Google releases whitepaper on the content network’s effectiveness

April 21, 2009

Google released a whitepaper that highlighted the content network’s effectiveness. I wanted to make a few notes and points before linking to the paper:

Google says that the two most common features used by advertisers who see good returns from smart pricing are site exclusion (blocking your ad from being shown on certain sites) and Google’s conversion optimizer.
- Unfortunately, Google does not make mention of account organization (content only campaigns, search only, mixed, etc)
- In general, I agree that using excluded domains is key, but only after your organization is correct. However, I’m a larger fan of site targeting and a different keyword sets.
Google only mentions the CPA differences, not the bidding differences of successful advertisers.
The paper breaks spend down into three categories (per month)
- - Less than $1,138
  - Between $1,138 and $5943
  - More than $5943
- I must admit, those numbers seem confusing to me. They seem to indicate that of those advertisers in the study that 1/3rd falls into each spend level. Unfortunately, they don’t call out if that spend is only on the content network or the overall spend of the account.
- Google has found that the smaller spends do better on content network, and that there seem to be a limit to the total numbers of available conversions on content.
- I really wonder, and have absolutely no data to support this, if affiliates are throwing off those spend numbers. Many ‘make a million dollars overnight’ affiliate training classes are made up of individuals with smaller spends; but hear wonderful things about the content network (I often find that the more sophisticated the advertiser; the more likely they like content. This does not mean that the content network will work for all advertisers even if they do it right – just a general observation as more sophisticated advertiser’s often test things themselves to see the results).
Overall, the content network and search network end up with similar CPAs (a bit of variety by country).
- Again, this does not surprise me at all as it’s an aggregate number. I see many companies who do fantastic with content, and many who see the opposite. If that’s average out; seeing similar CPAs isn’t surprising.
- In addition, since the other feature that Google states is a common thread between account who do well on the content network is conversion optimizer where you set a CPA; seeing the CPAs on those accounts regardless of traffic should be similar.

Anyway, it’s a good read, just remember to optimize your accounts properly:

Google content network paper.

Very important things to keep in mind about the content network:

Posted by Brad Geddes aka eWhisper | Filed Under Contextual Advertising, Google AdWords, PPC Info, PPC Marketing Blog | 1 Comment

Case Study Showcases Conventional Wisdom Failing when Search and Content are Not Treated Separately

January 20, 2009

Google AdWords- Create Report_1232029183722 Search and content are different. I think we can all finally agree on that sentiment.

With search, someone is actively looking for information. Their goal is to click on a link.

With content, someone is looking at related information. They may click when they are finished reading the page.

The mentality of active search versus random discovery lends itself to not just using different keywords for your search and content campaigns. It also shows that you should test different landing pages for the two mediums as well.

Here are the results of a test that was conducted using different landing pages across search and content.

The Company’s Products

This company offers two products (Since they are so niche, I’m using the proverbial plumber services instead of their actual product – everything else is the same):

A database where subscribers can find local services
- It’s a subscription based model – this is where they make money
A free listing where local services can input their information and hopefully be hired by the subscribers.
- The listings are verified. This leads to creating a high trust factor for the consumer
- The company doesn’t make money on these listings, this is increased value to the subscribers

The Website’s Landing Pages

The website has two different types of pages.

Segmentation page. The home page has two navigation paths: One is for listing services (free) and the other is for finding services (subscription). The page has many trust elements (BBB, SSL, Associations, etc).

City Landing pages. For each major metro, they have a page that lists the city, has a picture of the city, lists the services, how many companies are in their database for that city, etc.

Two very different pages.

Conventional wisdom says to put the Chicago searchers on the Chicago city page, and the Miami searchers on the Miami city page.

Was conventional wisdom correct?

The Actual PPC Test

There were 21 campaigns set up for this test.

Campaign 1: Search only using Geo-modified keywords (i.e. Chicago Plumber)
Campaign 2-11 (10 campaigns): Search only using location targeted campaigns (i.e. each campaign only targeted a single city such as Chicago, NYC, Miami, etc). Keywords were not geo specific (i.e. Plumber)
Campaign 12-21 (10 campaigns) Content only. Location targeted campaigns using the same cities, keywords and ad copy as the Search only campaigns above (essentially, the exact same campaign, just content instead of search targeted)

The visitors for all the campaigns were sent to two different landing pages:

Home page (which is a segmentation page)
City Landing page which corresponded to the appropriate city for the IP targeting campaign or geographic keywords

For this test, only a subscription was considered a conversion. Listing free information was not considered a conversion as it’s not the way the company makes money.

A very simple split test was used to execute all of the testing.

The Resulting PPC Data

The Search Campaigns (campaigns 1-11) all had very similar data. There were a few outliers at the keyword / ad copy intersection. However, in general every campaign behaved very similarly. This includes both geo-modified keywords and location targeted campaigns (which doesn’t always happen).

The Content Campaigns (12-21) also had similar data. There were a few more outliers in this campaign, but those outliers made up less than 10% of the keyword / ad copy intersections, and less than 8% of the total clicks and impressions.

Was conventional wisdom correct?

Conventional wisdom says the city pages should outperform the home page. After all, those pages are more specific to the user – correct?

Upon first examination, it appears that conventional wisdom was correct. The conversion rate and cost per conversion are lower for the city landing page than the home page.

However, never combine search and content when examining data – NEVER.

On the content network, conventional wisdom was correct. The City Landing Pages had a cost per conversion of $8.99 vs. the $13.34 for the Home Page. Not surprising.

On the search network, conventional wisdom failed. The Home Page had a lower cost per conversion and higher conversion rate than the City Landing Pages.

Here’s the data to examine:

Another reason to test search vs. content is conversion rates. In this instance, the content network outperformed the search network in terms of cost per conversion and conversion rates. This is not always true – it’s why you test.

What’s the lesson?

Search and content are very different.

The user engagement process is different.

The offers can be different.

The keywords can be different.

The ad copy can be different.

In fact, every campaign setting and ad group feature can be optimized differently for search vs. content.

Your conversion rate and cost per conversion are often very different.

When running reports, make sure you’re looking at just search or just content data. If you combine them, you won’t see an accurate picture of what’s really transpiring in your marketing efforts.

If you’re not testing, then you’re losing money. It really is that simple. Test, but test and measure appropriately.

Posted by Brad Geddes aka eWhisper | Filed Under Contextual Advertising, PPC Info, PPC Marketing Blog | 6 Comments

Q&A – Why & how do I separate content vs search information in AdWords Reporting?

September 9, 2008

At times I can be a lone voice speaking about the effectiveness of the content network. As with all marketing (and most decisions), it’s not that the content network is inherently bad or good (and the same can be said for search). It’s a distribution channel that needs to be treated differently than other channels.

Differences between search and content

The engagement process is different from search vs content. Search is about an active consumer looking for information. Content is about advertising products or services next to content where the subject is related to your offer.

I’ve written an extensive article at Search Engine Land about this topic: Search Ads & Contextual Ads Are Different! You Need To Treat Them Separately. Please read the article, it will explain in depth about the two types of networks.

Why treat them separately?

The above article also goes into why to treat them separately. To recap, since they are so different, the stats of one network have no bearing on the stats of the other network. You may have a landing page with a 10% conversion rate for content, and that same landing page just does not work on the search network. Conversely, you may have very specific pages for search and more general product and informational pages for the content network. It all goes back to assessing your goals.

How to view search only Search or Content stats

When you run a report in AdWords, in the Advanced Settings there is a label for ‘filter your results’. When you click on this, you can choose to see only content or only search based information.

When you run reports that only show you search or content, suddenly your account statistics will become more clear. Remember, there are some stats that matter significantly less for content (CTR, conversion rate) that are more applicable to search. Where some stats, such as cost per conversion is one of the top statistics to analyze on the content network.

More Information:

Posted by Brad Geddes aka eWhisper | Filed Under Contextual Advertising, Google AdWords, PPC Marketing Blog | Leave a Comment

Q&A: Does the content network follow location targeting rules?

September 4, 2008

I’m trying something new to see your reaction. I receive a lot of questions via email about PPC; in fact more than I can ever hope to answer. Some of them are much more popular than others – so I thought I’d try blogging the answers to various questions.

If you have a question, feel free to contact us with the ‘PPC Question’ subject.

Today’s question comes from an AdWords seminar attendee (don’t worry, I’m keeping the questioners anonymous) and concerns how location targeting and the content network work together on AdWords.

Location Targeting Overview

First a quick word about location targeting. When you choose a region, Google shows ads based upon someone being in that region or using geographic keywords which would show the intent to find information within that region.

For example, if you were targeting Chicago with the keyword hotel. Your ad could show in two situations. First, someone searched for hotel within the Chicago metro. The second way is someone searched for Chicago hotel.

In the first instance, the user being located inside the metro, this is an easy decision – location targeting equals user’s location and the ad is shown.

In the second instance, the assumption being made is that if someone is explicitly looking for information within a metro, then their location does not matter as their intent is to find information within that metro.

Hopefully that makes sense. If not, please comment or contact me and I’ll do a full post on the two location targeting options.

Content Network & Location Targeting

The content network follows all the rules set at the campaign level, and one of those is location targeting. So, in that instance the quick answer to the question is ‘yes, the content network displays ads based upon location targeting settings’.

However, there is also a slightly more ambiguous answer. The content network scans a page to find what the page is about to best serve ads. Therefore, if you consider the second instance above – someone looking for information within a geography, then it stands to reason that sometimes that may come into play in showing ads on the content network.

Therefore, if someone is reading a geographically based article, say about Chicago hotels, they may still see ads for Chicago hotels even though they are outside of that region.

If someone is reading an article about hotels in general, and they aren’t located in our example city Chicago, then they would not see the advertiser’s Chicago location targeted ad.

The Quick Answer

Don’t you love this is at the bottom of the post?

The content network follows all campaign setting rules.

Location targeting is a campaign setting rule.

If someone is within your target geography reading an article that corresponds to your AdGroup theme, then your ads can be shown.

If someone is outside your target geography reading an article that corresponds to your AdGroup theme and the article is about the geography your are targeting, your ads can show.

If someone is outside your geography and the article does not include your geography, then your ads will not show.

Posted by Brad Geddes aka eWhisper | Filed Under Contextual Advertising, Google AdWords, PPC Marketing Blog | 6 Comments

Some Suggestions from Google About the Content Network

February 3, 2008

I recently had a long conversation with Google (including the content PM) about the content network.

Here are a few suggestions from Google about the content network (most of these should not surprise anyone):

Only the first 50 words in an AdGroup are used to determine its theme
When an AdGroup has a large keyword list, Google’s matching isn’t as good and can get confused
If an AdGroup is only shown on content, then it can be very useful to use more general words
All keywords are treated as broadmatch when matching the AdGroup’s theme for content matching
The Google recommended content bid is usually 75% of the search bid
The typical content CPA (which I’m not sure if I can share so no numbers) is not significantly different (less than 10%) from search and content