RKG Logo 434-978-4300

Accurate numbers can nevertheless be misleading.

One of our Senior Analysts pointed out to me that the Bing Launch numbers look quite a bit different if a couple of factors are taken out of consideration. Eliminating data from trademark searches for our clients’ brands for some reason paints a substantially different picture. Thankfully, I was able to re-run the numbers before speaking with the Wall Street Journal!

Here are the more carefully calculated numbers:

Clearly, the big motion from the pre-launch week beginning 5/25/09 to the first week post launch beginning 6/1/09 was in the share of impressions. MSN’s share of impressions among the big three (excluding content ads) moved from 3.1% to 3.7%, a 22% increase. Lots of folks checking out the new kid on the block, not many actually clicking on the ads. The slight upticks in conversion rates and AOV may be a function of better targeting, or stealing quality traffic, or it may just be statistical noise.

Who’s losing share of impressions to them? Yahoo indeed:

Pretty clearly, the industry junkies and others swayed by the media buzz are giving Bing a look. To succeed, Bing will need to do more than generate impressions. Bing needs to capture dedicated users and become the engine of choice for serious shoppers. That will take time, money for buzz creation, and ultimately a truly better search experience. Microsoft has the first two, but we’ll see what conclusion users draw about the last.

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

Comments

  1. Bob, June 10, 2009:

    Great analysis. This shows that the masses wanted to see what Bing was all about but were not using to reach any particular destination. It will be very interesting to see if this turns into a blip on the radar screen or whether it actually changes user habits. For MSN, this could be the most costly PPC campaign in history. I wonder what the effective CPC will turn out to be for their $100 million ad campaign.

  2. George Michie, June 10, 2009:

    Thanks, Bob.

    Certainly Barry Diller didn’t have any success convincing folks to use Ask, despite his own deep pockets. Hard pressed to see this working for MSN.

    Ultimately it has to be easier for users to find what they’re looking for on Bing than it is on Google for folks to make the switch and stay. It’s a high bar.

  3. Vivek, June 24, 2009:

    George, really enjoying reading about the analysis you guys do. Was wondering if you have an update on this given a couple more weeks have passed? Maybe something through this week or last week?

  4. George Michie, June 25, 2009:

    Hi Vivek,

    Haven’t had time to put together a full update, but I did take a look at the numbers. No material gains in market share for Bing that I see. Impressions are flaky concepts, but assuming distribution networks haven’t changed, and the engines haven’t played with the “broad match” nobs in the last 6 weeks, it looks like the impression-share increase of Bing lasted about two weeks, and they’re now back to where they were. And, while there is burble in the data, it looks like the engine gaining share from Yahoo is…Google…

Your Comment

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2009/06/10/bing-numbers/trackback/

Blogs Citing This Post

  1. Pingback: Bing: Bang or Bust? Some PPC Data on June 10, 2009

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Mark Ballard: Cory, I don’t see this as an SEO v. PPC issue. The core of my argument is that CTRs are lower primarily due to misleading...
  • Cory Grassell: What are your thoughts on stats that suggest consumers are more apt to click on organic search results than PPC results? As a...
  • George Michie: Kevin, Marc, thanks for your comments. Help is coming, but not the solution. There are a number of instances when the CTR on the...
  • Marc Adelman: George, You have been an advocate of “the advanced control option” for years now. Depressing right YEARS! Eh…listen...
  • Kevin Hill: Is what they really need is a fourth match type. Here’s google’s help documentation on broad match: This is the default...
  • Kevin Micalizzi, Dimdim Web Conferencing: Jim (& George)- We still offer a free version of Dimdim. Just click Sign Up Now at the top of the...
  • Tomas: indeed, i can’t talk about it either… :)
  • Philip Price: Thank you for the RegHack, it worked for me, tho at first when i made the reg file with the information i copied from above i also...
  • 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....

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 948
  • Words: 451,089
  • Comments: 2,877

Administration