learn as they go, they can eventually manage much of the techniques themselves. I have always been one to teach and as I optimize if the client is willing to learn. Just the knowledge you gain from how your website interacts with the top search engines is far more valuable than simply clicking buttons to get traffic to your website.

Of course organic SEO takes lots of time and dedication. Many companies/clients simply cant/don't want to do that. Then PPC is a fast and easy solution, but it sure does cost a hell of a lot. Sure the rankings are guaranteed to be there, but are the sales? And what about fraud? No thanks for me. In fact I rarely handle PPC campaigns.

Most all my work is organic SEO. Why pay for it, when you can get it for free with determination, hard work and patience?

[freetraff]

I would treat this client like this. Surely your clients knows that being on top of search results for the keyword or keyphrase is really good - this gives natural, targeted traffic.

But, not so easy to climb up the mountain. Explain your client what exactly jobs you will do for the site (what kind of onpage optimization and what kinds of offpage optimization). Explain that most of that jobs will stay on the site and will keep getting him/her advantages (for example, if you found 100 reputable link partners to that site, these partners will stay on the site, and with PPC the traffic has come and gone).

I think when the client will understand how much great things SEO will add to the business, the idea for PPC will not look that interesting.

[noel_x99]

One possible advantage to organic is that once you get the site performing well, it could continue to perform well for a year, two, or more - depending on the industry - with only minor changes.

PPC stops working the second you stop paying.

[spherica]

Apologies if the data I need is posted elsewhere.

I have a client who initially wanted to do organic SEO but now is looking for a quite detailed document explaininhg the benefits of organic SEO as opposed to dumping all his spend into PPC. I need some hard verifiable facts as to how people shop and search. I shall be digging out a few bits and pieces myself of course but I was also hoping to capitalise on your joint wisdom. Any advice will be gratefully and humbly received, as usual

Well the GREATEST benefit is expense depreciation.

It is normally assumed that with PPC cost per click to factual sales conversions will almost always escalate the greater the advertising saturation...

Organic SEO reverses this - cost per click to factual sales conversions will almost always decrease the greater the advertising saturation.

With a well thought out strategy designed around 'growth' - a per click budget can go from $1.00/click in the short term to $0.01/click over the long term [for illustration only - values are actually bogus]... making ROI easier.

[Tom O'Leary]

Apologies if the data I need is posted elsewhere.

I have a client who initially wanted to do organic SEO but now is looking for a quite detailed document explaininhg the benefits of organic SEO as opposed to dumping all his spend into PPC. I need some hard verifiable facts as to how people shop and search. ...

I WOULD CERTAINLY include data from their or your web analytics tool. You could use that data to show how many impressions they are getting from organic referrals from Search Engines. I wrote a post last October that referenced a study presenting evidence that organic results are clicked more. It might help to strengthen your case:

http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=10&language=EN

All the best

[lamico]

There is no question in my experience that natural search optimization is more effective in the long run. I like to encourage client's to use both strategies at first. We top load the campaign with paid ads to get started, use the data to refine our organic campaign and then gradually drop the ppc and focus on the long term benefits of organic optimization.

Lou Amico
LA Management Company, Charlotte, NC (http://www.lamagementco.com)

[toroandbruin]

It is a question of gathering data then sharpening your pencil, cranking up your calculator and figuring your costs. Let's say that not counting ad costs you make $75 free and clear on every product you sell. You've found that 1 out of every 150 organic visitors will buy and one out of every 100 CPC visitors will buy.

You can afford to pay 50 cents per click and not lose money; however, you want to do better than break even; so you bid 25 cents per click and enjoy a profit of $37.50 per click-through sale.

But maybe bidding 25 cents per click will not generate any clickthroughs at all. The problem with CPC is that often the figures do not look at all like our hypothetical case. Often $100-worth of clickthroughs will generate only a few dollars-worth of sales.

As for improving your SEO, how much is your time worth? How much can the SEO be improved beyond where it is already? If a modest number of hours work on your part can vastly improve the organic clickthrough rate, the improved $75-profit sales will definitely pay for your time. On the other hand, suppose you devote an entire 40 hour week to SEO but get only 150 more visitors that week. You make 1 addtional sale for an extra profit of $75. Was it worth it? Maybe, if you get $75 more per week permanently.

[toroandbruin]

One more thought -- the client wanted "hard verifiable facts as to how people shop and search". I'd say that varies GREATLY depending on the industry and product. If the client has some competitors who are large companies with big budgets they've probably already researched their customers' habits. Take a look at where those companies are spending their bucks.

[NameCritic]

There is no question in my experience that natural search optimization is more effective in the long run. I like to encourage client's to use both strategies at first. We top load the campaign with paid ads to get started, use the data to refine our organic campaign and then gradually drop the ppc and focus on the long term benefits of organic optimization.

Lou Amico
LA Management Company, Charlotte, NC (http://www.lamagementco.com)

Great advice! Clients are impatient so if they have the budget that is the way to go in my opinion.

[DrTandem1]

One factor I didn't see mentioned is the two are placed differently on the SERPs. Google sticks them (the PPC) to the right side where virtually no one, except your competition looks.

The other day I was really searching hard for something. It had nothing to do with working on a site. I was searching for something I wanted. After scouring the Google SERPs with few finds, I realized that I hadn't even looked at the PPC ads! So I promptly switched over to Yahoo and continued my search.

My point is not so much cost as it is value. I think most people look at the organic results as the meat and potatoes of the SERPs and the PPC as empty calories.

A #1 organic result will beat a #1 PPC every time.

[edhan]

I believe organic SEO will be better than PPC in long run. Though initially organic SEO will be painstaking to build but the benefit will be far better than PPC that lasts as long as you are still paying. It is definitely worth going to all the trouble of getting organic optimization. I always believe that each day you plant your seeds in the soil, eventually you will harvest when it bears fruits.

[mantawebsolutions]

noel_x99 wrote: PPC stops working the second you stop paying.

I like that explanation very much. For me, organic SEO is the best and like some of the contributors to this post, I don't even touch PPC. It is fast and does give immediate results, but it is expensive and is totally dependant on your monthly budget.


DrTandem1 wrote: My point is not so much cost as it is value. I think most people look at the organic results as the meat and potatoes of the SERPs and the PPC as empty calories.

A #1 organic result will beat a #1 PPC every time.

I agree, organic results have much more value in my opinion. Based on studies I've seen, searchers click on the organic results first before even looking at the PPC ads.

[adebold]

I guess most topics have been covered but for my part, I would prefer to go the PPC route for a commercial offering simply for the predictability and the opportunity to bid on a wider range of phrases than your SEO efforts may allow you to reach.

In terms of any earlier comment about no one looking over to the right except for your competition, that just isn't the case and I have a number of successful campaigns bringing in a decent ROI purely from PPC.

Finally, SEO isn't free! (unless you/your client doesn't value their time)

[mantawebsolutions]

You make a few good points there adebold.

Organic SEO sure isn't free but it sure is "cheaper" than PPC depending on what you do for the client. However, I guess all is relevant to what the client's budget is at the end of the day and depending on how you setup the campaign, whether it is for PPC or organic SEO.

PPC does allow one to use a much wider range of keywords than what organic SEO will allow for. This is definately a plus-point in favor of PPC. With organic SEO, one needs to be more specific in targeting keywords, one simply cannot just use a wide range of keywords or a broad keyword term.

[dburdon]

I'm a great fan of integrated campaigns.

SEO is best. For reasons of performance (conversion) and long term ROI. But having a pay per click campaign running in parallel provides feedback you wouldn't get by focusing exclusively on SEO.

[rms7design]

well, let's put it that way.... organic is great because it is there to stay as long as you work hard to keep it that way and search engines don't ruin all your work.. and it does not cost... or does it??? How many hours spent on organic is needed in order to have top placement?

PPC... 15 minutes and you are up... you pay as you go.....

so... this is what I believe is a good strategy: Launch organic and PPC at the same time. While PPC brings in immediate results, organic will take more time to get results (satisfying ones). So, your client can drive visitors immediately and at the same time you work on organic... then when organic catch up, you can increasingly decrease money spent on PPC..... In my opinion both should be used to start with... organic takes more time but then will bring in 'free' visitors.. although nothing is free as the work required is... non stop... anyway... enjoy

[amitlaufer]

For some very competitive key phrases you must use PPC
in order to have some presence. For instance, If your
customer is in the "Car Insurance" business and your
competition has a PR of 7 and up with 10K back links etc' there is no way you are going to beat him with your SEO efforts for organic SERPS.

I would say, analyze your keywords, sort them out and
decide which are going for the PPC (the more competitive ones) and the others can go to SEO efforts.

Research shows that about one third of the surfers
click on PPC ads.

Another thing is you need to look for key phrases which have 0 to 10 competing pages, you can find it with tools like word tracker.

You can get hundreds of key phrases with less competition (and much less traffic) but you collect hundreds of these so it adds up.

[npohlman]

My company concentrates on both paid and organic SEO because nothing is ever guaranteed on search engines as many of us know on here after the many Google algo updates. One thing I have found over the past 5 years is that though nothing is ever guaranteed Google has a lot more problems dropping an 1 million dollar advertising account overnight than they do in dropping a free listing that is earning them nothing. I know this has changed a little bit with Google firing a lot of affiliate advertisers in the past few weeks but if your site is directly selling stuff you should be ok.
Personally, my time is worth something and I am not going to spend all hours of the day to get high organic rankings when they can be gone in a blink of an eye, just run a good paid SEM program and design your site by the accepted white hat SEO standards and the sales will come rolling in from both paid and organic listings.

[philwill4u]

I'd certainly recommend a combinaton of PPC and organic, that is, at least to begin with.

Business people new to the internet often have the perception that a great site is all it takes to bring traffic. Unfortunately, there are many other businesses that have been around for some time and their link partners are vast. There search placement is consequently high. Topping these will take a lot of effort and time with organic searches.

My best advice.... remember what marketing is. MARKETING = CREATE DEMAND. If it's not doing this then drop it and work on something else. More often than not, PPC does not create the demand. It creates click throughs, nothing more, nothing less and it comes at a high price.

Google and others have done a great job creating demand. Instinctively, I'd suggest to use good old PR - its generally free and it creates excellent demand when done right. With the demand, you'll get great links, improved sales and over time you'll go up the rankings on the search engines.



Gift Ideas and Experiential activities (http://www.giftsthatthrill.com.au)

[Seminole386]

I do my own SEO as a Realtor. I rank well with MS and Yahoo and hop all over the place with Google. When I rank well with Google I get more hits, but the question is how many contacts a day or week can I handle. If I was selling widgets it would be different and my ability to pay would be based on my sales per click and profit margin.

I don't believe there is a black and white answer to your question. I do believe clicks = ranking on Google and you need something to get your ranking started and that is the value of PPC.

[Tom O'Leary]

I don't believe there is a black and white answer to your question. I do believe clicks = ranking on Google and you need something to get your ranking started and that is the value of PPC.

The original question was how to sell organic SEO to a client. Certainly we could make a case for both, but he's looking to put some weight behind an organic proposal.

See my reply above.

All the best

[fhlee]

Hi,

I just thought of offering a perspective as a retailer myself. Currently, I am spending on PPC but is recently exploring to spend to improve on Organic search.

My primary concern is this: I am currently already paying US$10,000 on PPC a month. Naturally getting a SEO firm to help me costs me more money.

The problem is: Do I increase my current budget of US$10,000 to US$13,000? (SEO qouted me US$3,000/month).

A. If I do that, my current cost-of-sales will bloat up. Probably to an unhealthy level and that is bad for my business (if profit is bad, I'd have no money to pay the SEO too, so its not healthy for everyone).

B. I can consider reducing my current PPC campaign and redirect the US$3,000 to the SEO thus maintaining my US$10,000 cost. However, the problem is that SEO is:
1. Not immediate (takes months to see result).
2. Not guaranteed (no matter what guarantee the SEO says). That means I may well be dumping money into the ocean without seeing hard results.

C. Trash the idea of SEO and just stick with PPC. Simple, immediate result, status-quo & calculable.

--------
As a retailer, the problem with SEO proposals is that we do not see results and do not understand exactly what needs to be done (at our end and at the end of the SEO). Yes, SEO can 'guarantee' (mostly comes with small prints) top positions, but will require 3~6months to see results. We're just a small retailer, so spending USD$3000 for 6 months without seeing results seems like a big gamble for us...

As such, SEO usually seems very expensive...

Just tot to offer a view from a retailer for you SEO engineers to consider. As of today, we're still thinking of weather (and how to justify/approach towards SEO). Of course, we know that Organic search is important, but at the end of the day, the MOST important part of business is our P/L.

cheers.

[amitlaufer]

Hi fhlee,

I think you spend a huge amount of money on PPC !

Who is managing your campaign? do you do it yourself?
An SEO firm would take about 15% of the budget to manage it.

IMHO, you can cut that budget drastically. You need it mainly for very competitive search key phrases that you cannot reach via organic results.

Adwords campaigns need to be carefully planed, managed, trucked and constantly improve the CTR of the Ads by a professional who knows what he is doing..

I don't know which business you are in but it seems to me you can save a lot of
Money by consulting with a professional SEO expert.

SEO optimization is made of two parts On-Page and Off-Page activities.
The On-Page is mainly optimizing your main Keywords to specific Search engine.

You do it by observing very carefully the competition sites and the sites that link to them. Then, you make some adjustments to your site.
That phase alone can improve your position in a relatively short time.

If you are interested, I can have a look at your site if you PM me your url.

[DrTandem1]

As a retailer, the problem with SEO proposals is that we do not see results and do not understand exactly what needs to be done (at our end and at the end of the SEO). Yes, SEO can 'guarantee' (mostly comes with small prints) top positions, but will require 3~6months to see results. We're just a small retailer, so spending USD$3000 for 6 months without seeing results seems like a big gamble for us...

I find it odd that you spend $10,000 each month on PPC and think that $3,000 over six months is a gamble. What are you selling? Have we heard of your company?

[Seminole386]

If you are spending $10k per month on PPC and are not earning enough to justify $3k for SEO you need to ask yourself is my $10k being wasted. I think it is.

[janeth]

I started but have not finished writing down some stuff for myself on running a PPC campaign here http://www.ranked1.net/Optimizing-AdWords.php.

It’s not just a matter of sticking some ads in and running a campaign.

He needs to make a list of all his keywords and not the ones you find using Overtures tool. He needs to find keywords that no one else is optimizing for. So using Google’s or Yahoo’s tool is out of he is going to do it right.

He also needs to stay away from the higher paying keywords because there more out to receive click fraud.

He needs to make a unique landing page for each keyword in his campaign.

He needs to watch his stats and the list of keywords to make sure he does not get involved in any click fraud as well as getting rid of keywords that are not converting to sells.

If he’s thinking he’s just going to bid on a couple words and start making money he needs to spend a little time and research what it takes to make PPC work.

He either has to hire someone for optimization or hire someone to run his PPC.

[janeth]

One factor I didn't see mentioned is the two are placed differently on the SERPs. Google sticks them (the PPC) to the right side where virtually no one, except your competition looks.

The other day I was really searching hard for something. It had nothing to do with working on a site. I was searching for something I wanted. After scouring the Google SERPs with few finds, I realized that I hadn't even looked at the PPC ads! So I promptly switched over to Yahoo and continued my search.

My point is not so much cost as it is value. I think most people look at the organic results as the meat and potatoes of the SERPs and the PPC as empty calories.

A #1 organic result will beat a #1 PPC every time.

I don’t think it matters which will beat which. Done right both should show a return on investment.

If people were not making money with PPC then you would not see the amount of people putting money into PPC like you do.

Both have risked involved and if it was me I would advice the client to do both and not just with Google.

Just My Tow Cents

[Psychobel]

Apologies if the data I need is posted elsewhere.

I have a client who initially wanted to do organic SEO but now is looking for a quite detailed document explaininhg the benefits of organic SEO as opposed to dumping all his spend into PPC. I need some hard verifiable facts as to how people shop and search. ...

I WOULD CERTAINLY include data from their or your web analytics tool. You could use that data to show how many impressions they are getting from organic referrals from Search Engines. I wrote a post last October that referenced a study presenting evidence that organic results are clicked more. It might help to strengthen your case:

http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=10&language=EN

All the best

Tom

You pretty much nailed what I was after. I'm fairly sure we're all very familiar with the arguments for and against PPC and Organic SEO but in general, I think the concensus is that a blended approach is generally the best so that immediate traffic can be generated while the effects of the SEO campaign take effect.

I'd go a little further as well. I think that our online efforts should very often be just a part of much broader campaign including brand development PR and so forth.

The article you wrote, and the sources it references, should be compulsory reading for everyone here. We all "know" such a lot between us but putting it down as hard fact is so important when trying to close that deal. If we win this contract, it will be one of the biggest we have, and I want more contracts of that size, so the information I put together from this may well have far reaching impact for our business.

Thanks for everybodies input.

[pcalzadilla]

I always push SEO way more than PPC: Offer them an analogy..I can't give you mine it's too good.

I'll give you my back-up one: "imagine placing cards into a top hat, to the point in which it is overflowing, that is the internet (pause) and your card is at the bottom, if you're not on page one"

That being said:

I have racked my brains trying to find this darn article, but alas I have failed. I believe it was done by the California Association of Realtors but I could be wrong... I actually wrote a review for THAT and can't find it in my clutter of files- damn google desktop is too good! Anyway this study found that 80% of web users do not go past page 2 of search results, and 98% do not go past page 3. Most will enter in a new keyword phrase - with up to 5 words! (BTW cheaper PPC in there too) if the 1st page does not yield the results they want. I wish I could find this study, it was excellent. It was something like "Web users browsing study" here are some interesting studies I found which may help you:
Good luck!

http://www9.org/w9cdrom/81/81.html

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3607336

[PumaSpirit]

One factor I didn't see mentioned is the two are placed differently on the SERPs. Google sticks them (the PPC) to the right side where virtually no one, except your competition looks.

The other day I was really searching hard for something. It had nothing to do with working on a site. I was searching for something I wanted. After scouring the Google SERPs with few finds, I realized that I hadn't even looked at the PPC ads! So I promptly switched over to Yahoo and continued my search.

My point is not so much cost as it is value. I think most people look at the organic results as the meat and potatoes of the SERPs and the PPC as empty calories.

A #1 organic result will beat a #1 PPC every time.

I must agree with you. I have done the same thing, over and over. It may have something to do with my browser seldom being maximized and therefore those ads are cut off from my view.

But even with the browser in full screen mode, those ads just don't seem to encroach into my field of vision very much.

Who else has this experience?

And yes, once I come to the point I can't find what I am looking for in the organic listing, I also move on to Yahoo and/or MSN.

How many others do the same thing?

I must admit though, that I will click on a competitors ads (ONCE!) about once a month or 2 just to see what's going on on their sites and to compare a few things. A couple of times I have found plagiarism and once even original photos filched from my site. Do I feel bad for them paying for that click for me to find that out? H... NO!

[drift]

One factor I didn't see mentioned is the two are placed differently on the SERPs. Google sticks them (the PPC) to the right side where virtually no one, except your competition looks.
...
My point is not so much cost as it is value. I think most people look at the organic results as the meat and potatoes of the SERPs and the PPC as empty calories.

A #1 organic result will beat a #1 PPC every time.

I must agree with you. I have done the same thing, over and over. It may have something to do with my browser seldom being maximized and therefore those ads are cut off from my view.

But even with the browser in full screen mode, those ads just don't seem to encroach into my field of vision very much.

Who else has this experience?


There are Adwords results that come up at the top of the organic results and I believe that most users do not even realise that they are sponsored listings.

I did a very small sample test on some users and found that they didn't really see the ads on the side or banner ads at the top of the page but they treated sponsored ads at the top of the results as being the top result rather than an ad. I don't think people really notice the sponsored links text and they are just trying to find relevant sites and the sponsored links at the top are relevant even though they don't get there organically.

I also had a demo of the Hitwise system recently and found that 2 of our competitors are getting more traffic than us for a keyword we come up number one for organically in Google and most of their traffic was from Google.

So i think that sponsored links that appear above the organic results are hugely valuable. I'm not currently running any PPC campaigns but I will start again soon. I want to educate myself about PPC a bit more first and I have a million other non SEO things to do too.

[russellcole38]

I agree, basically, with the thrust of this brief essay. However, I am beginning to question the benefits to be acquired from dedicating extensive time into optimizing a site. In short, I think that SEO's significance within the overall context of Website Marketing is overestimated. Good SERP's can be obtained from grassroots marketing of the site which involves dedicating the vast amount of time in providing standards compliant layouts as well as interesting content that is continually updated as well as utilities on the website that are serviceable to the interests of the enduser. I know that this is now considered to be a buzzword, however, the paradigm of Web 2.0 adds another dimension to one's website marketing that deserves consideration. In short, by engaging the enduser and basically transforming endusers into developers and providers creates an incentive for traffic to return to the site as well as increases the site's extensibility as far as the Web-based utilities, providing functionalities, are concerned and the extent of the knowledge content.
Those who are vested in the old guard of business, who argue that Web 2.0 is merely a bubble that will soon burst, because they cannot immediately forsee viable business designs that will generate profit while avoiding unacceptable risks, are entirely missing the point. Web 2.0 is something that is partially designed, in order to enact its intial deployment, but after its launch it is something that follows unpredictable trajectories that continuously disclose new possibilities that might present potentials for profitability. The maxim that is now is circulation and is becomming established within the discourse of web design and marketing, provide a good service and increase its performence and expand the extensibility of its functionality on an ongoing deligent basis and profitability will present itself, deserves strong consideration for those who are enamored by the constaining protocol of convention business design models. The developers who offered Delicious - the social bookmarking server - did not initially conceive of any clear design for profitability. However, after catching the eye of Yahoo!, which wanted to integrate Delicious' technology into its project of developing the social search service it now offers, that is still in beta, I believe, were rewarded for their innovation and hardwork through the compensation they received in exchange for the insights they had accumulated.

[Psychobel]

A Fascinating and thought provoking post from Russelcole38 that'll have me pondering for the rest of the day. I do think you miss a very significant point though. If I read you correctly. A business owners or directors absolute duty is to ensure the ongoing profitable delivery of their business. I think it is fair to say that this should be a managed process. Where you put the constraints on how you do your business can vary but there should be understood bounds. To completely open up your online development to the vagaries of web 2.0 ideologies would be irresponsble in the extreme, but to carefully observe new business strategies and implement where appropriate would be good business.

Regretably, too many of our clients are still coming to terms with using spreadsheets so we have to pick and choose methodologies as appropriate.

[noel_x99]

Here's a study from Marketing Sherpa.
http://www.cheezhead.com/2005/03/27/where-do-search-engine-users-click/

The post is dated 03/2005. I didn't find it on Marketing Sherpa's site though.

[Psychobel]

Thanks to you all for all the help you gave. Noel, I wish I'd noticed your last post here which I think confirms a lot of what I came across but a bit more succinctly. I collated the info into piece for the client. Didn't get the job but I think they were pretty much set on PPC anyway. there's a chance in the next budget. All good things come to he who waits.
Anyway, I slightly revamped the piece into an article whic I've stuck on our site. Any critiques will be most gratefuly welcome. Even those who tell me its' rubbish!

Thanks once again for your help.

removed link drop

[noel_x99]

I like your article. I'd be interested in getting feedback from someone who isn't in the industry. I don't feel that it's too technical, but I think it wouldn't hurt to do a little testing with your audience and adjust based on feedback.

[Psychobel]

I've just sent it on to a potential new client. They are a PR company and they would like us to help them service their clients. Which could be very nice. Anyway, he has some knowledge of the field but not extensive. I'll let you know what feedback I get