There has been a lot of buzz around Bing possibly gaining market share in the search engine arena. It is still a little early to tell how it will shake out, especially while Microsoft is blasting out their ad campaigns, but I wanted to take a look at a sample of clients’ websites across various industries to draw some preliminary conclusions.
The table below uses data compiled from GA for the weeks of May 9-15, June 6-12 and June 13-19. The sites bring in a range of monthly visitors and have varying percentages of keywords in the top 10 for each engine listed.
Company A – Average of 295,000 Monthly Visitors
Engine
5/9-15 Share
6/6-12 Share
% Change 5/9-6/6
6/13-19 Share
% Change 6/6-6/13
% Change 5/9-6/13
% of Keywords in Top 10
Google
81.35%
83.75%
2.95%
81.16%
-3.09%
-0.23%
97.60%
Yahoo!
10.43%
9.41%
-9.78%
9.86%
4.78%
-5.47%
66.70%
Live/MSN/Bing
4.82%
3.36%
-30.29%
5.42%
61.31%
12.45%
83.30%
Company B – Average of 125,000 Monthly Visitors
Engine
5/9-15 Share
6/6-12 Share
% Change 5/9-6/6
6/13-19 Share
% Change 6/6-6/13
% Change 5/9-6/13
% of Keywords in Top 10
Google
79.11%
79.24%
0.16%
77.94%
-1.64%
-1.48%
67.80%
Yahoo!
14.40%
14.66%
1.81%
15.04%
2.59%
4.44%
64.40%
Live/MSN/Bing
5.27%
4.72%
-10.44%
5.81%
23.09%
10.25%
60.00%
Company C – Average of 20,000 Monthly Visitors
Engine
5/9-15 Share
6/6-12 Share
% Change 5/9-6/6
6/13-19 Share
% Change 6/6-6/13
% Change 5/9-6/13
% of Keywords in Top 10
Google
71.91%
78.85%
9.65%
74.37%
-5.68%
3.42%
31.50%
Yahoo!
9.32%
10.47%
12.34%
10.00%
-4.49%
7.30%
22.20%
Live/MSN/Bing
18.77%
10.67%
-43.15%
15.63%
46.49%
-16.73%
29.60%
The key number to look at is the percentage change in market share from the week of May 9-15 to the week of June 13-19. This compares a stable period, where searchers were familiar with Live/MSN’s offerings, to the latest week of data for the new engine, Bing.
Google has very minimal changes, both in gaining or losing market share, across all three companies. This indicates that even though searchers are curious about Bing, Google isn’t really seeing many negatives from its introduction. Yahoo’s market share fluctuates among the companies with more gains than losses, demonstrating that Bing hasn’t really taken it’s market share either. Finally Bing/MSN/Live’s market share moves around as well, showing higher peaks and valleys for gains and losses than the other two engines.
Company A sees the most influence from Bing, and a majority of its terms show up on the first page of all three engines. This company is a good example to look at by itself because it has a significant amount of monthly visitors and searchers don’t have to look very far to find a result for Company A. If any market share is transferred, Company A shows it might come from Yahoo.
Although searchers are curious about Bing right now and using it more than MSN/Live was used in previous months, it doesn’t really seem like much has changed as far as market share is concerned, especially for all of the fancy bells and whistles Microsoft is using to lure in searchers. Perhaps Bing will be able to offer a different type of search engine, or decision engine as Joshua Palau coins it, in the future; however, searchers currently still like the simple blue links.
Back in April, the FDA issued letters to 14 pharmaceutical companies gently reminding them that, like their television, radio and print ads, their pay-per-click advertisements must also comply with FDA advertising regulations. Among the recipients were GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly. What exactly did these companies do upset the FDA?
Think about the last pharmaceutical ad you saw on television. Usually towards the end of the commercial, an (often quite long) list of possible side effects is divulged. We’d like to think that pharmaceutical companies do this because they love us but it’s more likely that they do it because it is mandated by the FDA.
If this rule applies to television, print and radio ads, why wouldn’t it clearly apply to pay-per-click ads as well? In short:
Google’s character limits clearly weren’t developed with pharmaceutical ads in mind.
In an effort to self-regulate, pharmaceutical companies have been operating under an assumed “one-click rule” in which the side effects are listed within one click of an ad rather than in the actual ad text. In response to this “one-click rule” developed by pharmaceutical companies, an FDA spokesperson said this:
“Our laws for how products that are approved by the agency can be marketed to consumers are the same regardless of the medium, whether they are print ads, radio ads, television ads or Internet ads.”
In response to this, a representative from Sanofi-Aventis had this to say:
The FDA “has not issued specific regulations or guidance for Internet promotion.”
I’m not the biggest fan of pharmaceutical company advertising in general, but I have to take their side on this one. If FDA advertising regulations are inherently incompatible with pay-per-click advertising formats, the FDA should either adapt their rules to accommodate Internet advertising formats or they should flat out ban pharmaceutical companies from using PPC ads.
Google, however, does have clear rules on pharmaceutical advertising which you can read more about here. Basically, in the US, if you are a member of the PharmacyChecker Licensed Pharmacy Program you’re in the clear.
At least for now, companies selling prescription drugs don’t seem to be too terribly concerned. In the letters issued by the FDA, the agency recommended that recipients “immediately cease the dissemination of violative promotional materials…” which in layman’s terms means “turn off your PPC accounts now”. But just Google “Yaz” (a prescription birth control pill) nearly 3 months after the FDA warning letters were issued and here is what you’ll see:
But wait! It seems that these letters from the FDA may have gotten the creative juices flowing over at Google. Go to Google and search for “Latisse”, a prescription medication intended to stimulate eyelash growth, and here is what you’ll see:
It turns out that there is a loophole that Latisse and Google seem to be experimenting with. The ad above describes a condition but does not recommend or suggest any specific drugs. This is what the FDA calls a “help seeking ad”. As long as no specific drug is listed and no company’s name is mentioned, the ad will not be regulated by the FDA. Help seeking ads are regulated instead by the Federal Trade Commission.
After a little bit of sleuthing, I discovered that Latisse is part of a 1% test (confirmed by Google) in which the display URL is replaced with text. This is allowing Latisse (whose domain name is Latisse.com) to run PPC ads with no mention of their brand in the copy, effectively avoiding the scrutiny of the FDA. Sneaky!!
Back in April, the FDA issued letters to 14 pharmaceutical companies gently reminding them that, like their television, radio and print ads, their pay-per-click advertisements must also comply with FDA advertising regulations. Among the recipients were GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly. What exactly did these companies do upset the FDA?
Think about the last pharmaceutical ad you saw on television. Usually towards the end of the commercial, an (often quite long) list of possible side effects is divulged. We’d like to think that pharmaceutical companies do this because they love us but it’s more likely that they do it because it is mandated by the FDA.
If this rule applies to television, print and radio ads, why wouldn’t it clearly apply to pay-per-click ads as well? In short:
Google’s character limits clearly weren’t developed with pharmaceutical ads in mind.
In an effort to self-regulate, pharmaceutical companies have been operating under an assumed “one-click rule” in which the side effects are listed within one click of an ad rather than in the actual ad text. In response to this “one-click rule” developed by pharmaceutical companies, an FDA spokesperson said this:
“Our laws for how products that are approved by the agency can be marketed to consumers are the same regardless of the medium, whether they are print ads, radio ads, television ads or Internet ads.”
In response to this, a representative from Sanofi-Aventis had this to say:
The FDA “has not issued specific regulations or guidance for Internet promotion.”
I’m not the biggest fan of pharmaceutical company advertising in general, but I have to take their side on this one. If FDA advertising regulations are inherently incompatible with pay-per-click advertising formats, the FDA should either adapt their rules to accommodate Internet advertising formats or they should flat out ban pharmaceutical companies from using PPC ads.
Google, however, does have clear rules on pharmaceutical advertising which you can read more about here. Basically, in the US, if you are a member of the PharmacyChecker Licensed Pharmacy Program you’re in the clear.
At least for now, companies selling prescription drugs don’t seem to be too terribly concerned. In the letters issued by the FDA, the agency recommended that recipients “immediately cease the dissemination of violative promotional materials⦔ which in layman’s terms means “turn off your PPC accounts now”. But just Google “Yaz” (a prescription birth control pill) nearly 3 months after the FDA warning letters were issued and here is what you’ll see:
But wait! It seems that these letters from the FDA may have gotten the creative juices flowing over at Google. Go to Google and search for “Latisse”, a prescription medication intended to stimulate eyelash growth, and here is what you’ll see:
It turns out that there is a loophole that Latisse and Google seem to be experimenting with. The ad above describes a condition but does not recommend or suggest any specific drugs. This is what the FDA calls a “help seeking ad”. As long as no specific drug is listed and no company’s name is mentioned, the ad will not be regulated by the FDA. Help seeking ads are regulated instead by the Federal Trade Commission.
After a little bit of sleuthing, I discovered that Latisse is part of a 1% test (confirmed by Google) in which the display URL is replaced with text. This is allowing Latisse (whose domain name is Latisse.com) to run PPC ads with no mention of their brand in the copy, effectively avoiding the scrutiny of the FDA. Sneaky!!
Recently, I came across this calculator Passive Income Machine’s Max CPC. The max CPC can be obtained by using 3 variables: ROI, Revenue/conversion and Landing page Conversion %. Visitors/conversion on the other hand is automatically adjusted based on the three variables. Below is a screen cap of the calculator:
I think that this calculator may be a helpful tool for PPC, but it may be overly simplified and could use further improvement or explanation. Here’s why:
1. Is ROAS or ROI more accurate in determining the max CPC?
ROI is calculated as profit/cost and the cost includes overhead cost, salary and other costs. On the other hand, ROAS is simply calculated as revenue/advertising cost, directly measuring revenue generated for every $1 spent on advertising. There are different views whether to use ROI and ROAS for PPC calculation. Some argue that ROAS is only a metric of ROI. It is too broad and doesn’t consider the overall cost of sale. On the other hand, others agree that ROAS is relevant for some businesses since it is simple and easy to explain. A 100% ROAS means that the campaign spending is equally balanced with the revenue earned from the campaign. Joanne, my own colleague, posted a ROAS related blog titled My ROAS is over 600% and I’m Losing Money?!! Defining the ROI is critical before using this calculator for our PPC purposes.
2. This calculator allows us to increase the values in revenue/conversion and landing page conversion% variables, but not in ROI variable which is capped at 500%. In a number of instances, we have ROIs that are greater than 500%. Is there any reason of why the ROI is capped, but not the other two variables?
3. Will this calculator be more practical for B2B or B2C clients?
It is quicker for B2C clients to obtain the final sales data which enable them to calculate their max CPC based on the profit margin. For example, product X had a 10% margin and cost $34.95, meaning that the company made $3.50 in profit per sale. Just by looking at the profit and the amount of PPC competition for that product, its max CPC should not go over $3.50 or the company will lose money. Now, how about B2B clients? They have a different, more complex and longer buying cycle than B2C clients. Will this calculator be a practical tool for them to calculate the expected max CPC?
4. Max CPC based on Google’s Quality Score versus max CPC from the calculator.
This calculator requires 3 variables to calculate max CPC. However, as we all know, max CPC is determined by Google’s Quality Score. I wonder whether the max CPC generated by the calculator is comparable to Google’s.
At the present time, I believe this max CPC calculator can be used as a supplement for our PPC research. However, we may have to wait for the training video presentation that will explain the calculator and its functions in more details. I also hope that the presentation will answer the questions that I have mentioned above.
I have been doing SEO for 11 years, that means that basically every day for the last 11 years, I have woken up my focus was on getting sites to rank better. In that time I have managed remote teams, worked as part of a team in IT, worked as part of a team in marketing, and now in a team of NOTHING but SEM & SEO consultants at SEER.
As QUALITY link building matters more than ever the reliance on brainstorms has increased significantly in many SEO companies. I think everyone can admit that brainstorms are usually most effective face to face. In the world of video conferencing, shared whiteboards, shared desktops, shared bookmarks, shared project tools, etc, etc, we are functionally able to brainstorm remote, but it just doesn’t work as well.
Here are 2 examples of link building ideas that came from overhearing others or others overhearing me in the office.
What made me think of this post is when Adam (@adammm) came into the office to paint a wall in the conference room with whiteboard paint. After it dried, a few days later I saw this on the wall (pic):
Yes, I wrote down something about farting in the office, hey, its a brainstorm cut me some slack.
This whiteboard sits in our conference room every day, which is probably sat in by 5-6 people every day.
This means that every single day 5-6 people who visit the office (partners, clients, interviewees, consultants, employees, moms, dads, sisters, etc) sees that someone at SEER is thinking about the 5 worst TV moms of all times, and is encouraged to contribute. A skype session or gotomeeting can not replicate this.
Now I can tweet this out and get responses but not all of us want to be broadcasting to the world our next link building idea. And sure I can have some private people who I share an idea with but what if at that time they draw a blank? What if they have absolutely no ideas? Nothing happens.
What if that person or group of people saw your link building idea everyday because it stared them in the face daily? One day they might draw a blank, 2-3 days later something might click.
So learning from this experience, the wall leading to the bathroom is next to get painted, why? Because we all go to the bathroom or go downstairs 3-4 times a day, meaning that each blog post idea we are developing gets viewed by 12-13 people 3-4 times a day, it stays as a reminder every single time you go to the bathroom that we have 5-6 different ideas.
This is just one example, but there are others like the 2-3 times a week, when someone overhears me talking about a link idea with someone else and chimes in to bring GREAT fire and resources to our conversation giving the idea a better angle or a better resource which helps make it more likely to connect with the target audience.
There are days when someone on the team will grab 6,7, or all 8 SEOs and say hey check this thing out that I just saw about Digg search or some new search query, and right then and there 5-8 people who do SEO all day start shooting holes through the idea with the goal being to make it better and stronger or kill it. We don’t really need to IM a bunch of people, set up screen share and a phone line, we just do it, which makes sharing those kinds of ideas much easier.
Strategic link building can’t be forced sometimes it needs to marinate for days, weeks, or even months, having a whole team of other people who are thinking about your link building ideas too NEVER hurts.
So while I have always thought that it is best to have most of your SEO team under one roof, I think the importance of link building has made it even more critical as the basic blocking and tackling of SEO (like site structure, keyword research, etc) doesn’t need as much of idea sharing, hole shooting, and brainstorming, it’s the creativity in building links and overhearing others as they struggle or succeed with an idea that will become more important to getting QUALITY long term links.
Does this mean that having a solo SEO or a distributed team is a bad thing? Absolutely NOT, I was a solo in-house SEO at one point in my career, and a solo SEO consultant at another point. Being distributed help prevent interruptions and can help keep you more focused. With that said I, personally, still believe that it is undeniable that having someone else (whether it is 1 person or 10 people) 5 feet from you as you brainstorm versus on IM or skype helps in the creative link building process.
