THE RKGBLOG

The Cardinal Sin of Paid Search

My SEL column from this morning, in case you missed it there.

There are plenty of good reasons to advertise on your brand name.

Advertising on your brand allows you to:

  • Control the message. The text of the message can be kept fresh, highlighting promotions, shipping cut-off dates, whatever makes sense for the brand.
  • Direct traffic. Site-links provide an opportunity for users to navigate to the next page deeper rather than just the home page, thereby aiding conversions.
  • Occupy real estate. Taking up more space on the SERP means less leakage to affiliates and competitors.
  • Capture incremental traffic. In some cases, our research shows that paid search ads on brand names do indeed bring in some incremental traffic. Your mileage will vary, so test this yourself, but in some instances the advertising more than pays for itself without any other considerations.

However, the fact that it is generally wise to advertise on one’s trademark doesn’t change another crucial principal of paid search marketing:


Never, never, never mix the results of brand advertising with competitive non-brand advertising.

All averages lie. Blending the results of brand and non-brand search doesn’t just lie, it will kick you in the teeth and take your lunch money, too.

Mixing the results of brand and non-brand paid search results leads to a false sense of scale and efficiency for the program which in turn creates chronic problems down the line. The greater the fraction of overall “paid search” sales brand ads represent the greater these problems become.

Problem 1: Lack of Control

The core problem is that the paid search manager has very little control over the volume of traffic, the conversion rates, or even the cost of brand advertising. The paid search manager can and should test and adjust copy for maximum positive effect. S/he can and should make sure site links and seller ratings are used to full advantage. S/he can and should test landing page versions and messaging to wring the most successful visits out of brand search traffic.

Assuming the good paid search manager has done these basics, they’ve exercised about all the control they have over brand search performance. Other than guarding against some crazy cpc penalties Sid Shah and we have seen, the ads will serve at the top of the page for most folks at low cpcs and there won’t be any leverage to get more.

Traffic and conversion volume on brand search will rise and fall largely, if not entirely, as a result of offline marketing, brand awareness, friend referrals, and loyal customers navigating to your doorstep; the paid search manager controls none of those factors.

We’ve seen brand sales account for anywhere between almost nothing for internet pure-plays in start up mode, to over 90% of overall sales for very well established brands with huge offline advertising budgets. Evaluating the performance of a paid search program by looking at overall numbers, when 70 – 90% of the conversions are on your brand, is ludicrous. You end up being praised or scolded based on factors entirely outside of your control.

Competent people want to be evaluated based on what they control, and in search that’s the performance of competitive non-brand keywords.

Problem 2: Gigantic disconnect between average efficiency and incremental efficiency

We’ve long preached the importance of understanding more than just the average ROI of your paid search efforts, but also the incremental efficiency of the last dollar spent.

Predicated on the notion of Diminishing Marginal Returns, smart marketers will always get more ROI from the first dollar of advertising than the last dollar of advertising, because s/he always picks the lowest hanging fruit available. Understanding the incremental ROI will let you predict what the next chunk of ad spend is likely to generate.

Because of Diminishing Marginal Returns the incremental ROI is always worse than the average ROI — if it isn’t you’re doing something wrong. Our studies of Bid Simulator data find that within competitive non-brand paid search the incremental ROI is usually on the order of 60% – 80% of the average ROI. Your average non-brand ROI may be 5 to 1, but additional spend over that same period is likely to be at 4 to 1 or 3 to 1, which may be under water for your business.

However, that disconnect pales in comparison to the disconnect between the two when the average includes brand sales. We see instances where an advertiser sees an “average ROI” (including brand sales) of 8 to 1, where the competitive non-brand average ROI is 1 to 1, and the incremental ROI is significantly worse than that. The brand may say: “We’re comfortable letting the overall ROI drop to 7 to 1 for now” but oftentimes they don’t seem to realize that they’re feeding money into a shredder at that point. Let’s think about a 1 to 1 ROI. You spend a dollar in advertising to drive a dollar in sales. It would be just as efficient to have your paid search manager place orders on your website using the marketing budget to pay for it…and then throw the merchandise in the trash can when it arrives!!!

The 1 to 1 ROI may make sense for some folks, and that’s cool. The point isn’t that you shouldn’t spend for branding purposes, just that incorporating brand data hides the likely ROI on the next dollar spent.

Problem 3: Pulling the Wrong Levers

Because the misunderstanding of advertising efficiency is SO profound companies compound their problems by taking money out of other offline channels to pour more money into search because it seems so much more efficient. “We’re getting an 8 to 1 ROI from paid search and only 2 to 1 from catalog prospecting; let’s dump the catalog and put the money into search.” I’ve seen this happen more than once with budgets for catalogs, infomercials, circulars, TV ads, etc slashed to put more into search.

Sometimes that’s the right call, but often it’s based on the fundamental misunderstanding we’re describing and it leads to a death spiral. The advertiser presents us with more money to spend in search and says: “we need sales to grow by 50% to cover the loss of the other marketing efforts”, and frequently paid search sales go nowhere or even decline because the advertising that was DRIVING the brand search was cut off.

Problem 4: Inevitable Disappointment

As a result of the first three problems the advertiser will invariably end up disappointed with their paid search manager or agency at some point. Frustration comes because incremental advertising spend in search is hugely inefficient and this comes as a surprise for some reason. Or overall sales goals aren’t met because brand sales sag unexpectedly and the paid search manager has no way to compensate. Or the reckless spending encouraged by the combined view is a symptom of deeper business problems resulting in a trip through Chapter 11. Or someone else in the organization — a CFO, a CEO, a new search manager — comes in, pulls apart the numbers and is horrified at the wasteful spending in competitive non-brand search that was previously hidden from view.

We’ve seen all of these scenarios play out, despite the fact that we have ALWAYS encouraged our clients to evaluate performance strictly by the non-brand numbers. With few exceptions, when goals are expressed in terms of aggregate brand and non-brand performance frustration is inevitable. Advertisers end up frustrated with the paid search manager for not controlling that which s/he doesn’t control, and the paid search manager with their bosses for not understanding this fundamental disconnect.

The Charlatans Don’t Help

Unfortunately, many agencies, engines and others who feed on online advertising have a vested interest in blurring the brand, non-brand distinction. These folks exaggerate the complexity of search funnels, buying cycles, and now attribution across channels and encourage advertisers to look at data more ‘holistically’ and with less granularity. That’s garbage!

Advertisers should look at data more intelligently, not throw up their hands and call it holistic marketing. Intelligent use of data includes attribution of credit within paid search and across channels — as we do — and may include complex media mix studies to gauge optimal advertising spending levels for each program.

There are many valuable ways to look at aggregated data. Performance by category, subcategory, geography, keyword specificity, landing pages, number of ‘tokens’, and other useful classifications can reveal actionable insights. However, folding in brand results never aids clarity and only causes confusion. While it may, in the short run, make paid search look better than it is, it will invariably make the paid search manager look bad in the long run.

Comments
18 Responses to “The Cardinal Sin of Paid Search”
  1. Great post as always, George.

    I often tell clients that brand keywords should get *zero* credit for conversions if there is any upstream source in their attribution funnel. After all, how exactly do people do a search on your brand term if they didn’t hear about you somewhere else?

    On a related note, search engines shouldn’t allow advertisers to buy brand keywords. I bet Google makes $1B a year by forcing brands to buy their own brand terms as a defensive strategy against competitors.

  2. David, thanks for your kind words. Like the folks at RKG, you seem to value being able to sleep at night more than a quick buck!

    Depending on a company’s offline marketing budget, a case could be made that brand traffic isn’t likely to be incremental even if there are no preceding online touches and it is a new customer. If the only cookie on someone’s browser is from a paid ad click on the KW “Allstate”, I’m saying Mayhem or the guy with the great bass voice is responsible for that lead, not the paid search ad.

  3. Oh, and your comment about Google making money off of other people’s trademarks is interesting, too. I give them credit for creating the extended site links on the organic listings, but of course the site links on the brand ads were huge money makers for them, with likely very little incremental benefit to the advertiser. It gets a bit complicated when a manufacture/producer competes with it’s own distribution chain (eg Sony competing against Best Buy, et al, and United Airlines competing against the OTAs), but I guess an argument could be made that the trademark owner should get the top spot free of charge…interesting!

  4. If Google really wanted to, I bet they could come with a pretty cool automated system to determine whether a keyword is brand-related, and then block all advertisers on that keyword.

    Oh wait, they already do this – just not in the US and most of Europe! This is already the rule in Australia, , Hong Kong, Brazil, etc: http://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=144298.

  5. Excellent point! I’d argue that Sony, Nike, etc are fine with their distributors advertising on their marks, but I agree with your point, in general.

    It also occurs to me that this whole FTC investigation about Google promoting its own properties would likely go away if Google just listed every search result pointed at their domain as an ad. What would be the harm to them? The public doesn’t pay any attention to the ad/organic distinction, but it would cut off the legs of the anti-trust argument it seems to me.

  6. Interesting idea George, but I think even that wouldn’t quell some of the disquiet. If you look at Google’s “comparison ads” these are clearly listed as ads, but they are also guaranteed #1 ad spot, which certainly gives Google a competitive advantage that some might argue is unfair.

    Example here: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=mortgage+rates

  7. Good point. If no one else can compete for that spot, maybe that’s bias. At the same time, it seems like they aught to be able to carve out spots for their own ads. Certainly TV networks promote their own TV shows.

  8. anonymous says:

    i’ve been pushing this point of view internally at a company i work for years but it just seems to get ignored. Finance and leadership treat acquisition as one bucket of spend/return and the change in thinking required have to come from the top down. the program ‘looks’ good so no one pushes for change.

    the huge revenue numbers associated with the brand terms mean creative optimization efforts get focused there when most navigational search optimization is just cannibalizing natural search.

    even without blending ad costs across brand vs non-brand, objectively measuring how well a paid search program is being run is a very difficult question that can’t be answered with ad cost numbers. in most retail businesses, merchandise and the competitive landscape have much more to do with changes in ROI than the levers the paid search team has to optimize bids, creative and landing experiences.

  9. Thanks for your comment, Anon. It is not uncommon to see the eCommerce team lobby upper management for the combined view in order to capture more budget, hire more people, etc. Business silos create serious problems down the road. The efficiency of the non-brand paid search program is thoroughly within the control of the paid search manager, but I agree with you that often the volume of the program is dictated by the competitiveness of the offerings: selection, price, shipping policies, etc. Companies that don’t have competitive offerings make it awfully difficult for the paid search manager to compete with the big guns.

  10. What do you do with the “Not Provided” Segment – I believe most of the time this is brand traffic, should this be isolated removed?

    Searchengineman

  11. Hi Searchengineman,

    “Not Provided” is a problem for organic traffic, but not for paid traffic.

    I do believe that it’s important to make this distinction in SEO as well for all the same reasons. Not provided might be split proportionately based on the fraction of traceable traffic that is brand.

    Hope that helps.

  12. Laura says:

    Great post George! Thanks You! I was curious if you had any insight on strategy of how to build out a Non-Brand campaign properly and how not to get burned by bigger companies that have a much bigger budget and can afford to buy broad keywords in the number 1 spot.

    I am having trouble competing with my Non Branded campaign. The searchers have never heard of the brand before so I am trying to introduce them to a new brand in an already competitive and crowded space. . I tried using superlative keywords such as best product category, best product before the keyword but it doesn’t seen to get the clicks. The impressions are there however.

    I await your reply.

    Thanks :-)

  13. Laura, thanks for your comment. We’ve got ~1,500 blog posts on our site trying to answer that question! :-) My advice is: paid search is a very expensive channel for brand building. If we think of an advertising impression being a visit to your website (I don’t think there’s much of an impression given by the little text ads), then a $0.50 click translates to a $500 CPM. That’s an awfully expensive way to show people you exist.

    Instead, I recommend starting with the most targeted, product specific keywords you can as these are most likely to bring in traffic that will like what you offer. Build from there to the more general sub-category and category level keywords. Many of the big brands bid irrationally, particularly on the highest traffic keywords. Best to compete where the bid landscapes are more reasonable. Push for exposure on the most targeted stuff and hopefully conversions will follow.

    All kinds of more detailed advice on RKGBlog, but feel free to contact us directly to have a live discussion so we can better tailor our advice to your situation.

    Good luck!

  14. Laura says:

    Thanks George!

    How would I build more general sub-category and category level keywords? If the client is a skin care company and the general categories are [acne skin], [anti aging], [sensitive skin], [dry skin] and [oily skin] how can I buid those out more? If I went longer tail I would start to lose keyword volume. If I was to put the exact name of the product, there would be low or no search volume and that would be getting into the Branded campaign.

    Thanks and i look forward to your reply.

  15. Laura, it can be a really tough problem. We’re big believers in the power of large numbers of low traffic keywords, but we too have run across instances where there is essentially no tail to be had. In your category you might gain traction by shifting towards a lead gen model: “Sign up for a free information guide to acne care products”. You might also try some search retargeting to create awareness. Indeed, targeted display ads might be a more effective use of money than paid search if the bidding landscape is irrational.

    Good luck!

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. [...] is where holistic SEM comes into play. I was reading a piece by George Michie the other day; in it, he labeled “holistic” SEM as being the work of charlatans. Granted, there [...]

  2. [...] has always stressed the importance of distinguishing brand and non-brand keyword performance. That has not [...]

  3. [...] start by saying that this is not an ideal situation. Far from it. George Michie even calls it ‘the cardinal sin of paid search’ and gives 4 good reasons not to mix brand with non-brand results in his excellent article. [...]