If you are a brand with multiple locations in different cities or geographic locations, what's the best approach to locally targeted geographic SEM campaigns? Here are a couple tests to shed some light on the best foot forward.
Chandigarh Escorts Service 📞8868886958📞 Just📲 Call Nihal Chandigarh Call Girl...
Granular geo targeted local search
1. How Granular Should You Be With Your Paid
Search Geo-Targeting?
Tests facilitated by:
Adiela Aviram, SEM Specialist
DAC Group
2. Marketing through search at the local level is
best practice for businesses with physical
locations
The most straightforward way to accomplish
this is to create one campaign for each city
and set the geo-target to that city alone
3. But what if you’re in1,500 cities?
What if you want to split your budget by
brand vs. non-brand?
◦ Could lead to a pretty messy campaign!
4. Company with locations in 40 cities in Texas
14 day test using 40 campaigns in 40 cities
14 day test using 1 campaign in 40 cities
Keywords, ad copy, max bid all stayed same
5. Metric
40 Campaigns – 40
Cities
1 Campaign – 40
Cities
% Change
Impressions 37,533 68,232 81.79%
Clicks 711 1,353 90.30%
CTR 1.89% 1.98% 4.68%
Avg. position 2.2 1.7 20.83%
Leads 12 123 925.00%
Conversion Rate 1.69% 9.09% 438.64%
Search Impr. share 62.41% 61.71% -1.12%
Search Lost IS (rank) 37.12% 31.51% -15.11%
One campaign with multiple geo-targets yielded better results
Gains in impressions, clicks, CTR, average position, lead volume,
CPL, conversion rate and lost impressions share due to rank
Downside: slightly higher CPC and higher impression share loss due
to budget
6. Company with 64 locations in California
One campaign geo-targeted to all of
California for seven days
For the following seven days, same campaign
was geo-targeted to the list of 64 cities
All other variables remained the same
7. With fewer impressions, city targeting achieved virtually the same
number of clicks (higher CTR, higher conversion rate)
CPC was lowered, average position went in city-targeted campaigns
Most notable: the gains in impression share and the drop in lost
impression share due to rank
Metric 1 Campaign – 1 state
1 Campaign – 64
Cities
% Change
Impressions 76,827 52,083 -32.21%
Clicks 882 879 -0.34%
CTR 1.15% 1.69% 47.01%
Avg. position 2.1 1.9 -12.53%
Leads 72 99 37.50%
Conversion Rate 8.16% 11.26% 37.97%
Search Impr. share 50.73% 59.94% 18.15%
Search Lost IS (rank) 49.27% 40.06% -18.69%
8. from these two tests, we see that creating one
campaign for each city may be too much of a
granular choice for geo-targeting
At the other extreme, broadening the geo-
targeting to cover the entire state may be too
broad
The middle-ground seems to be the sweet spot
here. In both tests, one campaign with a list of
city level geo-targets had the best results
9. Adam Picker
apicker@dacgroup
DAC Group is a full-service, best-practice digital agency. We have a simple
mandate: to generate measurable revenue. Regardless of channel, what counts
is the bottom line. Together we can increase demand, dominate markets, and
build on our success.
What sets DAC Group apart is a relentless focus on the here and now, with a
sharp eye to the future. This is about more than just micromanaging data. It’s
about scaling to a power beyond the reach of your competition. Our people
engineer it. Our proprietary PAGEtorrent™ technology enables it. Our
experience, insight and imagination guide its development. And our unique
DiMITRI™ dashboard tells the whole story, exactly how you need to hear it.
Dollars in, dollars out. And that’s just the beginning…
www.dacgroup.com