Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Geo-Targeting Paid Search Tactics: Have We All Been Doing It Wrong?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Geo-Targeting Paid Search Tactics: Have We All Been Doing It Wrong?

  • 252 views
Published

Pay Per Click Advertising case studies showing what happened when Mediative tested an opt-out versus the traditional opt-in approach to geo-targeting in AdWords.

Pay Per Click Advertising case studies showing what happened when Mediative tested an opt-out versus the traditional opt-in approach to geo-targeting in AdWords.

Published in Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
252
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • a little background about Mediative and the history of our research expertise in the industry. HIGHLIGHT THE MAJOR STUDIES: Buyersphere, golden triangle, brand lift of search and our first glimpses into mobile behaviour with the google places study in 2011
  • . (Though this is in part owing to a drop in clicks, absolute conversions in target areas increased and so we see increased account efficiency)

Transcript

  • 1. SMX ADVANCED 2013 GEO-TARGETING: OPT-IN VS. OPT-OUT STRATEGY Amazing Paid Search Tactics & Tools (#smx #23B) June 11-12, 2013  Mediative.com
  • 2. 2 WHO WE ARE OUR SEARCH INSIGHTS OVER THE YEARS 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2009 2012 2011 Inside The Mind of The Searcher Search Engine Usage Research Google Golden Triangle Major SERPs User Behaviour Organic vs. Paid Brand Lift Study Barriers On a Website Mapping the BuyerSphere Google Instant Results Google Places Desktop & Mobile PPC & Display User Purchase Behaviour Branching Out From Search Research
  • 3. AMAZING PAID SEARCH TACTICS TODAY’S TOPIC What is the impact of opt-in geo-targeting? 3 1 What is the impact of opt-out geo-targeting? 2 3Which strategy opt-in vs. opt-out is more effective? MARTA TUREK Group Manager Performance Media TODAY’S PRESENTER GEO-TARGETING TO MAXIMIZE REACH
  • 4. AMAZING PAID SEARCH TACTICS ADWORDS OPT-IN VS. OPT-OUT TARGETING GEO-TARGETING OPT-IN STRATEGY GEO-TARGETING OPT-OUT STRATEGY VS. TRADITIONAL APPROACH: SELECT TARGET AREAS NEW APPROACH: EXCLUDE NON-TARGET AREAS
  • 5. OPT-IN: CITY VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING TEST 1: ADWORDS OPT-IN STRATEGY Question: Will City (Denver) campaign drive as much volume as captured in Denver by State targeting? Goal: Drive clicks to Denver city for special promotion Control: State Level Colorado Campaign Test: Standalone City Level Denver Campaign Geo-targeting: Opt-in to City (Denver) Duration: 8 Weeks 5
  • 6. OPT-IN: CITY VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING TEST 1: OPT-IN GEO-TARGETING CONTROL: STATE LEVEL TEST: CITY LEVEL TARGET BY OPT-IN DENVER TRAFFIC CAPTURED VIA DENVER CITY TARGETED CAMPAIGN DENVER TRAFFIC CAPTURED IN STATE CAMPAIGN
  • 7. OPT-IN: CITY VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING DENVER CLICKS DIP IN OPT-IN CITY CAMPAIGN 0 100 200 300 400 500 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLICKS WEEKS City - Denver City Level Targeting 2210 clicks during 8 Week Test Period 975 fewer clicks in Denver City campaign Traffic Captured in Denver via State Campaign 3187 clicks in 8 Weeks after Test
  • 8. OPT-IN: CITY VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING DENVER CLICKS DROP BY 57% OF WoW BASELINE *Week 5 = Baseline, 100% (425 clicks per week) 0% 1% -15% -28% -26% -35% -31% -29% -57% -57% -47% -3% -8% -10% 10% 1% -15% -13% -12% -16% -11% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLICKS%CHANGE WEEKS % Change on Week 5 Week 5 Baseline Immediate click rebound when Denver opted back in to State targeting 8 Week Test Period
  • 9. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IMPRESSIONS WEEKS City - Denver OPT-IN: CITY VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING IMPRESSIONS DROP IN CITY CAMPAIGN 20,000 fewer impressions at city level campaign City Level Targeting 71,595 impressions during 8 Week Test Impressions Captured in Denver via State Campaign 95,482 impressions in 8 Weeks after Test
  • 10. OPT-IN: CITY VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING DENVER IMPRESSIONS DROP TO 21% BELOW BASELINE 2% 2% 1% 7% -14% -21% 0% -10% 6% -4% 11% 21% 40% 34% 33% 30% 23% 34% 12% 27% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IMPRESSIONS%CHANGE WEEKS % Change on Week 5 Week 5 Baseline *Week 5 = Baseline, 100% (9300 Impressions per week) 8 Week Test Period Immediate rebound in impressions after turning off test
  • 11. OPT-IN: CITY VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING AVG. CPCs INCREASE WHEN YOU LIMIT TARGETING $- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $18.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AVG.CPC WEEKS City - Denver Avg. CPC increased by $3.39 during test period Advertisers willing to pay more for narrowly targeted audience City Level Targeting Avg. CPC $11.13 during 8 Week Test Avg. CPC $7.74 after 8 Week Test
  • 12. OPT-IN: CITY VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING SUMMARY CONCLUSION Losing IP Coverage 20K Impressions lost in City campaigns (29% drop) 1 2 1 Limited Audience = Increased Competition Pay premium for clicks in market that is valuable to you2 3When goal is to drive volume, in specific region, narrow opt-in strategy will result in loss of volume in target area
  • 13. OPT-OUT: DMA VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING TEST 2: ADWORDS OPT-OUT STRATEGY Question: Based on Test 1 learning, how do we ensure volume is not compromised? Goal: Drive traffic to 2 target DMAs* only Control: State Level North Carolina Campaign Test: Two major DMAs in North Carolina Geo-targeting: Opt-out of non-target DMAs Duration: 8 Weeks 1 3 *DMA = Nielsen Designated Market Area
  • 14. OPT-OUT: DMA VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING TEST 2: OPT-OUT GEO-TARGETING CONTROL: STATE LEVEL TEST: DMA REGION TARGET BY OPT-OUT DMAs CAPTURED BY EXCLUDING NON-TARGET DMAs DMAs CAPTURED IN STATE CAMPAIGN
  • 15. OPT-OUT: DMA VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING VOLUMES NOT COMPROMISED IN TARGET DMAs 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 IMPRESSIONS Charlotte NC Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem NC Greenville-New Bern-Washington NC Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville) NC Wilmington NC 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 CLICKS $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 COST Non-Target DMAs excluded Volume metrics are maintained in target DMAs *Dip in week 47 owing to Thanksgiving week
  • 16. OPT-OUT: DMA VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING EFFICIENCY 1: AVG. CPC DROPS IN TARGET DMAs *Comparing 8 Weeks prior to DMA change, to 8 weeks after $- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $18.00 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 AVG.CPC WEEKS Charlotte NC Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem NC Greenville-New Bern-Washington NC Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville) NC Wilmington NC 12% Drop in Avg. CPC at campaign level
  • 17. OPT-OUT: DMA VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING EFFICIENCY 2: ABSOLUTE CONVERSIONS ARE UP 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ABSOLUTECONVERSIONS WEEKS Charlotte NC Greensboro-High Point- Winston Salem NC Greenville-New Bern- Washington NC Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville) NC Wilmington NCConversions up by 20% (305) in target DMAs *Dip in week 47 owing to Thanksgiving week *Comparing 8 Weeks prior to DMA change, to 8 weeks after
  • 18. OPT-OUT: DMA VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING EFFICIENCY 3: CONVERSION RATE INCREASES *Comparing 8 Weeks prior to DMA change, to 8 weeks after 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 CONVERSIONRATE WEEKS Charlotte NC Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem NC Greenville-New Bern- Washington NC Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville) NC Wilmington NC Conversion Rate improves by 8%
  • 19. OPT-OUT: DMA VS. STATE-LEVEL TARGETING SUMMARY CONCLUSION Through Opt-Out Geo-Targeting maximum IP coverage is maintained and undesirable areas simply excluded 1 9 1 Drop in Avg. CPC in target DMAs Hypothesis: Willingness to pay judged at overall market opt-in2 3To maintain volume in specific region, instead of targeting explicitly, opt-out of non-target areas
  • 20. WINNING TACTIC: OPT OUT STRATEGY GEO-TARGETING OPT-OUT STRATEGY Run a geographic report to identify target & non-target locations driving clicks to campaign Instead of isolating target area in separate opt-in campaigns: Maintain high level targeting (whether that is National / State / DMA) Select non-target areas as ‘negative targeting’ to exclude these areas In effect you are REVERSE-GEO TARGETING to maintain volume
  • 21. 21 Over 300 Digital Marketing Resources Available Visit www.mediative.com/resources Marta Turek marta.turek@mediative.com Twitter: @MTurek THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?