Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

#41

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

pakitan wrote: post #21

To add some anecdotal data, even when our company was at #1 for our main search phrase and when there were fewer PPC competitors, we were still getting more traffic with PPC + organic, rather than leaving it just to the organic listing. It's like there were 2 different sets of people - those who tend to click on ads and those who tend to click on organic results. And you want both. That was quite a long time ago. Now…

IOW: "Nice business you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it ..."

Re: Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

#42

Post by calbear81 »

davemel37 wrote: post #13
calbear81 wrote: post #3

This study ( http://searchengineland.com/google-research-even-if-you-rank... ) is a bit old and possibly biased (since sponsored by Google) but when I worked in SEM the experience we had was the same which was the top organic position + the top paid position netted overall more traffic to our site than with just the organic position alone. The other considerations are: 1) Brand SEM terms are cheap - if you own the br…

This reflects the core argument to do this...but the truth is more subtle. Agencies and in house SEM teams are inherently biased to want to spend on brand terms because a) they can attribute more sales to their channel and b) Justify more spend which equals more revenue for most agencies... I am not discounting the validity of the argument to bid on brand terms and I bid on brand terms for most of my clients...but I…

I've worked with companies before that only gave credit for a fraction of revenue/orders driven by brand terms. They did a study on what % of brand SEM terms were cannibalizing against the organic listing and only gave credit for what they believed to be accretive.

Re: Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

#43

Post by umurkontaci »

calbear81 wrote: post #3

This study ( http://searchengineland.com/google-research-even-if-you-rank... ) is a bit old and possibly biased (since sponsored by Google) but when I worked in SEM the experience we had was the same which was the top organic position + the top paid position netted overall more traffic to our site than with just the organic position alone. The other considerations are: 1) Brand SEM terms are cheap - if you own the br…

Just to add what's said above, it will also help prevent a competitor using your brand as a keyword.

Re: Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

#45

Post by kgwgk »

davemel37 wrote: post #24
fragsworth wrote: post #17

My experience with Google ads was that it is very easy to accidentally get them to display your ad in this way, without you knowing it. You choose a list of terms you want to show your ad in, but by default Google will also put your ad up in "related" searches. If your company or product is already popular enough, it's likely to end up in the related searches for the terms you chose. This cost me quite a bit of money…

> by default Google will also put your ad up in "related" searches. I don't mean to be harsh, but you shouldn't be spending money on search advertising without taking the 2 minutes to understand match types. There is no default other than showing you very closely related variant matching (i.e. plural to singular)... Yes, if you run broad match keywords and dont use negatives, you run the risk of wasting lots of money…

I think he means related searches as in http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/g...

If I understand his comment, if you select the term "sweatshirt" your add is also displayed when people search "American Eagle," and that may be yourself and you're wasting money.

Re: Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

#46

Post by madaxe_again »

davemel37 wrote: post #13
calbear81 wrote: post #3

This study ( http://searchengineland.com/google-research-even-if-you-rank... ) is a bit old and possibly biased (since sponsored by Google) but when I worked in SEM the experience we had was the same which was the top organic position + the top paid position netted overall more traffic to our site than with just the organic position alone. The other considerations are: 1) Brand SEM terms are cheap - if you own the br…

This reflects the core argument to do this...but the truth is more subtle. Agencies and in house SEM teams are inherently biased to want to spend on brand terms because a) they can attribute more sales to their channel and b) Justify more spend which equals more revenue for most agencies... I am not discounting the validity of the argument to bid on brand terms and I bid on brand terms for most of my clients...but I…

It's (a) all the way down. The expression is robbing Peter to pay Paul - we've even tested it - while running ads on branded keywords does increase clicks, it increases the CPA from zero to potentially pricey. The net benefit is so-so, and if the client doesn't understand that they're cannibalising their organic traffic you have a problem - I.e. 99% of the time.

The only reason I've ever witnessed is SEO/M ego rubbing, and the conversations usually go:

"we are spending more than our monthly revenue on brand ppc ads!"

"But you cover the entire first page of Google for your terms, branded and product. Turn the ads off."

"But all our traffic cones through the ads!"

"That's because you're swamping your organic terms."

"Oh gee, I don't know, worm-tongue SEO/M-master, what do I do?"

"Spend more money with my PPC agency! We know more about web development then web developers, we studied drama and literature. And we have a certificate from google saying we're good webmasters. Do your development agency?"

Re: Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

#47

Post by madaxe_again »

calbear81 wrote: post #42
davemel37 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reflects the core argument to do this...but the truth is more subtle. Agencies and in house SEM teams are inherently biased to want to spend on brand terms because a) they can attribute more sales to their channel and b) Justify more spend which equals more revenue for most agencies... I am not discounting the validity of the argument to bid on brand terms and I bid on brand terms for most of my clients...but I…

I've worked with companies before that only gave credit for a fraction of revenue/orders driven by brand terms. They did a study on what % of brand SEM terms were cannibalizing against the organic listing and only gave credit for what they believed to be accretive.

That would be an intelligent way of doing it - most refuse to see the cannibalisation, however, and demand a purely cumulative effect, which results in unhappiness all around.

Re: Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

#48

Post by davemel37 »

kgwgk wrote: post #45
davemel37 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by default Google will also put your ad up in "related" searches. I don't mean to be harsh, but you shouldn't be spending money on search advertising without taking the 2 minutes to understand match types. There is no default other than showing you very closely related variant matching (i.e. plural to singular)... Yes, if you run broad match keywords and dont use negatives, you run the risk of wasting lots of money…

I think he means related searches as in http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/g... If I understand his comment, if you select the term "sweatshirt" your add is also displayed when people search "American Eagle," and that may be yourself and you're wasting money.

He was referring to running broad match keywords by accident...My point was that its reckless to advertise without understanding match types... Google gives you nearly complete control over which terms they show you on using keyword match types and negative keywords...No one should be advertising with Google without understanding this.

https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/2497836?hl=en

Re: Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

#49

Post by douche »

Marketers and ad reps are very good at rationalizing and justifying their existence.

As someone else mentioned down thread, I'm happy to reward those who cannibalize their organic results and help ensure that their adwords budget doesn't go unused...

Re: Ask HN: Why do companies buy ads when they are the top result in search?

#50

Post by davemel37 »

calbear81 wrote: post #42
davemel37 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reflects the core argument to do this...but the truth is more subtle. Agencies and in house SEM teams are inherently biased to want to spend on brand terms because a) they can attribute more sales to their channel and b) Justify more spend which equals more revenue for most agencies... I am not discounting the validity of the argument to bid on brand terms and I bid on brand terms for most of my clients...but I…

I've worked with companies before that only gave credit for a fraction of revenue/orders driven by brand terms. They did a study on what % of brand SEM terms were cannibalizing against the organic listing and only gave credit for what they believed to be accretive.

I can just as easily argue that branded search closes the sale at the bottom of the funnel and that generic search contributes to that sale...so without multi click attribution in the mix, its not fair to give credit to organic for cannibalized sales...etc... my point is really that there is room to argue both ways and without advanced attribution...someone somewhere is not getting the credit they earned.
Post reply on HN