SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 26
Download to read offline
Q2 2014
04 PAID SEARCH
03 Executive Summary
15 ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL
20 COMPARISON SHOPPING ENGINES
23 DISPLAY ADVERTISING
26 ABOUT RKG & METHODOLOGY
TaBLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Paid Search
•	 Google paid search spending growth accelerated to 24% Y/Y in Q2. Paid clicks rose 13%, while CPCs rose 10%
as advertisers responded to improving conversion performance.
•	 Bing Ads search spending grew 19% Y/Y across Bing, Yahoo and their search partners. Paid clicks rose 22%, but
CPCs fell 3% due to a mix shift to mobile.
•	 Advertiser spending on Google Product Listing Ads (PLAs) and Bing Product Ads rose 72% Y/Y. For retailers,
PLAs produced 26% of Google search clicks overall.
•	 Smartphones generated 19% of paid search clicks and 9% of search spend, while tablets produced 18% of clicks
and 19% of spend. Smartphone clicks rose 47% Y/Y, compared to a 43% increase for tablets and a 2% decline for
desktop.
•	 Google conversion tracking data and estimates show that cross-device tracking surfaces 7% more conversions
overall and 14% more smartphone conversions that would otherwise not be attributed to search.
Organic Search & Social
•	 Organic search produced 31% of all site visits in Q2 2014, which was down from 36% in the first half of 2013. As
the major search engines work to better monetize their listings with larger and more appealing ads, organic
search volume will continue to get squeezed in favor of paid.
•	 Smartphones and tablets produced a combined 34% of organic search visits in Q2, up from 31% in Q1. Both
iPhone and Android picked up share, while iPad traffic share was flat.
•	 Social media sites produced 1.6% of all sites visits in Q2. Facebook continues to lead the way with 51% of visits
produced by social media sites, but its contribution has slipped as Pinterest has become a larger traffic source
for retail sites.
•	 Mobile devices accounted for 42% of visits produced by social media in Q2. That was up two percentage points
from Q1 and 17 points from a year earlier.
Comparison Shopping ENGINES
•	 The eBay Commerce Network and PriceGrabber both made large gains in CSE spend share compared to a year
earlier as all other major engines saw losses.
•	 Among advertisers running both Amazon Product Ads and Google PLAs, revenue volume from Amazon’s
program was just 7% that of PLAs in Q2, down from 9% in Q1.
DISPLAY ADVERTISING
•	 For advertisers actively advertising on the Google Display Network (GDN) and running AdWords paid search
ads, GDN accounted for 6% of total Google spending, the same rate as the previous quarter.
PAID SEARCH
PAID SEARCH 5
Total Paid Search Spending Growth Accelerates
to 23% Y/Y
After a slow start to the calendar
year, paid search spending growth
accelerated at the end of Q1 and
remained elevated through Q2.
Advertisers responded to improving
conversion performance by pushing
CPCs up 8% Y/Y to capture additional
volume. Paid search click growth
improved to 14% Y/Y from an 11%
growth rate in the prior quarter.
Overall U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013
+45%
+30%
+15%
2013-Q2
–15%
BASELINE
ClicksAd Spend CPC
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
+8%
+14%
+23%
Google Paid Search Clicks Up 13% Y/Y, CPC
Growth Continues to Rise
While advertisers are paying
considerably lower CPCs for their own
brand terms due to Google Ad Rank
changes in 2013, total Google search
CPCs rose 10% Y/Y on the strength
of non-brand text ads and PLAs. Click
volume improved 13% Y/Y resulting
in 24% growth in ad spend. This was
an appreciable increase from 17% Y/Y
spending growth in Q1.
Google Overall U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
+10%
+13%
+24%
ClicksAd Spend CPC
+45%
+30%
+15%
2013-Q2
–15%
BASELINE
Bing Ads Delivers Big Increase in Click Volume,
But CPCs Slip Y/Y
While Bing Ads was able to deliver
an impressive 22% Y/Y increase in
clicks, that additional volume may
have come at the expense of traffic
quality. Responding to a slight dip in
conversion performance, advertisers
brought their CPCs down 3% from
a year earlier. We may be seeing the
effects of a relative shift to mobile, as
we did see Bing Ads appear to make
strides in that area.
Bing Ads Overall U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013
–3%
+22%
+19%
+40%
+20%
+10%
2013-Q2
–20%
BASELINE
–10%
+30%
–30%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
ClicksAd Spend CPC
PAID SEARCH 6
PLA CPC Growth Helps Drive Google Non-Brand
Spending Up 29%
While Google non-brand text ad CPCs
rose 12% Y/Y, CPCs for PLAs rose
nearly 35% and helped push total non-
brand spending up 29% Y/Y in Q2.
Google advertisers have been able to
push the gas on PLAs because the ROI
there still remains higher than that for
non-brand text ads.
Google Non-Brand U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013
+18%
+9%
+29%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
+50%
+25%
2013-Q2
BASELINE
–25% ClicksAd Spend CPC
Product Ads Still Producing Huge Growth with
Spend Up 72% Y/Y
Including Google’s PLA format and
the Product Ad format that Bing
Ads introduced in late 2013, search
advertiser spending on image-based
product ads rose 72% Y/Y in Q2 on
a 28% increase in click volume and a
35% increase in CPC. Text ad spending
growth ticked up from 6% Y/Y in Q1 to
11% in Q2.
Overall U.S. Paid Search Growth by Format
Q2 2014
Ad Spend Clicks CPC
Text Ads
PLAs/Product Ads60%
40%
20%
80%
0%
Bing Ads Non-Brand Spending Growth at 19%
Although we didn’t see Bing Ads
achieve the same year-over-year non-
brand spending growth as Google in
Q2, Bing Ads spend nearly reached
its Q4 levels. Non-brand click volume
rose 26% Y/Y, while CPCs fell 6%. As
noted above, this is indicative of a
greater contribution from mobile.
Bing Non-Brand U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013+40%
+20%
2013-Q2
BASELINE
–20%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
–6%
+26%
+19%
ClicksAd Spend CPC
–40%
72%
11%
4%
28%
7%
35%
PAID SEARCH 7
PLA Click Share Flat from Quarter to Quarter
Following   a decent jump from Q4
to Q1 as Google gave PLAs more
prominence by serving them above
the organic listings more frequently,
PLA click share was flat from Q1 to Q2.
For retailers running both text ads and
PLAs, PLAs generated 26% of Google
paid search clicks overall and 50% of
non-brand clicks.
PLA Share of Google Paid Search Clicks
Aggregate Results - U.S. Retail60%
40%
20%
0%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
26%
50%
Non-Brand
Overall
30%
50%
10%
Despite Large CPC Rise, PLA ROI Remains 13%
Better than Comparable Text Ads
Even with CPCs running 35% higher
than a year earlier, advertiser ROI
from PLAs was still 13% above that
for comparable non-brand text ads in
Q2. Although it is not a pure apples-
to-apples comparison because of
differences in query mix, PLAs also
generated click-through rates that were
2.5X that for non-brand text ads and
conversion rates that were 37% higher.
PLA Performance vs Text Ads
Median Site Results - U.S. Retail
CPC CTR ROI Conv. Rate AOV
+150%
+50%
Text Ads
–100%
+100%
–50%
BASELINE
43%
1% 13%
149%
–65%
13%
–26%
37%
–18% –15%
PLAs vs Non-Brand Text AdsPLAs vs Overall Text Ads
PLA CPCs Slip Again Compared to Text Ads,
But Have Come a Long Way
Before Google completed its transition
to the paid Google Shopping model,
we found PLA CPCs to run 23% lower
than comparable text ads. That gap
quickly narrowed and PLA CPCs
eventually overtook text ads in late
2013. While PLA CPCs have slipped
versus text ads following the Q4
holiday season, that trend will likely
reverse later this year.
Google PLA CPC vs Non-Brand Text Ads
Median Site Results - U.S. Retail+10%
Non-Brand
Text Ads
-25%
BASELINE
+5%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
1%
Q1 Q2
2013
Q3 Q4Q2
2012
Q3 Q4 Q1
2014
Q2
PAID SEARCH 8
PLA Click Share Varies by 36% Across Retail Sub-
Industries
In Q2, we once again found that the
contribution of PLAs to click volume
was greatest for Consumer Electronics
retailers where PLAs provided 65%
of non-brand Google clicks. At the
low end, PLAs were 29% of non-
brand Health & Beauty clicks. Apparel
retailers generated 37% of their non-
brand clicks from PLAs.
PLA Share of Non-Brand Google Paid Search Clicks
Q2 2014
Median Site Results - U.S. Retail
Flowers
& Gifts
Cars &
Auto
Health &
Beauty
Apparel Sporting
Goods
Books Home &
Garden
Consumer
Electronics
60%
40%
20%
0%
30%
50%
10%
70%
Bing Product Ads Edge Up in Volume and
Spend Share
Among sites participating in the Bing
Product Ads program, the new format
produced 8% of Bing Ads non-brand
search clicks and spend. That was just
a modest uptick from Q1 where the
same metrics were 7%. The revenue
contribution of Product Ads fell slightly
from quarter to quarter.
Bing Ads — Product Ads Share of Non-Brand
Median Site Results
Ad Spend Clicks Revenue
2014-Q2
2014-Q1
2013-Q4
0%
5%
10%
15%
Bing Product Ads Produce 48% Higher Revenue
Per Click than Text Ads
While Bing Product Ad CPCs ran
slightly below those for non-brand
text ads, revenue per click was 48%
higher in Q2. For comparison, Google
PLA revenue per click was just 17%
higher than that for non-brand text
ads, suggesting that Bing Ads has a
big opportunity to expand the serving
of Product Ads to a broader range of
queries.
Bing Ads — Product Ads vs Non-Brand Text Ads
Q2 2014
Median Site Results
CPC
RPC CTR
48%
-8%
19%
+20%
+50%
Text Ads
BASELINE
Non-Brand
+30%
+40%
+10%
8.3%
7.1%
6.5%
5.9%
7.1%
7.6%
8.3%
12.2%
10.3%
29% 30%
33%
37%
44%
48% 49%
65%
PAID SEARCH 9
GoogleGainsSpendShare,BingAdsGainsonClicks
We find Google gaining roughly half
a percentage point of paid search
spend share from year to year in
Q2. At the same time, Bing Ads
has gained a little over one point of
paid search click share. As Google
PLA CPCs have caught up to and
surpassed text ad CPCs, Google has
exhibited relative strength on the
spend side.
Google Share of U.S. Paid Search
2014-Q2
2013-Q2
81%
82%
83%
Ad Spend Clicks
Google Commanding Higher Non-Brand CPCs
Due to Advantage in Conversion Rate
In Q2, the conversion rate for non-
brand Google search ads was 52%
higher than the same metric for Bing
Ads.Withaverageordervalueroughly
equal for the two engines, Google
commanded 48% higher non-brand
CPCs than Bing. The contribution of
Google PLAs is a large factor here
as PLAs produced a 37% higher
conversion rate than text ads.
Non-Brand: Google Metrics vs Bing Ads
Q2 2014
Median Site Results
+20%
+40%
+60%
+10%
+30%
+50%
CPC CTR ROI Conv. Rate AOV
Non-Brand
BASELINE
Bing  Ads
48%
8% 9%
52%
0.4%
Brand Ads Still Considerably Less Expensive on
Google
Although search ads for most sites’
own brand terms are much less
expensive than non-brand ads for
both engines, brand ads cost 34%
less per click on Google in Q2 than
Bing Ads. Google brand ads also
produced much higher click-through
rates, suggesting advertisers face
greater competitive pressure for their
brand on Bing compared to Google.
Brand: Google Metrics vs Bing Ads
Q2 2014
Median Site Results
Non-Brand
BASELINE
Bing  Ads
+50%
+100%
+200%
+150%
—50%
CPC CTR ROI Conv. Rate AOV
–34%
183%
93%
14% 4%
82.2%
82.8%
82.6%
81.5%
PAID SEARCH 10
Google Search Partner Contribution On the Decline
With its Q2 earnings report, Google
is set to provide CPC and click
growth broken out by property for
the first time. Our results suggest
that Google’s search partner
network has slipped more on the
CPC side compared to Google.com
as its share of ad spend has fallen
nearly 5% in the past year, while its
share of clicks fell just 2%.
Google Search Partner Share
Median Site Results
2014-Q2
2013-Q2
Ad Spend ShareClick Share
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
18%
17% 17%
12%
PLAs Not Well-Monetized on Google Search
Partner Sites
While PLAs produced 26% of total
Google search clicks this past
quarter, they only produced 7% of
Google search partner clicks. That
is up from providing nearly 0% of
partner clicks a year earlier, but the
relatively slow monetization of PLAs
on the partner network  may explain
a large part of the decline in search
partner share that we see.
PLA Share of Google Paid Search Clicks
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2014-Q22013-Q2
Search Partners Google Overall
26%
7%
0.1%
Search Partner Conversion Rates About Half
That of Google.com
Although we’ve seen some
improvement in the conversion
rates produced by Google search
partners in the past year, partner
conversion rate still ran 47% below
that of Google.com traffic, according
to Google conversion tracking data.
Advertisers have limited ability
to account for this performance
difference beyond turning partner
traffic completely off.
Google Search Partner Conversion Rate
vs Google.com
Median Site Results
2014-Q22013-Q2
Google.com
–20%
–10%
BASELINE
–52%
–47%–40%
–30%
–60%
–50%
PAID SEARCH 11
Smartphones and Tablets Combine for 37% of
Paid Search Clicks
At 37%, mobile traffic share was
up one percentage point from Q1.
Smartphones provided the bulk of that
lift as tablet traffic share was essentially
flat at 18%. While we saw larger mobile
gains for Bing Ads, those were washed
out by Google’s much greater volume.
Mobile Share of Paid Search Clicks
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q22012-Q4
Tablet Smartphone
10%
13%
14%
16%
16%
18% 18%
9%
12%
14% 14%
16%
18%
19%
0%
10%
20%
40%
30%
Mobile’s Share of Bing Ads Clicks Jumps 8%
from Quarter to Quarter
While mobile’s share of Google traffic
was roughly flat from Q1 to Q2 at
38%, we saw a surprisingly large jump
in mobile’s contribution to Bing Ads
traffic. In Q1 we found that mobile
produced 25% of Bing Ads clicks,
but that figure rose to 33% in Q2. We
cannot conclusively explain the rapid
increase, but it may reflect increased
broad matching on mobile and
greater adoption of Bing’s Enhanced
Campaigns functionality.
Mobile Click Share by Engine
0%
10%
20%
40%
30%
Google Bing Ads
Combined Smartphone Tablet
Mobile Share of Paid Search Spend Reaches 28%
Although they generated a higher share
of clicks than tablets, smartphones
produced less than half the spend that
tablets did in the second quarter due
to smartphone’s poorer conversion
performance.  In Q2, 9% of paid search
spend went to smartphone traffic, while
19% of spending went to tablet traffic.
Mobile Share of Paid Search Ad Spend
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q22012-Q4
0%
10%
20%
30% Tablet Smartphone
10%
5%
37.5%
32.7%
19.1%
16.3%
18.4%
16.5%
14%
15% 17%
18%
20% 19%
7%
9%
6%
7% 7%
9%
15.5%
21.5%
24.1% 23.9%
25.2%
26.9% 27.7%
19.5%
25.1%
27.9%
29.6%
32.5%
35.5% 36.5%
PAID SEARCH 12
Desktop Traffic Click Volume Down 2%, Despite
Aggressive CPC Increases
Reflecting improvement in the value
produced by desktop traffic, advertisers
pushed CPCs up 16% Y/Y in Q2.
However, desktop click volume still fell
2% Y/Y. Smartphone CPCs were down
12% Y/Y, but click volume rose 47%.
Smartphone CPC growth is likely to turn
positive in Q3 as we pass the anniversary
of the Enhanced Campaigns transition,
when many advertisers opted to raise
their ROI targets for smartphone traffic.
Year-Over-Year Growth by Device Class
Ad Spend Clicks CPC
Smartphone
Desktop
Tablet
14%
30%
56%
47%
43%
–2%
16%
–12%
9%
20%
0%
–20%
40%
60%
Tablet Revenue Per Click Continues to Slide,
Now at 77% of Desktop Levels
Although tablets are grouped with
desktop under Google’s Enhanced
Campaign model, their conversion
performance has not been as strong
for a number of quarters and that
gap has only widened. Bing Ads
recently announced that they will also
group tablets with desktop, but allow
advertisers to bid tablets down by as
much as 20%. These results suggest
that this range will not be sufficient for
many sites.
Revenue Per Click vs Desktop
120%
60%
40%
20%
80%
100%
0%
77%
34%
Desktop
TabletSmartphone
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
Smartphone CPCs Reverse Declines Compared
to Desktop
Following three quarters of declines
relative to desktop, smartphone CPCs
edged back up in Q2 coming in at
41% of desktop levels. Smartphone
revenue per click has been improving
and more advertisers have been
incorporating Google’s cross-device
tracking insights into their ROI target
considerations.
Google Mobile CPC vs Desktop
120%
60%
40%
20%
80%
100%
0%
93%
41%
Desktop
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
TabletSmartphone
PAID SEARCH 13
Old Browser Versions Yield Poor Performance
While Google will take into account the
type of browser a searcher uses in some
of the automated bidding adjustments
advertisers can allow Google to make
for them, Google has not provided a
mechanism for advertisers to do this
themselves. That is unfortunate since
browser version can be highly predictive of
conversionperformance,withSafari7users
producing a 96% higher than average
revenue per click and users of old versions
of Firefox producing a 60% lower than
average RPC.
Revenue Per Click by Desktop Browser
vs Overall Average
OtherChrome
Chrome34
Chrome35
OtherFirefox
Firefox28
Firefox29
OtherMSIE
MSIE9
MSIE10
OtherSafari
Safari6
Safari7
OtherBrowsers
15% 4%
–60%
14% 18%
–39% –11% –6%0.6% 0.5%
22%
82%
96%
–75%
+100%
+50%
–25%
+25%
+75%
Average
BASELINE
Overall
–50%
iPad Tablet Traffic Share at 79%, Windows
Tablets Reach 7%
We find the iPad losing about six
percentage points of tablet traffic
share over the past year, with most
of those losses going to touch-
compatible Windows computers.
The latter group of devices includes
Microsoft’s Surface, but also a number
of computers that may be better
grouped with traditional laptops in
their form and function.
Share of Tablet Paid Search Clicks
Other Tablets
75%
50%
25%
0%
100%
iPad Other
Tablets
4%
3%
2%
0%
5%
1%
Windows
Tablet
Other
Android
Kindle Galaxy
Tablet
Nexus
Tablet
6%
7% 2014-Q2
2014-Q1
2013-Q3
2013-Q2
2013-Q1
2013-Q4
Android Tablets Weighing Down Tablet
Revenue Per Click
While iPad traffic generates a revenue
per click that is about 10% lower
than that from desktop and laptop
computers, the best performing
Android tablet produces a revenue
per click that is only half that seen
from the desktop group. These results
demonstrate that user context beyond
the three main device categories can
greatly shift performance.
Revenue Per Click by Device vs Desktop
Q2 2014
100%
80%
60%
20%
0%
40%
120%
Desktop
Windows
Tablet
Desktop iPad Nexus
Tablet
Other
Android
Tablets
Other
Tablets
iPhoneKindle
Fire
Android
Phone
Windows
Phone
116%
100%
92%
50%
45% 42% 41%
31% 28%
6%
PAID SEARCH 14
Smartphones Produce 25% of Cross-Device
Conversions, 12% of Traditionally Tracked Conversions
According to Google conversion
tracking and estimates, smartphones
contributed 12% of the conversions
that took place on the same device
as the ad clicks that led to them.
Among the pool of additional orders
surfaced from cross-device tracking,
smartphones contributed nearly 25%
of orders.
Share of Cross-Device
Conversions
Share of Single-Device
Conversions
Desktop
72%
Tablet
15%
Smartphone
       12%
Desktop
59%
Tablet
16%
Smartphone
25%
Cross-Device Tracking Surfaces 7% More Orders
Overall, 14% More Smartphone Orders
In anticipating the impact Google’s
cross-device estimates may ultimately
have on advertiser spending, we see
that cross-device tracking surfaces 7%
more orders overall, but 14% more
smartphone orders. That will not be
nearly enough to completely close the
gap in CPCs between smartphones
and desktop, but more advertisers are
taking these figures into account in
setting smartphone ROI targets.
Lift in Conversions from Including Cross-Device
16%
4%
8%
12%
0%
Total Desktop Tablet Smartphone
7%
6%
7%
14%
Not Provided Stable at Nearly 80% of
AdWords Clicks
The day after Google announced it
would stop passing search queries to
advertisers via referrer, Not Provided
share of Google paid search jumped to
45%. We saw another large increase in
Not Provided share a little over a week
later and it has remained at a little
below 80% since then. Advertisers can
still gain insights into user queries via
Google’s search terms report.
Not Provided Share of Google AdWords
Paid Search Traffic100%
50%
75%
0%
78%
April
25%
May June July
2014 2014 2014 2014
ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL
ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 16
Organic Traffic Share Down as More Clicks
Become Paid
Although the share of all site visits
generated by organic search has held
steady at 31% for three quarters, that
is down appreciably from an average
of 36% for the first half of 2013. As the
major search engines work to better
monetize their listings with larger and
more appealing ads, organic search
volume will continue to get squeezed
in favor of paid.
Organic Search
Share of All U.S. Site Visits
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
31%30%
20%
10%
40%
50%
0%
Bing Slowly Gaining Search Share at the
Expense of Smaller Engines
Over the past year, we have seen Bing’s
share of organic search visits increase
from 8% in Q2 2013 to nearly 10% in
Q2 2014. These gains have come at
the expense of second-tier search
engines, as well as Google. Note
that these figures represent site visits,
so any shifts in SERP monetization
may exaggerate or understate the
underlying trends in raw search query
volume.
U.S. Organic Search Visit Share by Engine
Other Engines
Google Other
Engines
Bing Yahoo Other
10%
8%
6%
12%
0%
4%
2%
60%
40%
20%
80%
100%
0%
2014-Q2
2014-Q1
2013-Q3
2013-Q2
2013-Q1
2013-Q4
Google Owns U.S. Mobile Search with 88%
Share, But Yahoo Edging Up
In Q2 2014, 88% of mobile organic
search visits were produced by
Google, compared to 81% across all
devices. Yahoo has seen its share of
mobile organic tick up though, from
7% in Q2 last year to nearly 8% this
year. Bing has made smaller gains over
the same time period and remains
a distant third, producing just 4% of
mobile organic search visits.
Share of U.S. Mobile Organic Search by Engine
Q2 2014
Google
Yahoo
Bing
88%
8%
4%
ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 17
2014-Q12013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
Tablets and Smartphones Account for 34% of
Organic Search in Q2
On the growth of iPhone and Android
traffic, mobile share of organic search
rose from 31% in Q1 to nearly 34%
in Q2. Both device groups saw their
share rise 1.3 percentage points from
Q1 to Q2 with the iPhone accounting
for 12% of visits in Q2 and Android
devices accounting for 10%. iPad
traffic share was flat at a little over 11%
in Q1 and Q2.
Mobile Share of U.S. Organic Search Visits
Android iPhoneiPad Other35%
20%
10%
0%
30%
25%
15%
5%
12%
11%
10%
Organic Search Visits Fall Year-Over-Year
Despite Mobile Growth
Mobile search visits were up 18%
year-over-year in Q2, but that was not
enough to offset desktop declines,
and total organic search visits fell 7%.
The overall decline is indicative of
a shift from organic to paid search,
where growth has been robust and
even accelerating.
Y/Y Growth in Organic Search Visits
Q2 2014
Mobile Overall
5%
0%
–5%
10%
–10%
15%
20%
18%
–7%
Bing Not Keeping Pace in Organic Mobile Visits
Google and Yahoo were neck and
neck in the share mobile contributed
to each engine’s organic search visits
in Q2, while Bing remained well
behind both. In Q2, 37% of Yahoo
organic search visits were mobile,
up 10 percentage points from a year
earlier. For Google, 36% of organic
search visits were mobile, which was
up 7 points. Bing saw 17% of its visits
from mobile in Q2 2014, which was just
a 4 point increase from a year earlier.
Share of Each Engine’s Traffic from Mobile
Google Yahoo Bing
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
30%
20%
10%
40%
0%
28%
29%
31% 31%
33%
36%
23%
27%
31% 30%
37% 37%
8%
13%
16%
14%
16%
17%
ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 18
Not Provided Visit Share Reaches 90%
The share of Google organic searches
that did not pass queries to site owners
shot up from 40% to 80% over just a
10 week period last year. Since then,
tracking the subsequent rise in Not
Provided share has been more of a
curiosity than anything, but we finally
saw it reach 90% at the end of Q2. As
we’ve noted before, queries still being
passed are skewed towards certain web
browsers and likely do not represent
total Google queries very well.
Not Provided Share of
Google Organic Search Traffic 90%
Q
1
Q
2
2013
Q
3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
2012
Q
3
Q
4
Q
1
2014
Q
2
75%
50%
25%
0%
100%
Yahoo Not Provided Share Hovering Just
Above 40%
Speaking of curiosities, it is interesting
to see that Yahoo’s Not Provided share,
as recorded by Google Analytics, has
stayed only just above 40% since the
engine moved to secure search earlier
this year. Given that all searches on
Yahoo.com should be secure and not
pass queries, we would expect the
figure to run much higher.
Not Provided Share of
Yahoo Organic Search Traffic
30%
0%
50%
41%40%
20%
10%
2014
M
ar 30
Apr 6
Apr 13
Apr 20
Apr 27
M
ay 4
M
ay 11
M
ay 18
M
ay 25
Jun
1
Jun
8
Jun
15
Jun
22
ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 19
Mobile Devices Produce 42% of Social Media
Visits
Outpacing the trends we see for
search, mobile accounted for 42% of
site visits produced by social media.
That is up two percentage points
from the previous quarter and 17
percentage points from a year earlier.
Mobile Share of Social Media Visits
42%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
30%
0%
50%
40%
20%
10%
Social Media Sites Produce 1.6% of Site Visits
on Average
In what may be a reflection of the
decline in organic Facebook reach
many site owners are witnessing,
average visit share from social media
sites, including earned and paid traffic,
rose only slightly in Q2 2014 compared
to a year earlier and fell from Q1 to Q2.
Although a small contributor to traffic
on average, social media’s importance
is variable from site to site, with some
seeing nearly a quarter of their traffic
from the channel.
Social Media Share of All Site Visits
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0%
2.0%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
1.4%
1.5%
1.6% 1.6%
1.8%
1.6%
Facebook Share of Social Media Visits Slips to 51%
With Pinterest referrals growing
rapidly, particularly for retailers,
and among reports of declining
organic reach, Facebook is a smaller
contributor to social media referrals
this year than last for the average site.
In Q2 2013 Facebook produced 57%
of visits from social media sites. In
Q2 2014 that rate has slipped to 51%.
Pinterest accounted for 21% of social
visits on average, but its share was
much smaller for many sites.
Share of Social Media Visits
Facebook Pinterest Reddit Twitter YouTube Google+ LinkedIn Other
40%
20%
0%
60%
2014-Q22013-Q257%
51%
13%
21%
23%
19%
2% 3% 2% 3%
1.5% 1% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.1%
Comparison  Shopping  Engines
COMPARISON  SHOPPING  ENGINES 21
eBay Commerce Network Up Big Year-Over-Year
Same site revenue on the eBay
Commerce Network was up 69% year-
over-year, far outpacing all other CSEs.
Nextag and Shopzilla continue to
struggle to bring returns for advertisers
as same site revenue decreased 62%
and 35%, respectively.
Same Site Revenue Growth
Y/Y Q280%
40%
0%
–80%
–40%
Amazon
Product Ads
NexTag eBay
Commerce
Network
Shopzilla-
Bizrate
PriceGrabber
22%
–62%
15%
69%
–35%
Amazon Spend Share Down as Advertisers
Pushed Out
Share of total CSE spend going to
Amazon dropped from 17% in Q2 of
last year to 9% in Q2 of 2014 as large
advertisers were moved out of Amazon
Product Ads by Amazon, ostensibly
to move them into the Amazon
Marketplace. With Nextag also down
significantly in spend share year-over-
year as a result of poor returns for
advertisers, eBay and PriceGrabber
have seen huge gains in spend share
year-over-year.
Ad Spend Share by Engine
15%
0%
35%
20%
10%
5%
25%
30%
Amazon
Product Ads
NexTag Other PriceGrabber eBay
Commerce
Network
Shopzilla-
Bizrate
2014-Q22013-Q2
17%
15%
5%
15%
21%
28%
9%
2%
4%
33%
31%
20%
Amazon Product Ad CPC Up 34% Year-Over-Year
Average CPC for Amazon Product
Ads was up significantly year-over-
year in Q2, marking the largest Y/Y
quarterly increase in CPC among CSEs
for the second straight quarter. eBay
Commerce Network CPC continues to
hold steady as their flexible bidding
options allow advertisers more ability
to control CPC.
CPC by Engine
Amazon
Product Ads
NexTag Other PriceGrabber eBay
Commerce
Network
Shopzilla-
Bizrate
$0.30
$0.00
$0.70
$0.40
$0.20
$0.10
$0.50
$0.60
2014-Q22013-Q2
$0.47
$0.63
$0.40
$0.49
$0.35 $0.36
$0.32
$0.39 $0.39 $0.40
$0.48
$0.53
COMPARISON  SHOPPING  ENGINES 22
Google
& Bing
Product Ad
CSEs Offer Advertisers Great Returns
Across all Comparison Shopping
Engines, ROI was 26% higher than
that of Google and Bing product ads
in Q2. This is partly the result of the
inefficiencies inherent in the rate card
system of some CSEs, under which
poorly performing products must be
filtered out of the product feed as
opposed to simply being bid down
like search engine product ad targets.
CSE vs Search Engine Product Ad ROI
60%
0%
140%
80%
40%
20%
100%
120%
Google & Bing
Product Ad
CSE
+26%
Google
PLA
Q2 PLA CPCs Once Again Higher than Amazon
Product Ads
Average CPC for Amazon Product
Ads was 20% lower than that of
Google Product Listing Ads in Q2
after being 31% higher in Q1, when
advertisers bid PLAs down as a result
of decreasing demand following the
holidays while Amazon’s rate card
remained unchanged. In terms of CPC
comparison, Q2 was much more like
Q4, when CPCs for Amazon Product
Ads were 18% lower than that of PLAs.
Amazon Product Ads vs Google PLA CPC
60%
0%
80%
40%
20%
100%
120%
Google
PLA
Amazon
Product Ad
–20%
Google PLAs Continue to Grow Relative to
Amazon Product Ads
Among those participating in both
programs, advertisers have consistently
produced much more revenue from
Google PLAs than Amazon Product
Ads, and the difference continues to
grow. Amazon Product Ads accounted
for 7% as much revenue as Google PLAs
in Q2 of 2014, down from 9% in Q1 and
11% in Q4 of 2013.
Amazon Product Ads vs Google PLA Revenue
2014-Q12013-Q4 2014-Q2
+6%
+8%
+4%
+2%
+10%
+12%
11%
9%
7%
Google PLA
BASELINE
DISPLAY ADVERTISING
DISPLAY ADVERTISING 24
2014-Q1
FBX Ad Spend and CPC Up Significantly in Q2
Advertisers increased their total FBX
investment 72% Q/Q following a
slower Q1 in which advertisers scaled
back following the holiday season. The
increased investment has been used
to increase visibility for ad formats
already in use as well as to try out
formats new to the advertisers. We
may continue to see CPC increase as
the larger right hand rail ads recently
rolled out for FBX result in less real
estate and more competition.
Facebook Exchange Ad Spend & CPC Q/Q
2014-Q1 2014-Q2
Ad Spend CPC
200%
100%
150%
0%
50%
+72%
+20%
FBX CPC Up Q/Q Relative to Other Display
Advertising
While FBX CPC remains lower than that
for other display ads, the difference
is shrinking, as FBX clicks were just
24% cheaper in Q2 compared to 33%
cheaper in Q1. Revenue per click
remains nearly equal between the two,
though FBX measured a hair higher
than other display in Q2 after being
slightly lower in Q1.
Facebook Exchange vs Other Display
Revenue Per Click
–10%
–25%
–5%
–15%
–20%
+5%
CPC
Display
BASELINE
Overall +2%
–24%
FBX Continues to Have Higher CR, Lower AOV
than Other Display
While FBX ads continue to convert
at higher rates with smaller order
values than other display ads, the
gap between the two for both metrics
seems to be closing as the difference in
each is a meager 6%. This convergence
may be a natural result of consumer
behavior on social networks becoming
more like that on the web as a whole.
Facebook Exchange vs Other Display
–10%
–5%
+5%
+10%
Conversion Rate AOV
Display
BASELINE
Overall
+6%
–5%
DISPLAY ADVERTISING 25
Retargeting Strategy Far More Common
Among Display Advertisers
Between those advertisers pursuing
a mixed strategy of prospecting
and retargeting and those who are
retargeting only, 94% of display
advertisers include retargeting in their
ad strategy. The share of prospecting
only advertisers has dropped to 6%,
down from 10% in Q1 and 12% in Q4
of last year, as more advertisers seek to
take advantage of the typically higher
ROI and customer retention qualities
of retargeting.
Percentage of RKG Clients’ Display Goals
Prospect & Retargeting
Retargeting Only
Prospecting Only
67%6%
28%
GDN Remains Small Part of Total Google
Investment
Google text ad and PLA spend
continued to dwarf Google Display
Network spend, accounting for 94%
of total Google investment in Q2, the
same as Q1. While Google does not
reveal the share of ad revenue that
is generated from the GDN, these
results suggest that the percentage is
fairly small.
Share of Total Google Spend
Google Text Ad & PLA Spend GDN Spend
100%
50%
75%
0%
25%
94%
6%
Placements &
Retargeting
Placements & Retargeting Remain Primary
Investment on GDN
Advertisers continue to invest more
heavily in Google Display Network
placement and retargeting campaigns
than contextual campaigns, as the
gap between spend and CPC levels
between the two only grew larger in
Q2. Contextual spend was 15% that of
placement and retargeting spend in
Q2, compared to 27% in Q1.
GDN Placements & Retargeting vs Contextual
Spend CPC
Placements & Retargeting Contextual
60%
0%
80%
40%
20%
100%
120%
–85%
–60%
Founded in 2003, RKG is a search and digital marketing agency that combines superior marketing
talent with world-class digital media capabilities to create the industry’s most effective data-driven
digital marketing solutions. RKG drives business to clients by maximizing a full range of opportunities
including paid search, SEO, product listing ads, social media, display advertising and comparison
shopping engine management services. In 2014, RKG became a part of Merkle, creating the largest
independent search agency. RKG is headquartered in Charlottesville, VA with offices in Bend, OR
and Boston, MA. For more information visit www.rimmkaufman.com or follow the company on Twitter
@rimmkaufman.
ABOUT RKG, A Merkle Company
info@rimmkaufman.com
@rimmkaufman
rimmkaufman.com 
rkgblog.com
METHODOLOGY
Figures are derived from samples of RKG clients who have worked with RKG for each respective
marketing channel. Where applicable, these samples are restricted to those clients who 1) have
maintained active programs with RKG for at least 19 months, 2) have not significantly changed their
strategic objectives or product offerings, and 3) meet a minimum ad spend
threshold. All trended figures presented in this report represent same-site
changes over the given time period. Unless otherwise specified, the data
points in this report are derived from the North American market region.
Merkle, a technology enabled, data driven customer relationship marketing (CRM) firm, is the nation’s
largest privately-held agency. For more than 25 years, Fortune 1000 companies and leading nonprofit
organizations have partnered with Merkle to maximize the value of their customer portfolios. By
combining a complete range of marketing, technical, analytical and creative disciplines, Merkle
works with clients to design, execute and evaluate connected CRM programs. With more than 2,100
employees, the privately held corporation is headquartered in Columbia, Maryland with additional
offices in Boston; Chicago; Denver; Hagerstown; Little Rock; London; Minneapolis; Montvale, NJ;
Nanjing; New York; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; San Francisco and Shanghai. For more information, contact
Merkle at 1-877-9-Merkle, visit www.merkleinc.com or follow the company on Twitter @MerkleCRM.
ABOUT MERKLE

More Related Content

What's hot

Social Intelligence Report | Q1 2014
Social Intelligence Report | Q1 2014Social Intelligence Report | Q1 2014
Social Intelligence Report | Q1 2014Adobe
 
Social Intelligence Report | Q4 2013
Social Intelligence Report | Q4 2013Social Intelligence Report | Q4 2013
Social Intelligence Report | Q4 2013Adobe
 
ENGAGEMENT, CUSTOMER CARE UND CUSTOMER ACQUISITIONEN – WIE DEEZER FANS EROBER...
ENGAGEMENT, CUSTOMER CARE UND CUSTOMER ACQUISITIONEN – WIE DEEZER FANS EROBER...ENGAGEMENT, CUSTOMER CARE UND CUSTOMER ACQUISITIONEN – WIE DEEZER FANS EROBER...
ENGAGEMENT, CUSTOMER CARE UND CUSTOMER ACQUISITIONEN – WIE DEEZER FANS EROBER...AllFacebook.de
 
Microsoft bing ads product overview
Microsoft bing ads  product overview Microsoft bing ads  product overview
Microsoft bing ads product overview Samia Kesseiri
 
Digital Advertising Report 2017
Digital Advertising Report 2017Digital Advertising Report 2017
Digital Advertising Report 2017Adobe
 
The Social Intelligence Report -Adobe Digital Index Q3 2013
The Social Intelligence Report -Adobe Digital Index Q3 2013The Social Intelligence Report -Adobe Digital Index Q3 2013
The Social Intelligence Report -Adobe Digital Index Q3 2013Aidelisa Gutierrez
 
全美2011年4季度在线广告市场报告(英文版)
全美2011年4季度在线广告市场报告(英文版)全美2011年4季度在线广告市场报告(英文版)
全美2011年4季度在线广告市场报告(英文版)武挥 魏
 
Brightroll & IAB Canada 2013 Digital Video Report
Brightroll & IAB Canada 2013 Digital Video ReportBrightroll & IAB Canada 2013 Digital Video Report
Brightroll & IAB Canada 2013 Digital Video ReportIAB Canada
 
Elimination of Right Hand Side Ads in SERP - Study - April 2016
Elimination of Right Hand Side Ads in SERP - Study - April 2016Elimination of Right Hand Side Ads in SERP - Study - April 2016
Elimination of Right Hand Side Ads in SERP - Study - April 2016Subramanian Seshadrinathan
 
Google product update november adwords
Google product update november adwordsGoogle product update november adwords
Google product update november adwordsSearch Talk
 
Digital Advertising Trends in 2020
Digital Advertising Trends in 2020Digital Advertising Trends in 2020
Digital Advertising Trends in 2020Jomer Gregorio
 
keekoo Case Study
keekoo Case Studykeekoo Case Study
keekoo Case StudyTony Golden
 
Kenshoo Whitepaper - Facebook Advertising Boosts Paid Search Performance
Kenshoo Whitepaper - Facebook Advertising Boosts Paid Search PerformanceKenshoo Whitepaper - Facebook Advertising Boosts Paid Search Performance
Kenshoo Whitepaper - Facebook Advertising Boosts Paid Search PerformanceTodd Herrold
 
Search IF Dmytro Melinyshyn 30 10 2015
Search IF Dmytro Melinyshyn 30 10 2015Search IF Dmytro Melinyshyn 30 10 2015
Search IF Dmytro Melinyshyn 30 10 2015PRrally
 
Adobe Performance: Fiscal Year 2015
Adobe Performance: Fiscal Year 2015Adobe Performance: Fiscal Year 2015
Adobe Performance: Fiscal Year 2015Adobe
 
Secrets of Landing Page Testing [132] - Steffek
Secrets of Landing Page Testing [132] - SteffekSecrets of Landing Page Testing [132] - Steffek
Secrets of Landing Page Testing [132] - SteffekRobin Steffek
 

What's hot (20)

Social Intelligence Report | Q1 2014
Social Intelligence Report | Q1 2014Social Intelligence Report | Q1 2014
Social Intelligence Report | Q1 2014
 
Social Intelligence Report | Q4 2013
Social Intelligence Report | Q4 2013Social Intelligence Report | Q4 2013
Social Intelligence Report | Q4 2013
 
ENGAGEMENT, CUSTOMER CARE UND CUSTOMER ACQUISITIONEN – WIE DEEZER FANS EROBER...
ENGAGEMENT, CUSTOMER CARE UND CUSTOMER ACQUISITIONEN – WIE DEEZER FANS EROBER...ENGAGEMENT, CUSTOMER CARE UND CUSTOMER ACQUISITIONEN – WIE DEEZER FANS EROBER...
ENGAGEMENT, CUSTOMER CARE UND CUSTOMER ACQUISITIONEN – WIE DEEZER FANS EROBER...
 
American Advertising Federation & WordStream - Gain and Retain Clients
American Advertising Federation & WordStream - Gain and Retain ClientsAmerican Advertising Federation & WordStream - Gain and Retain Clients
American Advertising Federation & WordStream - Gain and Retain Clients
 
Microsoft bing ads product overview
Microsoft bing ads  product overview Microsoft bing ads  product overview
Microsoft bing ads product overview
 
Digital Advertising Report 2017
Digital Advertising Report 2017Digital Advertising Report 2017
Digital Advertising Report 2017
 
The Social Intelligence Report -Adobe Digital Index Q3 2013
The Social Intelligence Report -Adobe Digital Index Q3 2013The Social Intelligence Report -Adobe Digital Index Q3 2013
The Social Intelligence Report -Adobe Digital Index Q3 2013
 
全美2011年4季度在线广告市场报告(英文版)
全美2011年4季度在线广告市场报告(英文版)全美2011年4季度在线广告市场报告(英文版)
全美2011年4季度在线广告市场报告(英文版)
 
Brightroll & IAB Canada 2013 Digital Video Report
Brightroll & IAB Canada 2013 Digital Video ReportBrightroll & IAB Canada 2013 Digital Video Report
Brightroll & IAB Canada 2013 Digital Video Report
 
Elimination of Right Hand Side Ads in SERP - Study - April 2016
Elimination of Right Hand Side Ads in SERP - Study - April 2016Elimination of Right Hand Side Ads in SERP - Study - April 2016
Elimination of Right Hand Side Ads in SERP - Study - April 2016
 
Google product update november adwords
Google product update november adwordsGoogle product update november adwords
Google product update november adwords
 
Alphabet_GOOGL
Alphabet_GOOGLAlphabet_GOOGL
Alphabet_GOOGL
 
Digital Advertising Trends in 2020
Digital Advertising Trends in 2020Digital Advertising Trends in 2020
Digital Advertising Trends in 2020
 
keekoo Case Study
keekoo Case Studykeekoo Case Study
keekoo Case Study
 
Kenshoo Whitepaper - Facebook Advertising Boosts Paid Search Performance
Kenshoo Whitepaper - Facebook Advertising Boosts Paid Search PerformanceKenshoo Whitepaper - Facebook Advertising Boosts Paid Search Performance
Kenshoo Whitepaper - Facebook Advertising Boosts Paid Search Performance
 
Search IF Dmytro Melinyshyn 30 10 2015
Search IF Dmytro Melinyshyn 30 10 2015Search IF Dmytro Melinyshyn 30 10 2015
Search IF Dmytro Melinyshyn 30 10 2015
 
Adobe Performance: Fiscal Year 2015
Adobe Performance: Fiscal Year 2015Adobe Performance: Fiscal Year 2015
Adobe Performance: Fiscal Year 2015
 
Digital Advertising Webinar
Digital Advertising WebinarDigital Advertising Webinar
Digital Advertising Webinar
 
Secrets of Landing Page Testing [132] - Steffek
Secrets of Landing Page Testing [132] - SteffekSecrets of Landing Page Testing [132] - Steffek
Secrets of Landing Page Testing [132] - Steffek
 
Digital marketing-report 2011
Digital marketing-report 2011Digital marketing-report 2011
Digital marketing-report 2011
 

Viewers also liked

Tools and techniques to validate visual design jaideep and raman
Tools and techniques to validate visual design  jaideep and ramanTools and techniques to validate visual design  jaideep and raman
Tools and techniques to validate visual design jaideep and ramanThoughtworks
 
Almacenamiento en la nube
Almacenamiento en la nubeAlmacenamiento en la nube
Almacenamiento en la nubeHaydé Peláez
 
Guía iab de eficacia mobile 2013
Guía iab de eficacia mobile 2013Guía iab de eficacia mobile 2013
Guía iab de eficacia mobile 2013Javi Clarke
 
Seminario
SeminarioSeminario
SeminarioUTEPSA
 
eBook Concurso Hosteltur - Ideas para Minimizar la Estacionalidad
eBook Concurso Hosteltur - Ideas para Minimizar la EstacionalidadeBook Concurso Hosteltur - Ideas para Minimizar la Estacionalidad
eBook Concurso Hosteltur - Ideas para Minimizar la EstacionalidadJohana Cavalcanti
 

Viewers also liked (8)

Tools and techniques to validate visual design jaideep and raman
Tools and techniques to validate visual design  jaideep and ramanTools and techniques to validate visual design  jaideep and raman
Tools and techniques to validate visual design jaideep and raman
 
Almacenamiento en la nube
Almacenamiento en la nubeAlmacenamiento en la nube
Almacenamiento en la nube
 
AMCC 2009 - Scope Trends and Opportunities
AMCC 2009 - Scope Trends and OpportunitiesAMCC 2009 - Scope Trends and Opportunities
AMCC 2009 - Scope Trends and Opportunities
 
Guía iab de eficacia mobile 2013
Guía iab de eficacia mobile 2013Guía iab de eficacia mobile 2013
Guía iab de eficacia mobile 2013
 
Seminario
SeminarioSeminario
Seminario
 
Web2.0
Web2.0Web2.0
Web2.0
 
eBook Concurso Hosteltur - Ideas para Minimizar la Estacionalidad
eBook Concurso Hosteltur - Ideas para Minimizar la EstacionalidadeBook Concurso Hosteltur - Ideas para Minimizar la Estacionalidad
eBook Concurso Hosteltur - Ideas para Minimizar la Estacionalidad
 
Terminos tics
Terminos ticsTerminos tics
Terminos tics
 

Similar to RKG digital marketing report 2014Q2

Digital Marketing Reporte 2014 (US)
Digital Marketing Reporte 2014 (US)Digital Marketing Reporte 2014 (US)
Digital Marketing Reporte 2014 (US)Javier Ruiz
 
Adobe Digital Index Q4 2015 Advertising Report
Adobe Digital Index Q4 2015 Advertising ReportAdobe Digital Index Q4 2015 Advertising Report
Adobe Digital Index Q4 2015 Advertising ReportAdobe
 
Adobe Digital Index’s Q3 Digital Advertising & Social Intelligence Report
Adobe Digital Index’s Q3 Digital Advertising & Social Intelligence ReportAdobe Digital Index’s Q3 Digital Advertising & Social Intelligence Report
Adobe Digital Index’s Q3 Digital Advertising & Social Intelligence ReportAdobe
 
Adobe Digital Index - Digital Advertising Report | Q2 2015
Adobe Digital Index - Digital Advertising Report | Q2 2015 Adobe Digital Index - Digital Advertising Report | Q2 2015
Adobe Digital Index - Digital Advertising Report | Q2 2015 Webrazzi
 
Capturing and leveraging search beyond the blue links - SMX London 2014
Capturing and leveraging search beyond the blue links - SMX London 2014Capturing and leveraging search beyond the blue links - SMX London 2014
Capturing and leveraging search beyond the blue links - SMX London 2014Cedric Chambaz
 
Ignition one - digital marketing report - Q3 2015
Ignition one - digital marketing report - Q3 2015Ignition one - digital marketing report - Q3 2015
Ignition one - digital marketing report - Q3 2015Romain Fonnier
 
Q1 2015 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
Q1 2015 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark ReportQ1 2015 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
Q1 2015 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark ReportAllan V. Braverman
 
Performics Benchmarking & Industry Developments Report Q3 2013
Performics Benchmarking & Industry Developments Report Q3 2013Performics Benchmarking & Industry Developments Report Q3 2013
Performics Benchmarking & Industry Developments Report Q3 2013Performics
 
Q3 2016 Benchmark Report: Advertisers on Facebook Scale Revenue Through Video...
Q3 2016 Benchmark Report: Advertisers on Facebook Scale Revenue Through Video...Q3 2016 Benchmark Report: Advertisers on Facebook Scale Revenue Through Video...
Q3 2016 Benchmark Report: Advertisers on Facebook Scale Revenue Through Video...Nanigans
 
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?Digital Willow
 
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?Amber Williamson
 
Facebook Advertising Benchmarks: Q2 2016
Facebook Advertising Benchmarks: Q2 2016 Facebook Advertising Benchmarks: Q2 2016
Facebook Advertising Benchmarks: Q2 2016 Nanigans
 
Q1 2017 Benchmark Report: Mobile Surges as Advertisers Generate Higher Return...
Q1 2017 Benchmark Report: Mobile Surges as Advertisers Generate Higher Return...Q1 2017 Benchmark Report: Mobile Surges as Advertisers Generate Higher Return...
Q1 2017 Benchmark Report: Mobile Surges as Advertisers Generate Higher Return...Nanigans
 
Ad roll Facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
Ad roll Facebook-by-the-numbers-2015Ad roll Facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
Ad roll Facebook-by-the-numbers-2015Alexandre Pallota
 
Ad roll facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
Ad roll facebook-by-the-numbers-2015Ad roll facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
Ad roll facebook-by-the-numbers-2015Nguyen Dang Vu
 
IAB Netherlands & DDMA - Report on Paid Search Advertising
IAB Netherlands & DDMA - Report on Paid Search AdvertisingIAB Netherlands & DDMA - Report on Paid Search Advertising
IAB Netherlands & DDMA - Report on Paid Search AdvertisingIAB Europe
 
Global advertising update_q12012
Global advertising update_q12012Global advertising update_q12012
Global advertising update_q12012Gianluigi Spagnoli
 
Q1 2016 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
Q1 2016 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report Q1 2016 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
Q1 2016 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report Nanigans
 
The Tomorrow Lab Presents - Bing Ads For Your Business
The Tomorrow Lab Presents - Bing Ads For Your BusinessThe Tomorrow Lab Presents - Bing Ads For Your Business
The Tomorrow Lab Presents - Bing Ads For Your BusinessThe Tomorrow Lab
 
Q4 2016 Benchmark Report: The Holidays Deliver Higher Returns on Facebook Ad ...
Q4 2016 Benchmark Report: The Holidays Deliver Higher Returns on Facebook Ad ...Q4 2016 Benchmark Report: The Holidays Deliver Higher Returns on Facebook Ad ...
Q4 2016 Benchmark Report: The Holidays Deliver Higher Returns on Facebook Ad ...Nanigans
 

Similar to RKG digital marketing report 2014Q2 (20)

Digital Marketing Reporte 2014 (US)
Digital Marketing Reporte 2014 (US)Digital Marketing Reporte 2014 (US)
Digital Marketing Reporte 2014 (US)
 
Adobe Digital Index Q4 2015 Advertising Report
Adobe Digital Index Q4 2015 Advertising ReportAdobe Digital Index Q4 2015 Advertising Report
Adobe Digital Index Q4 2015 Advertising Report
 
Adobe Digital Index’s Q3 Digital Advertising & Social Intelligence Report
Adobe Digital Index’s Q3 Digital Advertising & Social Intelligence ReportAdobe Digital Index’s Q3 Digital Advertising & Social Intelligence Report
Adobe Digital Index’s Q3 Digital Advertising & Social Intelligence Report
 
Adobe Digital Index - Digital Advertising Report | Q2 2015
Adobe Digital Index - Digital Advertising Report | Q2 2015 Adobe Digital Index - Digital Advertising Report | Q2 2015
Adobe Digital Index - Digital Advertising Report | Q2 2015
 
Capturing and leveraging search beyond the blue links - SMX London 2014
Capturing and leveraging search beyond the blue links - SMX London 2014Capturing and leveraging search beyond the blue links - SMX London 2014
Capturing and leveraging search beyond the blue links - SMX London 2014
 
Ignition one - digital marketing report - Q3 2015
Ignition one - digital marketing report - Q3 2015Ignition one - digital marketing report - Q3 2015
Ignition one - digital marketing report - Q3 2015
 
Q1 2015 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
Q1 2015 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark ReportQ1 2015 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
Q1 2015 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
 
Performics Benchmarking & Industry Developments Report Q3 2013
Performics Benchmarking & Industry Developments Report Q3 2013Performics Benchmarking & Industry Developments Report Q3 2013
Performics Benchmarking & Industry Developments Report Q3 2013
 
Q3 2016 Benchmark Report: Advertisers on Facebook Scale Revenue Through Video...
Q3 2016 Benchmark Report: Advertisers on Facebook Scale Revenue Through Video...Q3 2016 Benchmark Report: Advertisers on Facebook Scale Revenue Through Video...
Q3 2016 Benchmark Report: Advertisers on Facebook Scale Revenue Through Video...
 
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
 
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
Are you getting quality reports from your marketing agency?
 
Facebook Advertising Benchmarks: Q2 2016
Facebook Advertising Benchmarks: Q2 2016 Facebook Advertising Benchmarks: Q2 2016
Facebook Advertising Benchmarks: Q2 2016
 
Q1 2017 Benchmark Report: Mobile Surges as Advertisers Generate Higher Return...
Q1 2017 Benchmark Report: Mobile Surges as Advertisers Generate Higher Return...Q1 2017 Benchmark Report: Mobile Surges as Advertisers Generate Higher Return...
Q1 2017 Benchmark Report: Mobile Surges as Advertisers Generate Higher Return...
 
Ad roll Facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
Ad roll Facebook-by-the-numbers-2015Ad roll Facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
Ad roll Facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
 
Ad roll facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
Ad roll facebook-by-the-numbers-2015Ad roll facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
Ad roll facebook-by-the-numbers-2015
 
IAB Netherlands & DDMA - Report on Paid Search Advertising
IAB Netherlands & DDMA - Report on Paid Search AdvertisingIAB Netherlands & DDMA - Report on Paid Search Advertising
IAB Netherlands & DDMA - Report on Paid Search Advertising
 
Global advertising update_q12012
Global advertising update_q12012Global advertising update_q12012
Global advertising update_q12012
 
Q1 2016 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
Q1 2016 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report Q1 2016 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
Q1 2016 Global Facebook Advertising Benchmark Report
 
The Tomorrow Lab Presents - Bing Ads For Your Business
The Tomorrow Lab Presents - Bing Ads For Your BusinessThe Tomorrow Lab Presents - Bing Ads For Your Business
The Tomorrow Lab Presents - Bing Ads For Your Business
 
Q4 2016 Benchmark Report: The Holidays Deliver Higher Returns on Facebook Ad ...
Q4 2016 Benchmark Report: The Holidays Deliver Higher Returns on Facebook Ad ...Q4 2016 Benchmark Report: The Holidays Deliver Higher Returns on Facebook Ad ...
Q4 2016 Benchmark Report: The Holidays Deliver Higher Returns on Facebook Ad ...
 

More from Pierre Labousset

2014_IAB_Whitepaper_Nativeadvertising
2014_IAB_Whitepaper_Nativeadvertising2014_IAB_Whitepaper_Nativeadvertising
2014_IAB_Whitepaper_NativeadvertisingPierre Labousset
 
Uda_2013_advertisers key figures
Uda_2013_advertisers key figuresUda_2013_advertisers key figures
Uda_2013_advertisers key figuresPierre Labousset
 
Fevad Favori2012 : top ecommerce sites 2012
Fevad Favori2012 : top ecommerce sites 2012Fevad Favori2012 : top ecommerce sites 2012
Fevad Favori2012 : top ecommerce sites 2012Pierre Labousset
 
Les Annonceurs et l’Affiliation en France - Enquête CPA 2012
Les Annonceurs et l’Affiliation en France - Enquête CPA 2012Les Annonceurs et l’Affiliation en France - Enquête CPA 2012
Les Annonceurs et l’Affiliation en France - Enquête CPA 2012Pierre Labousset
 
Comment identifier les combinaisons gagnantes grâce aux nouveaux modèles d’at...
Comment identifier les combinaisons gagnantes grâce aux nouveaux modèles d’at...Comment identifier les combinaisons gagnantes grâce aux nouveaux modèles d’at...
Comment identifier les combinaisons gagnantes grâce aux nouveaux modèles d’at...Pierre Labousset
 

More from Pierre Labousset (6)

2014_IAB_Whitepaper_Nativeadvertising
2014_IAB_Whitepaper_Nativeadvertising2014_IAB_Whitepaper_Nativeadvertising
2014_IAB_Whitepaper_Nativeadvertising
 
Uda_2013_advertisers key figures
Uda_2013_advertisers key figuresUda_2013_advertisers key figures
Uda_2013_advertisers key figures
 
Iab ads guidelines_2013
Iab ads guidelines_2013Iab ads guidelines_2013
Iab ads guidelines_2013
 
Fevad Favori2012 : top ecommerce sites 2012
Fevad Favori2012 : top ecommerce sites 2012Fevad Favori2012 : top ecommerce sites 2012
Fevad Favori2012 : top ecommerce sites 2012
 
Les Annonceurs et l’Affiliation en France - Enquête CPA 2012
Les Annonceurs et l’Affiliation en France - Enquête CPA 2012Les Annonceurs et l’Affiliation en France - Enquête CPA 2012
Les Annonceurs et l’Affiliation en France - Enquête CPA 2012
 
Comment identifier les combinaisons gagnantes grâce aux nouveaux modèles d’at...
Comment identifier les combinaisons gagnantes grâce aux nouveaux modèles d’at...Comment identifier les combinaisons gagnantes grâce aux nouveaux modèles d’at...
Comment identifier les combinaisons gagnantes grâce aux nouveaux modèles d’at...
 

Recently uploaded

Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access
 
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig OnlineTo Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Onlinelng ths
 
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story pointsData skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story pointsyasinnathani
 
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdfPDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdfHajeJanKamps
 
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb toLecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb toumarfarooquejamali32
 
7movierulz.uk
7movierulz.uk7movierulz.uk
7movierulz.ukaroemirsr
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Lviv Startup Club
 
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..dlewis191
 
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)tazeenaila12
 
MC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in JhangMC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in Jhangmcgroupjeya
 
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024Stephan Koning
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsIntellect Design Arena Ltd
 
NewBase 25 March 2024 Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
NewBase  25 March  2024  Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...NewBase  25 March  2024  Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
NewBase 25 March 2024 Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...Khaled Al Awadi
 
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdfPDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdfHajeJanKamps
 
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003believeminhh
 
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...TalentView
 
Anyhr.io | Presentation HR&Recruiting agency
Anyhr.io | Presentation HR&Recruiting agencyAnyhr.io | Presentation HR&Recruiting agency
Anyhr.io | Presentation HR&Recruiting agencyHanna Klim
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHelene Heckrotte
 
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakTata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakEditores1
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
 
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig OnlineTo Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
 
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story pointsData skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
 
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdfPDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
 
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb toLecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
 
7movierulz.uk
7movierulz.uk7movierulz.uk
7movierulz.uk
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
 
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
Team B Mind Map for Organizational Chg..
 
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
 
MC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in JhangMC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in Jhang
 
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
 
NewBase 25 March 2024 Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
NewBase  25 March  2024  Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...NewBase  25 March  2024  Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
NewBase 25 March 2024 Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
 
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdfPDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
 
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
The Vietnam Believer Newsletter_MARCH 25, 2024_EN_Vol. 003
 
WAM Corporate Presentation Mar 25 2024.pdf
WAM Corporate Presentation Mar 25 2024.pdfWAM Corporate Presentation Mar 25 2024.pdf
WAM Corporate Presentation Mar 25 2024.pdf
 
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
 
Anyhr.io | Presentation HR&Recruiting agency
Anyhr.io | Presentation HR&Recruiting agencyAnyhr.io | Presentation HR&Recruiting agency
Anyhr.io | Presentation HR&Recruiting agency
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
 
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakTata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
 

RKG digital marketing report 2014Q2

  • 2. 04 PAID SEARCH 03 Executive Summary 15 ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 20 COMPARISON SHOPPING ENGINES 23 DISPLAY ADVERTISING 26 ABOUT RKG & METHODOLOGY TaBLE OF CONTENTS
  • 3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Paid Search • Google paid search spending growth accelerated to 24% Y/Y in Q2. Paid clicks rose 13%, while CPCs rose 10% as advertisers responded to improving conversion performance. • Bing Ads search spending grew 19% Y/Y across Bing, Yahoo and their search partners. Paid clicks rose 22%, but CPCs fell 3% due to a mix shift to mobile. • Advertiser spending on Google Product Listing Ads (PLAs) and Bing Product Ads rose 72% Y/Y. For retailers, PLAs produced 26% of Google search clicks overall. • Smartphones generated 19% of paid search clicks and 9% of search spend, while tablets produced 18% of clicks and 19% of spend. Smartphone clicks rose 47% Y/Y, compared to a 43% increase for tablets and a 2% decline for desktop. • Google conversion tracking data and estimates show that cross-device tracking surfaces 7% more conversions overall and 14% more smartphone conversions that would otherwise not be attributed to search. Organic Search & Social • Organic search produced 31% of all site visits in Q2 2014, which was down from 36% in the first half of 2013. As the major search engines work to better monetize their listings with larger and more appealing ads, organic search volume will continue to get squeezed in favor of paid. • Smartphones and tablets produced a combined 34% of organic search visits in Q2, up from 31% in Q1. Both iPhone and Android picked up share, while iPad traffic share was flat. • Social media sites produced 1.6% of all sites visits in Q2. Facebook continues to lead the way with 51% of visits produced by social media sites, but its contribution has slipped as Pinterest has become a larger traffic source for retail sites. • Mobile devices accounted for 42% of visits produced by social media in Q2. That was up two percentage points from Q1 and 17 points from a year earlier. Comparison Shopping ENGINES • The eBay Commerce Network and PriceGrabber both made large gains in CSE spend share compared to a year earlier as all other major engines saw losses. • Among advertisers running both Amazon Product Ads and Google PLAs, revenue volume from Amazon’s program was just 7% that of PLAs in Q2, down from 9% in Q1. DISPLAY ADVERTISING • For advertisers actively advertising on the Google Display Network (GDN) and running AdWords paid search ads, GDN accounted for 6% of total Google spending, the same rate as the previous quarter.
  • 5. PAID SEARCH 5 Total Paid Search Spending Growth Accelerates to 23% Y/Y After a slow start to the calendar year, paid search spending growth accelerated at the end of Q1 and remained elevated through Q2. Advertisers responded to improving conversion performance by pushing CPCs up 8% Y/Y to capture additional volume. Paid search click growth improved to 14% Y/Y from an 11% growth rate in the prior quarter. Overall U.S. Paid Search Trends Relative to Q2 2013 +45% +30% +15% 2013-Q2 –15% BASELINE ClicksAd Spend CPC 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 +8% +14% +23% Google Paid Search Clicks Up 13% Y/Y, CPC Growth Continues to Rise While advertisers are paying considerably lower CPCs for their own brand terms due to Google Ad Rank changes in 2013, total Google search CPCs rose 10% Y/Y on the strength of non-brand text ads and PLAs. Click volume improved 13% Y/Y resulting in 24% growth in ad spend. This was an appreciable increase from 17% Y/Y spending growth in Q1. Google Overall U.S. Paid Search Trends Relative to Q2 2013 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 +10% +13% +24% ClicksAd Spend CPC +45% +30% +15% 2013-Q2 –15% BASELINE Bing Ads Delivers Big Increase in Click Volume, But CPCs Slip Y/Y While Bing Ads was able to deliver an impressive 22% Y/Y increase in clicks, that additional volume may have come at the expense of traffic quality. Responding to a slight dip in conversion performance, advertisers brought their CPCs down 3% from a year earlier. We may be seeing the effects of a relative shift to mobile, as we did see Bing Ads appear to make strides in that area. Bing Ads Overall U.S. Paid Search Trends Relative to Q2 2013 –3% +22% +19% +40% +20% +10% 2013-Q2 –20% BASELINE –10% +30% –30% 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 ClicksAd Spend CPC
  • 6. PAID SEARCH 6 PLA CPC Growth Helps Drive Google Non-Brand Spending Up 29% While Google non-brand text ad CPCs rose 12% Y/Y, CPCs for PLAs rose nearly 35% and helped push total non- brand spending up 29% Y/Y in Q2. Google advertisers have been able to push the gas on PLAs because the ROI there still remains higher than that for non-brand text ads. Google Non-Brand U.S. Paid Search Trends Relative to Q2 2013 +18% +9% +29% 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 +50% +25% 2013-Q2 BASELINE –25% ClicksAd Spend CPC Product Ads Still Producing Huge Growth with Spend Up 72% Y/Y Including Google’s PLA format and the Product Ad format that Bing Ads introduced in late 2013, search advertiser spending on image-based product ads rose 72% Y/Y in Q2 on a 28% increase in click volume and a 35% increase in CPC. Text ad spending growth ticked up from 6% Y/Y in Q1 to 11% in Q2. Overall U.S. Paid Search Growth by Format Q2 2014 Ad Spend Clicks CPC Text Ads PLAs/Product Ads60% 40% 20% 80% 0% Bing Ads Non-Brand Spending Growth at 19% Although we didn’t see Bing Ads achieve the same year-over-year non- brand spending growth as Google in Q2, Bing Ads spend nearly reached its Q4 levels. Non-brand click volume rose 26% Y/Y, while CPCs fell 6%. As noted above, this is indicative of a greater contribution from mobile. Bing Non-Brand U.S. Paid Search Trends Relative to Q2 2013+40% +20% 2013-Q2 BASELINE –20% 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 –6% +26% +19% ClicksAd Spend CPC –40% 72% 11% 4% 28% 7% 35%
  • 7. PAID SEARCH 7 PLA Click Share Flat from Quarter to Quarter Following a decent jump from Q4 to Q1 as Google gave PLAs more prominence by serving them above the organic listings more frequently, PLA click share was flat from Q1 to Q2. For retailers running both text ads and PLAs, PLAs generated 26% of Google paid search clicks overall and 50% of non-brand clicks. PLA Share of Google Paid Search Clicks Aggregate Results - U.S. Retail60% 40% 20% 0% 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 26% 50% Non-Brand Overall 30% 50% 10% Despite Large CPC Rise, PLA ROI Remains 13% Better than Comparable Text Ads Even with CPCs running 35% higher than a year earlier, advertiser ROI from PLAs was still 13% above that for comparable non-brand text ads in Q2. Although it is not a pure apples- to-apples comparison because of differences in query mix, PLAs also generated click-through rates that were 2.5X that for non-brand text ads and conversion rates that were 37% higher. PLA Performance vs Text Ads Median Site Results - U.S. Retail CPC CTR ROI Conv. Rate AOV +150% +50% Text Ads –100% +100% –50% BASELINE 43% 1% 13% 149% –65% 13% –26% 37% –18% –15% PLAs vs Non-Brand Text AdsPLAs vs Overall Text Ads PLA CPCs Slip Again Compared to Text Ads, But Have Come a Long Way Before Google completed its transition to the paid Google Shopping model, we found PLA CPCs to run 23% lower than comparable text ads. That gap quickly narrowed and PLA CPCs eventually overtook text ads in late 2013. While PLA CPCs have slipped versus text ads following the Q4 holiday season, that trend will likely reverse later this year. Google PLA CPC vs Non-Brand Text Ads Median Site Results - U.S. Retail+10% Non-Brand Text Ads -25% BASELINE +5% -5% -10% -15% -20% 1% Q1 Q2 2013 Q3 Q4Q2 2012 Q3 Q4 Q1 2014 Q2
  • 8. PAID SEARCH 8 PLA Click Share Varies by 36% Across Retail Sub- Industries In Q2, we once again found that the contribution of PLAs to click volume was greatest for Consumer Electronics retailers where PLAs provided 65% of non-brand Google clicks. At the low end, PLAs were 29% of non- brand Health & Beauty clicks. Apparel retailers generated 37% of their non- brand clicks from PLAs. PLA Share of Non-Brand Google Paid Search Clicks Q2 2014 Median Site Results - U.S. Retail Flowers & Gifts Cars & Auto Health & Beauty Apparel Sporting Goods Books Home & Garden Consumer Electronics 60% 40% 20% 0% 30% 50% 10% 70% Bing Product Ads Edge Up in Volume and Spend Share Among sites participating in the Bing Product Ads program, the new format produced 8% of Bing Ads non-brand search clicks and spend. That was just a modest uptick from Q1 where the same metrics were 7%. The revenue contribution of Product Ads fell slightly from quarter to quarter. Bing Ads — Product Ads Share of Non-Brand Median Site Results Ad Spend Clicks Revenue 2014-Q2 2014-Q1 2013-Q4 0% 5% 10% 15% Bing Product Ads Produce 48% Higher Revenue Per Click than Text Ads While Bing Product Ad CPCs ran slightly below those for non-brand text ads, revenue per click was 48% higher in Q2. For comparison, Google PLA revenue per click was just 17% higher than that for non-brand text ads, suggesting that Bing Ads has a big opportunity to expand the serving of Product Ads to a broader range of queries. Bing Ads — Product Ads vs Non-Brand Text Ads Q2 2014 Median Site Results CPC RPC CTR 48% -8% 19% +20% +50% Text Ads BASELINE Non-Brand +30% +40% +10% 8.3% 7.1% 6.5% 5.9% 7.1% 7.6% 8.3% 12.2% 10.3% 29% 30% 33% 37% 44% 48% 49% 65%
  • 9. PAID SEARCH 9 GoogleGainsSpendShare,BingAdsGainsonClicks We find Google gaining roughly half a percentage point of paid search spend share from year to year in Q2. At the same time, Bing Ads has gained a little over one point of paid search click share. As Google PLA CPCs have caught up to and surpassed text ad CPCs, Google has exhibited relative strength on the spend side. Google Share of U.S. Paid Search 2014-Q2 2013-Q2 81% 82% 83% Ad Spend Clicks Google Commanding Higher Non-Brand CPCs Due to Advantage in Conversion Rate In Q2, the conversion rate for non- brand Google search ads was 52% higher than the same metric for Bing Ads.Withaverageordervalueroughly equal for the two engines, Google commanded 48% higher non-brand CPCs than Bing. The contribution of Google PLAs is a large factor here as PLAs produced a 37% higher conversion rate than text ads. Non-Brand: Google Metrics vs Bing Ads Q2 2014 Median Site Results +20% +40% +60% +10% +30% +50% CPC CTR ROI Conv. Rate AOV Non-Brand BASELINE Bing Ads 48% 8% 9% 52% 0.4% Brand Ads Still Considerably Less Expensive on Google Although search ads for most sites’ own brand terms are much less expensive than non-brand ads for both engines, brand ads cost 34% less per click on Google in Q2 than Bing Ads. Google brand ads also produced much higher click-through rates, suggesting advertisers face greater competitive pressure for their brand on Bing compared to Google. Brand: Google Metrics vs Bing Ads Q2 2014 Median Site Results Non-Brand BASELINE Bing Ads +50% +100% +200% +150% —50% CPC CTR ROI Conv. Rate AOV –34% 183% 93% 14% 4% 82.2% 82.8% 82.6% 81.5%
  • 10. PAID SEARCH 10 Google Search Partner Contribution On the Decline With its Q2 earnings report, Google is set to provide CPC and click growth broken out by property for the first time. Our results suggest that Google’s search partner network has slipped more on the CPC side compared to Google.com as its share of ad spend has fallen nearly 5% in the past year, while its share of clicks fell just 2%. Google Search Partner Share Median Site Results 2014-Q2 2013-Q2 Ad Spend ShareClick Share 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 18% 17% 17% 12% PLAs Not Well-Monetized on Google Search Partner Sites While PLAs produced 26% of total Google search clicks this past quarter, they only produced 7% of Google search partner clicks. That is up from providing nearly 0% of partner clicks a year earlier, but the relatively slow monetization of PLAs on the partner network may explain a large part of the decline in search partner share that we see. PLA Share of Google Paid Search Clicks 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 2014-Q22013-Q2 Search Partners Google Overall 26% 7% 0.1% Search Partner Conversion Rates About Half That of Google.com Although we’ve seen some improvement in the conversion rates produced by Google search partners in the past year, partner conversion rate still ran 47% below that of Google.com traffic, according to Google conversion tracking data. Advertisers have limited ability to account for this performance difference beyond turning partner traffic completely off. Google Search Partner Conversion Rate vs Google.com Median Site Results 2014-Q22013-Q2 Google.com –20% –10% BASELINE –52% –47%–40% –30% –60% –50%
  • 11. PAID SEARCH 11 Smartphones and Tablets Combine for 37% of Paid Search Clicks At 37%, mobile traffic share was up one percentage point from Q1. Smartphones provided the bulk of that lift as tablet traffic share was essentially flat at 18%. While we saw larger mobile gains for Bing Ads, those were washed out by Google’s much greater volume. Mobile Share of Paid Search Clicks 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q22012-Q4 Tablet Smartphone 10% 13% 14% 16% 16% 18% 18% 9% 12% 14% 14% 16% 18% 19% 0% 10% 20% 40% 30% Mobile’s Share of Bing Ads Clicks Jumps 8% from Quarter to Quarter While mobile’s share of Google traffic was roughly flat from Q1 to Q2 at 38%, we saw a surprisingly large jump in mobile’s contribution to Bing Ads traffic. In Q1 we found that mobile produced 25% of Bing Ads clicks, but that figure rose to 33% in Q2. We cannot conclusively explain the rapid increase, but it may reflect increased broad matching on mobile and greater adoption of Bing’s Enhanced Campaigns functionality. Mobile Click Share by Engine 0% 10% 20% 40% 30% Google Bing Ads Combined Smartphone Tablet Mobile Share of Paid Search Spend Reaches 28% Although they generated a higher share of clicks than tablets, smartphones produced less than half the spend that tablets did in the second quarter due to smartphone’s poorer conversion performance. In Q2, 9% of paid search spend went to smartphone traffic, while 19% of spending went to tablet traffic. Mobile Share of Paid Search Ad Spend 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q22012-Q4 0% 10% 20% 30% Tablet Smartphone 10% 5% 37.5% 32.7% 19.1% 16.3% 18.4% 16.5% 14% 15% 17% 18% 20% 19% 7% 9% 6% 7% 7% 9% 15.5% 21.5% 24.1% 23.9% 25.2% 26.9% 27.7% 19.5% 25.1% 27.9% 29.6% 32.5% 35.5% 36.5%
  • 12. PAID SEARCH 12 Desktop Traffic Click Volume Down 2%, Despite Aggressive CPC Increases Reflecting improvement in the value produced by desktop traffic, advertisers pushed CPCs up 16% Y/Y in Q2. However, desktop click volume still fell 2% Y/Y. Smartphone CPCs were down 12% Y/Y, but click volume rose 47%. Smartphone CPC growth is likely to turn positive in Q3 as we pass the anniversary of the Enhanced Campaigns transition, when many advertisers opted to raise their ROI targets for smartphone traffic. Year-Over-Year Growth by Device Class Ad Spend Clicks CPC Smartphone Desktop Tablet 14% 30% 56% 47% 43% –2% 16% –12% 9% 20% 0% –20% 40% 60% Tablet Revenue Per Click Continues to Slide, Now at 77% of Desktop Levels Although tablets are grouped with desktop under Google’s Enhanced Campaign model, their conversion performance has not been as strong for a number of quarters and that gap has only widened. Bing Ads recently announced that they will also group tablets with desktop, but allow advertisers to bid tablets down by as much as 20%. These results suggest that this range will not be sufficient for many sites. Revenue Per Click vs Desktop 120% 60% 40% 20% 80% 100% 0% 77% 34% Desktop TabletSmartphone 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 Smartphone CPCs Reverse Declines Compared to Desktop Following three quarters of declines relative to desktop, smartphone CPCs edged back up in Q2 coming in at 41% of desktop levels. Smartphone revenue per click has been improving and more advertisers have been incorporating Google’s cross-device tracking insights into their ROI target considerations. Google Mobile CPC vs Desktop 120% 60% 40% 20% 80% 100% 0% 93% 41% Desktop 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 TabletSmartphone
  • 13. PAID SEARCH 13 Old Browser Versions Yield Poor Performance While Google will take into account the type of browser a searcher uses in some of the automated bidding adjustments advertisers can allow Google to make for them, Google has not provided a mechanism for advertisers to do this themselves. That is unfortunate since browser version can be highly predictive of conversionperformance,withSafari7users producing a 96% higher than average revenue per click and users of old versions of Firefox producing a 60% lower than average RPC. Revenue Per Click by Desktop Browser vs Overall Average OtherChrome Chrome34 Chrome35 OtherFirefox Firefox28 Firefox29 OtherMSIE MSIE9 MSIE10 OtherSafari Safari6 Safari7 OtherBrowsers 15% 4% –60% 14% 18% –39% –11% –6%0.6% 0.5% 22% 82% 96% –75% +100% +50% –25% +25% +75% Average BASELINE Overall –50% iPad Tablet Traffic Share at 79%, Windows Tablets Reach 7% We find the iPad losing about six percentage points of tablet traffic share over the past year, with most of those losses going to touch- compatible Windows computers. The latter group of devices includes Microsoft’s Surface, but also a number of computers that may be better grouped with traditional laptops in their form and function. Share of Tablet Paid Search Clicks Other Tablets 75% 50% 25% 0% 100% iPad Other Tablets 4% 3% 2% 0% 5% 1% Windows Tablet Other Android Kindle Galaxy Tablet Nexus Tablet 6% 7% 2014-Q2 2014-Q1 2013-Q3 2013-Q2 2013-Q1 2013-Q4 Android Tablets Weighing Down Tablet Revenue Per Click While iPad traffic generates a revenue per click that is about 10% lower than that from desktop and laptop computers, the best performing Android tablet produces a revenue per click that is only half that seen from the desktop group. These results demonstrate that user context beyond the three main device categories can greatly shift performance. Revenue Per Click by Device vs Desktop Q2 2014 100% 80% 60% 20% 0% 40% 120% Desktop Windows Tablet Desktop iPad Nexus Tablet Other Android Tablets Other Tablets iPhoneKindle Fire Android Phone Windows Phone 116% 100% 92% 50% 45% 42% 41% 31% 28% 6%
  • 14. PAID SEARCH 14 Smartphones Produce 25% of Cross-Device Conversions, 12% of Traditionally Tracked Conversions According to Google conversion tracking and estimates, smartphones contributed 12% of the conversions that took place on the same device as the ad clicks that led to them. Among the pool of additional orders surfaced from cross-device tracking, smartphones contributed nearly 25% of orders. Share of Cross-Device Conversions Share of Single-Device Conversions Desktop 72% Tablet 15% Smartphone 12% Desktop 59% Tablet 16% Smartphone 25% Cross-Device Tracking Surfaces 7% More Orders Overall, 14% More Smartphone Orders In anticipating the impact Google’s cross-device estimates may ultimately have on advertiser spending, we see that cross-device tracking surfaces 7% more orders overall, but 14% more smartphone orders. That will not be nearly enough to completely close the gap in CPCs between smartphones and desktop, but more advertisers are taking these figures into account in setting smartphone ROI targets. Lift in Conversions from Including Cross-Device 16% 4% 8% 12% 0% Total Desktop Tablet Smartphone 7% 6% 7% 14% Not Provided Stable at Nearly 80% of AdWords Clicks The day after Google announced it would stop passing search queries to advertisers via referrer, Not Provided share of Google paid search jumped to 45%. We saw another large increase in Not Provided share a little over a week later and it has remained at a little below 80% since then. Advertisers can still gain insights into user queries via Google’s search terms report. Not Provided Share of Google AdWords Paid Search Traffic100% 50% 75% 0% 78% April 25% May June July 2014 2014 2014 2014
  • 16. ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 16 Organic Traffic Share Down as More Clicks Become Paid Although the share of all site visits generated by organic search has held steady at 31% for three quarters, that is down appreciably from an average of 36% for the first half of 2013. As the major search engines work to better monetize their listings with larger and more appealing ads, organic search volume will continue to get squeezed in favor of paid. Organic Search Share of All U.S. Site Visits 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 31%30% 20% 10% 40% 50% 0% Bing Slowly Gaining Search Share at the Expense of Smaller Engines Over the past year, we have seen Bing’s share of organic search visits increase from 8% in Q2 2013 to nearly 10% in Q2 2014. These gains have come at the expense of second-tier search engines, as well as Google. Note that these figures represent site visits, so any shifts in SERP monetization may exaggerate or understate the underlying trends in raw search query volume. U.S. Organic Search Visit Share by Engine Other Engines Google Other Engines Bing Yahoo Other 10% 8% 6% 12% 0% 4% 2% 60% 40% 20% 80% 100% 0% 2014-Q2 2014-Q1 2013-Q3 2013-Q2 2013-Q1 2013-Q4 Google Owns U.S. Mobile Search with 88% Share, But Yahoo Edging Up In Q2 2014, 88% of mobile organic search visits were produced by Google, compared to 81% across all devices. Yahoo has seen its share of mobile organic tick up though, from 7% in Q2 last year to nearly 8% this year. Bing has made smaller gains over the same time period and remains a distant third, producing just 4% of mobile organic search visits. Share of U.S. Mobile Organic Search by Engine Q2 2014 Google Yahoo Bing 88% 8% 4%
  • 17. ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 17 2014-Q12013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 Tablets and Smartphones Account for 34% of Organic Search in Q2 On the growth of iPhone and Android traffic, mobile share of organic search rose from 31% in Q1 to nearly 34% in Q2. Both device groups saw their share rise 1.3 percentage points from Q1 to Q2 with the iPhone accounting for 12% of visits in Q2 and Android devices accounting for 10%. iPad traffic share was flat at a little over 11% in Q1 and Q2. Mobile Share of U.S. Organic Search Visits Android iPhoneiPad Other35% 20% 10% 0% 30% 25% 15% 5% 12% 11% 10% Organic Search Visits Fall Year-Over-Year Despite Mobile Growth Mobile search visits were up 18% year-over-year in Q2, but that was not enough to offset desktop declines, and total organic search visits fell 7%. The overall decline is indicative of a shift from organic to paid search, where growth has been robust and even accelerating. Y/Y Growth in Organic Search Visits Q2 2014 Mobile Overall 5% 0% –5% 10% –10% 15% 20% 18% –7% Bing Not Keeping Pace in Organic Mobile Visits Google and Yahoo were neck and neck in the share mobile contributed to each engine’s organic search visits in Q2, while Bing remained well behind both. In Q2, 37% of Yahoo organic search visits were mobile, up 10 percentage points from a year earlier. For Google, 36% of organic search visits were mobile, which was up 7 points. Bing saw 17% of its visits from mobile in Q2 2014, which was just a 4 point increase from a year earlier. Share of Each Engine’s Traffic from Mobile Google Yahoo Bing 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 30% 20% 10% 40% 0% 28% 29% 31% 31% 33% 36% 23% 27% 31% 30% 37% 37% 8% 13% 16% 14% 16% 17%
  • 18. ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 18 Not Provided Visit Share Reaches 90% The share of Google organic searches that did not pass queries to site owners shot up from 40% to 80% over just a 10 week period last year. Since then, tracking the subsequent rise in Not Provided share has been more of a curiosity than anything, but we finally saw it reach 90% at the end of Q2. As we’ve noted before, queries still being passed are skewed towards certain web browsers and likely do not represent total Google queries very well. Not Provided Share of Google Organic Search Traffic 90% Q 1 Q 2 2013 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 2012 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 2014 Q 2 75% 50% 25% 0% 100% Yahoo Not Provided Share Hovering Just Above 40% Speaking of curiosities, it is interesting to see that Yahoo’s Not Provided share, as recorded by Google Analytics, has stayed only just above 40% since the engine moved to secure search earlier this year. Given that all searches on Yahoo.com should be secure and not pass queries, we would expect the figure to run much higher. Not Provided Share of Yahoo Organic Search Traffic 30% 0% 50% 41%40% 20% 10% 2014 M ar 30 Apr 6 Apr 13 Apr 20 Apr 27 M ay 4 M ay 11 M ay 18 M ay 25 Jun 1 Jun 8 Jun 15 Jun 22
  • 19. ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 19 Mobile Devices Produce 42% of Social Media Visits Outpacing the trends we see for search, mobile accounted for 42% of site visits produced by social media. That is up two percentage points from the previous quarter and 17 percentage points from a year earlier. Mobile Share of Social Media Visits 42% 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 30% 0% 50% 40% 20% 10% Social Media Sites Produce 1.6% of Site Visits on Average In what may be a reflection of the decline in organic Facebook reach many site owners are witnessing, average visit share from social media sites, including earned and paid traffic, rose only slightly in Q2 2014 compared to a year earlier and fell from Q1 to Q2. Although a small contributor to traffic on average, social media’s importance is variable from site to site, with some seeing nearly a quarter of their traffic from the channel. Social Media Share of All Site Visits 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0% 2.0% 2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2 1.4% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.8% 1.6% Facebook Share of Social Media Visits Slips to 51% With Pinterest referrals growing rapidly, particularly for retailers, and among reports of declining organic reach, Facebook is a smaller contributor to social media referrals this year than last for the average site. In Q2 2013 Facebook produced 57% of visits from social media sites. In Q2 2014 that rate has slipped to 51%. Pinterest accounted for 21% of social visits on average, but its share was much smaller for many sites. Share of Social Media Visits Facebook Pinterest Reddit Twitter YouTube Google+ LinkedIn Other 40% 20% 0% 60% 2014-Q22013-Q257% 51% 13% 21% 23% 19% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1.5% 1% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.1%
  • 21. COMPARISON  SHOPPING  ENGINES 21 eBay Commerce Network Up Big Year-Over-Year Same site revenue on the eBay Commerce Network was up 69% year- over-year, far outpacing all other CSEs. Nextag and Shopzilla continue to struggle to bring returns for advertisers as same site revenue decreased 62% and 35%, respectively. Same Site Revenue Growth Y/Y Q280% 40% 0% –80% –40% Amazon Product Ads NexTag eBay Commerce Network Shopzilla- Bizrate PriceGrabber 22% –62% 15% 69% –35% Amazon Spend Share Down as Advertisers Pushed Out Share of total CSE spend going to Amazon dropped from 17% in Q2 of last year to 9% in Q2 of 2014 as large advertisers were moved out of Amazon Product Ads by Amazon, ostensibly to move them into the Amazon Marketplace. With Nextag also down significantly in spend share year-over- year as a result of poor returns for advertisers, eBay and PriceGrabber have seen huge gains in spend share year-over-year. Ad Spend Share by Engine 15% 0% 35% 20% 10% 5% 25% 30% Amazon Product Ads NexTag Other PriceGrabber eBay Commerce Network Shopzilla- Bizrate 2014-Q22013-Q2 17% 15% 5% 15% 21% 28% 9% 2% 4% 33% 31% 20% Amazon Product Ad CPC Up 34% Year-Over-Year Average CPC for Amazon Product Ads was up significantly year-over- year in Q2, marking the largest Y/Y quarterly increase in CPC among CSEs for the second straight quarter. eBay Commerce Network CPC continues to hold steady as their flexible bidding options allow advertisers more ability to control CPC. CPC by Engine Amazon Product Ads NexTag Other PriceGrabber eBay Commerce Network Shopzilla- Bizrate $0.30 $0.00 $0.70 $0.40 $0.20 $0.10 $0.50 $0.60 2014-Q22013-Q2 $0.47 $0.63 $0.40 $0.49 $0.35 $0.36 $0.32 $0.39 $0.39 $0.40 $0.48 $0.53
  • 22. COMPARISON  SHOPPING  ENGINES 22 Google & Bing Product Ad CSEs Offer Advertisers Great Returns Across all Comparison Shopping Engines, ROI was 26% higher than that of Google and Bing product ads in Q2. This is partly the result of the inefficiencies inherent in the rate card system of some CSEs, under which poorly performing products must be filtered out of the product feed as opposed to simply being bid down like search engine product ad targets. CSE vs Search Engine Product Ad ROI 60% 0% 140% 80% 40% 20% 100% 120% Google & Bing Product Ad CSE +26% Google PLA Q2 PLA CPCs Once Again Higher than Amazon Product Ads Average CPC for Amazon Product Ads was 20% lower than that of Google Product Listing Ads in Q2 after being 31% higher in Q1, when advertisers bid PLAs down as a result of decreasing demand following the holidays while Amazon’s rate card remained unchanged. In terms of CPC comparison, Q2 was much more like Q4, when CPCs for Amazon Product Ads were 18% lower than that of PLAs. Amazon Product Ads vs Google PLA CPC 60% 0% 80% 40% 20% 100% 120% Google PLA Amazon Product Ad –20% Google PLAs Continue to Grow Relative to Amazon Product Ads Among those participating in both programs, advertisers have consistently produced much more revenue from Google PLAs than Amazon Product Ads, and the difference continues to grow. Amazon Product Ads accounted for 7% as much revenue as Google PLAs in Q2 of 2014, down from 9% in Q1 and 11% in Q4 of 2013. Amazon Product Ads vs Google PLA Revenue 2014-Q12013-Q4 2014-Q2 +6% +8% +4% +2% +10% +12% 11% 9% 7% Google PLA BASELINE
  • 24. DISPLAY ADVERTISING 24 2014-Q1 FBX Ad Spend and CPC Up Significantly in Q2 Advertisers increased their total FBX investment 72% Q/Q following a slower Q1 in which advertisers scaled back following the holiday season. The increased investment has been used to increase visibility for ad formats already in use as well as to try out formats new to the advertisers. We may continue to see CPC increase as the larger right hand rail ads recently rolled out for FBX result in less real estate and more competition. Facebook Exchange Ad Spend & CPC Q/Q 2014-Q1 2014-Q2 Ad Spend CPC 200% 100% 150% 0% 50% +72% +20% FBX CPC Up Q/Q Relative to Other Display Advertising While FBX CPC remains lower than that for other display ads, the difference is shrinking, as FBX clicks were just 24% cheaper in Q2 compared to 33% cheaper in Q1. Revenue per click remains nearly equal between the two, though FBX measured a hair higher than other display in Q2 after being slightly lower in Q1. Facebook Exchange vs Other Display Revenue Per Click –10% –25% –5% –15% –20% +5% CPC Display BASELINE Overall +2% –24% FBX Continues to Have Higher CR, Lower AOV than Other Display While FBX ads continue to convert at higher rates with smaller order values than other display ads, the gap between the two for both metrics seems to be closing as the difference in each is a meager 6%. This convergence may be a natural result of consumer behavior on social networks becoming more like that on the web as a whole. Facebook Exchange vs Other Display –10% –5% +5% +10% Conversion Rate AOV Display BASELINE Overall +6% –5%
  • 25. DISPLAY ADVERTISING 25 Retargeting Strategy Far More Common Among Display Advertisers Between those advertisers pursuing a mixed strategy of prospecting and retargeting and those who are retargeting only, 94% of display advertisers include retargeting in their ad strategy. The share of prospecting only advertisers has dropped to 6%, down from 10% in Q1 and 12% in Q4 of last year, as more advertisers seek to take advantage of the typically higher ROI and customer retention qualities of retargeting. Percentage of RKG Clients’ Display Goals Prospect & Retargeting Retargeting Only Prospecting Only 67%6% 28% GDN Remains Small Part of Total Google Investment Google text ad and PLA spend continued to dwarf Google Display Network spend, accounting for 94% of total Google investment in Q2, the same as Q1. While Google does not reveal the share of ad revenue that is generated from the GDN, these results suggest that the percentage is fairly small. Share of Total Google Spend Google Text Ad & PLA Spend GDN Spend 100% 50% 75% 0% 25% 94% 6% Placements & Retargeting Placements & Retargeting Remain Primary Investment on GDN Advertisers continue to invest more heavily in Google Display Network placement and retargeting campaigns than contextual campaigns, as the gap between spend and CPC levels between the two only grew larger in Q2. Contextual spend was 15% that of placement and retargeting spend in Q2, compared to 27% in Q1. GDN Placements & Retargeting vs Contextual Spend CPC Placements & Retargeting Contextual 60% 0% 80% 40% 20% 100% 120% –85% –60%
  • 26. Founded in 2003, RKG is a search and digital marketing agency that combines superior marketing talent with world-class digital media capabilities to create the industry’s most effective data-driven digital marketing solutions. RKG drives business to clients by maximizing a full range of opportunities including paid search, SEO, product listing ads, social media, display advertising and comparison shopping engine management services. In 2014, RKG became a part of Merkle, creating the largest independent search agency. RKG is headquartered in Charlottesville, VA with offices in Bend, OR and Boston, MA. For more information visit www.rimmkaufman.com or follow the company on Twitter @rimmkaufman. ABOUT RKG, A Merkle Company info@rimmkaufman.com @rimmkaufman rimmkaufman.com  rkgblog.com METHODOLOGY Figures are derived from samples of RKG clients who have worked with RKG for each respective marketing channel. Where applicable, these samples are restricted to those clients who 1) have maintained active programs with RKG for at least 19 months, 2) have not significantly changed their strategic objectives or product offerings, and 3) meet a minimum ad spend threshold. All trended figures presented in this report represent same-site changes over the given time period. Unless otherwise specified, the data points in this report are derived from the North American market region. Merkle, a technology enabled, data driven customer relationship marketing (CRM) firm, is the nation’s largest privately-held agency. For more than 25 years, Fortune 1000 companies and leading nonprofit organizations have partnered with Merkle to maximize the value of their customer portfolios. By combining a complete range of marketing, technical, analytical and creative disciplines, Merkle works with clients to design, execute and evaluate connected CRM programs. With more than 2,100 employees, the privately held corporation is headquartered in Columbia, Maryland with additional offices in Boston; Chicago; Denver; Hagerstown; Little Rock; London; Minneapolis; Montvale, NJ; Nanjing; New York; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; San Francisco and Shanghai. For more information, contact Merkle at 1-877-9-Merkle, visit www.merkleinc.com or follow the company on Twitter @MerkleCRM. ABOUT MERKLE