No Comments since January 23rd, 2008
Manoj Jasra who writes the Web Analytics World blog. Recently, he invited me to start contributing to the blog, and today I made my first post there.
I’ll try and post there regularly, and am also going to strive to post more regularly here at my own blog as well. No, that’s not a New Year’s Resolution. I don’t make those.
Today’s first post draws on some information I used in explaining User Behavior at the SES Chicago and SES Paris shows recently. Basically it’s all about the value of being found on page one within the search results.
Please read the post, and think about it. Are you paying (or charging) a fair price for your SEO services?
Looking at the data, I think it’s pretty easy to argue that SEO’s are not being properly compensated for getting sites into the top 10 for meaningful, competitive key phrases. Not when you compare the cost per click on PPC v. SEO.
Posted under Analytics, Google, Ranking Reports, Search Engines, Search Metrics
1 Comment since January 23rd, 2008
We put out a Press Release earlier today about the automated PPC refund claim submission process that we’ve added to PPC Assurance.
Apart from what’s in the release, here’s what’s notable:
Until now, if you’ve wanted to file a claim with Google or Yahoo! for an error in the way your PPC campaign executed, it was a nightmare process. You had to dig through log files, run whois and geo-lookups against IP’s, check times, etc. In short, it was virtually impossible.
PPC Assurance solves that. One click, and your PPC claim is submitted.
So why did we build it?
When advertising came to radio, a company called Arbitron emerged. They hired scores of people to listen to the radio all day, and mark down which ads ran when on which station. They compiled the data, and provided the information back to the ad networks, and advertisers. They provided an audit and verification service so that advertisers would be able to ensure that they ads they booked to run on particular stations in NYC, at certain times of day, and days of the week, ran as promised. Straightforward business best practices. Buy an ad, have a means to find out that you got what you paid for.
When advertising came to television, Nielsen offered the same service for TV advertisers as Arbitron had for radio advertisers. As with radio, the various networks cooperated with advertisers.
Independent verification is a good standard business practice. In traditional advertising, it’s been around for quite a while. But until now, it’s not been offered to Internet advertisers.
PPC Assurance fills that gap. It’s fully automated, so monitoring your campaigns is easy.
The value in an audit is in verifying what’s happening. We like to say, we help you know every click. We give you an additional benefit. It’s a bonus. Just knowing if things are fine is important. Having the ability to do something about it when things go awry is what the automated refund claim submission process is all about. Press one button, and file the claim with Google or Yahoo! They want to know when things go awry, and this is how you let them know.
In further posts we’ll examine the process after you file a claim. The engines don’t automatically just write you a cheque back, but our clients have been successful.
That’s a key point. Our clients have received money back from claims they’ve filed. We know we can help you too.
Posted under Click Fraud, Enquisite Search Metrics, Google, PPC Assurance, Search Engines, Search Metrics, Yahoo
No Comments since December 17th, 2007
Alright, I’m way behind. The Search Engine Strategies conference in Chicago ended ten days ago, and I haven’t yet posted anything.
One of the things I wanted to comment on was SES Chicago. SES Chicago is the smallest of the big 3 SES shows of the year. Each SES has its own flavor. SES NY in March seems to lead attendance, and there’s heavy participation from ad agencies and advertisers. SES San Jose in August draws heavily on the SEO and SEM practitioner crowd. Chicago seems to be drawing a more corporate crowd, and is the only one which seems to draw almost exclusively from the Midwest. The other two draw a more national crowd. All three shows are extremely worthwhile.The conference itself seemed to be enjoying about the same attendance as the previous year. I was told that registrations were off by less than 1% over the previous year. A lot of us were concerned that with WebMasterWorld running in Vegas at the same time as SES, there would be a significant drop in attendance. After all, only a few people would choose snowy Chicago over sunny Vegas, or so the thinking went. I actually like Chicago and snow! This year I accidentally stumbled into a German style Christmas market at the corner of Dearborn and Washington. It’s worth checking out.
In fact, when I spoke to people who had been to Vegas (I flew into Vegas Thursday afternoon right after the SES show, and just in time for the MSN party at Ghost Bar), I was surprised to hear that they were disappointed in attendance. Others told me attendance was on par with previous years, and they were happy. The crowd for this show would be more akin to an SMX Advanced conference. The emphasis is on practitioners. Many of the opinion makers in the search industry appeared in Vegas, and will appear at SMX Advanced. Almost all the other ones who weren’t there were in Chicago.
As to the sessions, I spoke on two panels. Search Marketers on Click Fraud, and User Behavior, Personalization & Universal Search. Having done the latter panel in San Jose in August, the second time around was a lot easier. What made it challenging was that presentation time was reduced to 5 minutes, with a longer Q&A session. While the shorter presentation time made presenters get more to the point, there was a lot to discuss. Each presentation was unique, and I believe a lot of useful information was shared.
Based on questions asked, and comments I received afterwards, I believe the audience got a lot of value from both the presentations and the discussion. Greg Jarboe of SEO-PR did an excellent job moderating. Knowing that each presenter brought something different to the table, he ensured that questions were answered by everyone, so that the audience got a well rounded perspective on issues. He also posed a couple of questions to presenters, which assisted everyone in highlighting points of interest.
The second session I presented at was on Click Fraud. This became a two part session for the conference. I the past there was one panel, with click fraud specialists, marketers and the engines themselves on the same panel. I strongly prefer the new format. Tom Cuthbert from Click Forensics apparently does not, as he actively complained from the stage that he preferred to sit on the panel with the engines. I disagree. The “discussions which occurred when the engines and the click fraud specialists were on the same panel were often not overly productive.
Marketers want solutions. They know they are trying to deal with serious issues, and want to learn information and strategies for dealing with the problems. By splitting the click fraud sessions into two parts, SES is doing something very positive for attendees. The search engine’s / ad networks session allowed marketers to learn about what the engines are doing to attempt to combat the problem, and to ask them specific questions about specific issues. The engines also provided tips as to how they suggest you as a marketer can help combat click fraud.
Immediately after the search engines on click fraud session came search marketers on click fraud. I believe that all presenters attended both sessions, so really, all SES did was allow for twice as much time, and gave marketers an opportunity to focus on the issue from distinct perspectives. The session was moderated by Jeff Rohrs, and each presenter attempted to focus on different issues around click fraud. In my case I focused on campaign issues which often get labeled as click fraud, but really are cases of the ad networks serving out ads improperly.
As you spread your ads out across the content networks, the incidence of mistakes increases. Detecting and providing you a means to recover the costs associated to these undesired clicks are what PPC Assurance focuses on. Click through traffic which does not match the terms and conditions of your contract is undesired traffic. Auditing and verifying your PPC traffic is what we do, and resolving campaign issues through our unique one click refund claim submission is what sets us apart.
I attended a few other sessions in Chicago. The quality was excellent.
Anyone involved search marketing who attends an SES conference will receive tremendous value for the experience. Even after all these years, every time I show up I learn more. It’s not just a great environment for people who know what they are doing to gather and exchange tidbits. There’s opportunities for anyone at every level to get educated. If you’re a decisionmaker, and want to understand the marketplace, there’s sessions which are right for you. If you are the practitioner who deals with the nuts and bolts, then there are sessions for you as well. It doesn’t matter what level you are at, there’s always something for you at an SES Conference.
Posted under Enquisite Search Metrics, Google, MSN, PPC Assurance, Ranking Reports, Search Engines, Search Metrics, Yahoo
No Comments since December 15th, 2007
Yes the title is right. Have you ever thought about Page 2 SEO?
Having been an SEO, I know everyone focuses on Page 1. But have you thought about focusing on page 2 listings, or page 3, 4, 5? Ludicruous you say? Nope, hear me out.
Three different people in the last two weeks have told me they are using Enquisite’s free analytics reports for this very purpose. The first who mentioned it was Eric Enge from Stone Temple. He mentioned it to me at SES Chicago, where we were both speaking. I have to admit it, but I’d never thought about it the way Eric and two others since have suggested. I’d looked at it from a different perspective, but never as actively as Eric has.
Enquisite allows you to see which web pages are getting traffic from whch pages within the search results. If a page is getting relevant traffic from page 1, you probably don’t want to mess with it, even if it’s not your primary phrase. But how to choose which pages to work with?
Using Enquisite you can identify web pages that get traffic from page 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. Focus your optimization work on those pages. These are the pages which can give you the biggest upside in any campaign.
The reason is simple. Over 90% of search engine referral traffic comes from page 1 in the search results. The web pages found on page 2+ of the search results are almost good enough for page 1. Almost. They’re not seen as being quite as relevant enough to be found on page 1. But imagine you focus your optimization work on those pages. They will move up. Do it right, and all your pages move up, as the overall site authority increases.
Get more pages on page 1, and your traffic skyrockets. How? Implement page 2 SEO strategies.
Posted under Analytics, Enquisite Search Metrics, Google, MSN, Ranking Reports, Search Engines, Search Metrics, Yahoo
No Comments since November 22nd, 2007
Next week I will be in Chicago for the Search Engine Strategies SES conference. I will also be in Las Vegas for PubCon, most likely late on Thursday and most of Friday, but possibly also on Tuesday. If you’ll be there and want to meet, please email me.
At SES I will be appearing on two panels, please come check them out, and say hello. I’d love to heard from you! The two panels in question will be Search Marketers on Click Fraud, on Thursday morning, and User Behavior on Wednesday. The format for the panels has changed considerably from previous SES conferences.
In August I presented on User Behavior at SES San Jose. I believe each panelist had 10 to 12 minutes to present, followed by audience questions. This time, presentations are only 5 minutes long, followed by 20 minutes of moderated discussions, and then 20 minutes of audience questions. It’s going to be quite an adjustment to try and make a 5 minute presentation. I hope all of you in attendance will enjoy what I bring forward.
I’ve already laid out my presentations for the conference. Not the final versions, but the outline. For the User Behavior session, I’m thinking of spending time on two things. 1) User trends in so far as clickthrough and conversion rates from different pages within search results, and how local, images & video search behavior is different from web search; 2) language variations. I’ll also share a couple of quick tips on how to optimize a SEO or SEM campaign to succeed as Universal Search becomes the default.
On the Click Fraud panel I risk being a very presenter from the other panelists. I’ll go into some of the science around improper billings, what to look for, and how to lower the time you spend searching for undesired clicks and managing PPC customer reporting, while increasing your effectiveness at identifying the improper billings which often get labeled as click fraud.
As our firm has built PPC Assurance, and I’ve written a couple of patents on Click Fraud detection, I might also have time share some interesting insights into why a lot of the problems are not being properly dealt with.
If you are in Chicago, you’ll really enjoy the Click Fraud session. I know it’s always very well attended, and I’m excited to be there. I know you’ll walk away with lots of answers, and also a lot of questions. Please feel free to ask them. A lot of people are afraid to ask. Don’t be. It’s why we attend and speak at the conferences.
Finally, if there are some specific issues around either User Behavior or Click Fraud which you would like to see me address, please email me. I’ll attempt to include answers to questions in my presentation. These sessions are designed to be more interactive than ever. I think that’s a good thing.
Posted under Analytics, Click Fraud, Enquisite Search Metrics, Google, MSN, PPC Assurance, Ranking Reports, Search Engines, Search Metrics, Yahoo
