RKG Logo 434-978-4300

First on an online retailing forum I follow, and later on the Shop.org blog, some online advertisers voiced concern late last week over their holiday 2006 pay-per-click campaigns: conversion down, costs up, traffic down. Other retailers chimed in to disagree — in their perspective, the PPC channel performed well: they enjoyed strong conversion and/or traffic and/or sales during Holiday ‘06.

Our data support the bullish perspective.

Across our clients, most experienced extremely strong Holiday results. On average, our clients enjoyed a 41% bump in sales per click after Thanksgiving. The largest holiday sales per click bump among our clients was an astounding 630%. Very happy holidays, indeed!

While 84% of our clients enjoyed SPC increases, 16% of our clients did not, experiencing flat or declining SPC rates. Digging into these cases, some were B2B clients selling business products with no year-end lift; others were B2C clients selling summer-season gear; and some were clients who opted to take a more aggressive position with their advertising during this period, generating more total revenue but albeit at intentionally lower SPCs.

holiday 2006 pay per click sales results

Looking back at similar sales-per-click holiday bump rates from ‘05 supports that 2006 was strong holiday for pay-per-click driven sales.

So, stating the obvious, our experience suggests the pay-per-click advertising channel performed well in terms of conversion for most advertisers during Holiday 2006.

Update: Another article on Holiday 2006 click quality here


Methodology: we used sales per click as a metric, tracking how this measure changed from the 30 days prior to Thanksgiving ‘06 to the 30 days after Thanksgiving ‘06. We included both paid search and comparison shopping engine feeds.


For example, suppose that in the 30 days prior to Thanksgiving, retailer “X” bought 500K clicks which generated $1 million in tracked resulting sales; and in the 30 days after, retailer “X” bought 750K clicks and generated $2.25 million in resulting sales. Sales rose from $2.00/click to $3.00/click, yielding a holiday SPC click of 3.00 / 2.00 – 1 = 50%. If this example was actual data, retailer “X” would be counted in the green “45% to 50%” bar.

A few notes on this analysis. First, we count each client equally in the histogram — we did not weight the data by clicks. We did this because our interest was in the fraction of advertisers who might be experienced lower SPCs during Holiday, regardless of size. Second, our choice of metric (sales per click) by definition considers only revenue, not cost or profit. Rest assured: high SPC bumps drove similarly happy bumps in profit. Third, these results pertain to our client base, and may or may not generalize to the entire web.

Technorati Tags:

If you like this post, consider subscribing to our RSS feed. You can also have new posts sent to you via email.


Related Posts

No Comments Yet

Your comment will be first!

Your Comment

Tags

RKG Tags:

Technorati Tags:

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2007/01/02/holiday-2006-sales-performance/trackback/

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • George Michie: Sorry Jim, this post was written in 2007. Apparently some of those products are gone.
  • Jim: Hey, I checked two products like dimdim and cutepdf but none is free. What are you talking about free and open source?
  • George Michie: If they keep hearing the same message, and seeing evidence in the data to back it up, something will have to give. There is hope on...
  • Tomas: I’ve been having the same argument with Google for months now and in the end there does seem to be a feature in the algorithm that...
  • George Michie: Doesn’t have to be, it can be intra-adgroup as well.
  • Josh: George – I take it you’re referencing a scenario where your exact-match keywords are not listed as negative exact match keywords...
  • George Michie: Melissa, you’re right, it’s always happened to varying degrees, particularly since the advent of extended broad match....
  • Mel66: I don’t think this is a bug. It’s been happening for years. It *is* impossible to manage, and I can’t help but wonder if...
  • George Michie: Thanks Matt, Sometimes humor serves a purpose.
  • George Michie: Ken, sadly, as Jim stated above, too few people look under the hood and raise Cain. We’re very fortunate to have great reps on...
  • Matt: This is great! I started out reading this with the same anger that I feel everyday I spend unnecessary amounts of time optimizing to get...
  • Ken Truman: Right on, George. This is yet another one of the vagaries of broad matching that continues to drive smart advertisers mad. Your post...
  • George Michie: Interesting idea, Mark. The question might be: would advertisers know someone’s Twitter handle? Most require an email, but I...
  • @markthijssen: What if you would ask a consumer about his experience with the product some days/weeks/months after the sale via twitter. This might...
  • George Michie: Thanks Kenny, Another particularly annoying variation on the theme involves flashing the brand ads around on general searches. The...

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 948
  • Words: 451,089
  • Comments: 2,867

Administration