So Adwords measures an advert’s quality primarily on its click through rate, then? And the objective, therefore, is to get as many virtual people through the virtual door as possible, then? But isn’t there a bit of a conflict here? If I was running a shop, and I had to pay people to walk through the doors, I’d try to be as selective as possible, and yet Google is rewarding you for doing the opposite. The result is that frequently, if you do what Google wants, and increase your click through rate, you’re being less selective, and the people that you are paying are less likely to buy anything. On the other hand, if you’re selective, and you are selective in who you target, then Google clobbers you for having a low click through rate. So, what do you do? Target everyone with vague or general adverts, and hope that the improvement in click through rate (and hence improvement in Quality Score and reduction in cost per click) will more than off-set the reduction in conversion rate (and hence cost per conversion)? Or run a tight campaign and get the best click through rate that you can? Part of the answer is in selecting the right keywords (mining the ‘long tail’ is a form of targeting people that are looking for what you have); and bidding on generic terms will cost you a fortune, but get you few conversions. But this can’t be the whole answer – for any given keyword, you can influence the click through rate by writing different advert text. For example, if you were selling expensive, high-quality widgets, then you could write either of the following adverts: Blue Widgets High Quality Blue Widgets Here! Exclusive Designer Widgets From £99 Blue Widgets Wide Range Of Blue Widgets Here! Great Prices, Free Delivery The second one may well get a better click through rate, but people looking for the elusive £49 widget will be disappointed – they wouldn’t have clicked on the first advert. On the other hand, some people would click on the second advert that wouldn’t click on the first advert, and then go on to buy (especially if the site is very good at ’selling’), so it may generate more conversions, albeit at a lower conversion rate. So which should you do? Is this just a question of testing, testing and testing some more? Probably yes, in the main part, though my experience tells me that in general, you’re better off being more specific and targeted, rather than trying to interest everyone, hoping for an improvement in your Quality Score. Of course, if you’re more than happy with your cost per conversion, and are looking for more traffic even if the cost per conversion is higher, this may offer an alternative to increasing your bids (which would mean that you’d pay more for all of your clicks, even the ones you would have got anyway). But this all raises perhaps a more general question – if Google is trying to reward sites that are relevant to the searchers, why is it penalising sites by encouraging them to attract visitors who are less likely to convert? Is it achieving the opposite of its stated intention? Perhaps it is to a point, but looking at it from the searchers’ perspective, they were unlikely to convert anyway – and the fact that they are unattractive traffic to the paying advertisers’ eyes makes them no less valuable in the eyes of Google. The basic premise that adverts with higher click through rates should be pushed into higher positions makes perfect sense in principle, but it seems to me that it makes a few big assumptions…
- That searchers can tell the relevancy of the site from its advert text.
- That advertisers don’t write misleading adverts to get more visitors to their site.
- That advertisers bid in such a way that their costs are less than their profits from the advert.
Allow me to explain. Points 1 and 2 are essential if you are to judge a WEBSITE by its click through rate – but if the advert doesn’t accurately represent the website, then it’ll get unwarranted clicks. As I understand it, Google will penalise adverts if the traffic immediately leaves the site (?), but I doubt that this off-sets these clicks completely. Point 3 is really highlighting the assumption that the better an advert’s Quality Score is, the higher it can afford to appear in the results. This is only true if they are monitoring their cost per conversion, and trying to set their cost per click to maximise their profits, based on the cpc and conversion rate. But I’m fairly confident that a lot of companies are still of the mindset “top position is good – be there if we can”. Their adverts may be poor, but I’ve managed a number of campaigns, and even with great Quality Scores, compelling advert text, well-designed sites and good products at good prices, they can’t get close to the top of the search results without bidding well over the odds. If Google’s model was working perfectly, then my advert would be top (or close to it, at least). The campaign is ticking all of the boxes, but the searcher is still quite likely to visit the other site. I’ve discussed this ‘numpty’ effect before, and it’ll probably come up again, but does this mean that Google are doing something wrong? Conspiracy theorists would tell you that what Google are really doing is pushing up the costs of advertising in the top positions, so that they can make more money, but as I’ve said, I don’t think they’d risk that if it resulted in poorer quality results. If people stop using Google to find relevant results, it’ll cease to exist. So what can Google do? Should a well-designed campaign run by an agency really outperform a home-made campaign, just because we know the tricks of the trade? Are we as much of a problem as the numpties? Or is everything fine? Google’s market share suggests that their search results must be fairly useful, and their advertising revenue suggests that they can’t be upsetting businesses too much. Is everything lollipops and roses, or are there fundamental problems with Adwords?