Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mobile SEO Case Study - Vivid Seats

2,796 views

Published on

From the SMX West Conference in San Jose, California, March 3-5, 2015. SESSION: Things You Don't Know About Mobile SEO But Should. PRESENTATION: Mobile SEO Case Study - Vivid Seats - Given by Bryson Meunier, @Brysonmeunier - Vivid Seats Ltd. , SEO Director. #SMX #21D

Published in: Marketing

Mobile SEO Case Study - Vivid Seats

  1. 1. March 3, 2015 Mobile SEO Case Study: Bryson Meunier SEO Director, Vivid Seats @BrysonMeunier
  2. 2. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D MOBILE FRIENDLY: A QUESTION WITH MORE THAN ONE RIGHT ANSWER
  3. 3. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D DYNAMIC SERVING IS ONE RIGHT ANSWER
  4. 4. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D 1. Does fixing the mobile usability errors drastically increase mobile search traffic or revenue or dramatically decrease bounce rate? 2. Does having a mobile friendly label in Google increase click through rate in a statistically significant way? CASE STUDY: FIXING MOBILE USABILITY ERRORS
  5. 5. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D 20,000 TO 1,000 ERRORS IN UNDER 4 MONTHS
  6. 6. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D 20,000 TO 1,000 ERRORS IN UNDER 4 MONTHS Identified corresponding template Prioritized based on revenue impact Redesigned priority templates
  7. 7. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D 20,000 TO 1,000 ERRORS IN UNDER 4 MONTHS
  8. 8. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D 20,000 TO 1,000 ERRORS IN UNDER 4 MONTHS
  9. 9. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Start with list of 2000 mobile pages with errors fixed between 9/09 – 10/25 Keep only pages with sessions Vast majority occur in October 500 pages remaining Goals: Are total number of fixed pages correlated to average number of sessions, bounce rate, or revenue? Does average sessions/day, bounce rate/day, or revenue/day increase as mobile errors are fixed relative to randomized control sample? METHODOLOGY
  10. 10. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Control group comprised of 1000 randomly selected mobile landing pages with similar number of sessions but with unfixed errors Control group linear fit has a slope consistent with zero R = 0.03 (no linear correlation) • Linear fit to test group also has a slope consistent with zero R = 0.17 (no linear correlation) NO statistically significant difference between correlation coefficient with control group (p = 0.66) NO statistically significant difference between fit slope with control group (p = 0.48) MEASURED CORRELATION BETWEEN FIXED ERRORS AND BOUNCE RATE, SESSIONS AND REVENUE
  11. 11. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D • Investigated correlation between sessions, bounce rate, or revenue vs. total number of fixed mobile errors In all cases, we found no linear correlation • Investigated average sessions/day, bounce rate/day, or revenue/day increase as mobile errors are fixed relative to randomized control sample In all cases, the correlation coefficients and slopes of the test groups and control groups are indistinguishable. NO DIFFERENCE BEFORE AND AFTER MOBILE USABILITY ERRORS FIXED
  12. 12. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D 1. Fixing mobile usability errors has no immediate effect on traffic, revenue, or bounce rate from mobile search traffic 2. No apparent mobile usability algorithm exists as of 2/17/2015. If it exists it may not be worth the effort. 3. Going to continue measuring to see if effect is delayed DOES FIXING MOBILE USABILITY ERRORS HELP WITH SEO OR USER EXPERIENCE?
  13. 13. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D DOES MOBILE FRIENDLY LABEL HELP CTR?
  14. 14. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D MFT introduced on 11/18/2014 Sample includes 21 landing pages having traffic between 11/13/2014 and 11/30/2014 with a variance in average page position of < 0.2 throughout that time Average CTR before MFT: 13.5% Average CTR AFTER MFT: 13.4% DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE CTR IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DOES MOBILE FRIENDLY LABEL HELP CTR?
  15. 15. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D 1. No statistically significant difference in average CTR before and after mobile- friendly label 2. Limited data set 3. All competitors have mobile friendly label, which could affect results 4. Going to continue monitoring to see if effect is delayed. DOES MOBILE FRIENDLY LABEL HELP CTR?
  16. 16. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D 1. Assumptions about mobile usability and SEO are not necessarily supported by data today 2. More testing is needed to support conclusions, as this is one site and doesn’t account for potential delay in benefit 3. Still recommend continuing with priority fixes that aren’t cost prohibitive, and measuring results FINAL THOUGHTS
  17. 17. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D
  18. 18. February 16, 2015 Appendix: Effect of Mobile Fixes on Sessions, Bounce Rate, and Revenue Dr. David Pignotti Data Scientist, Vivid Seats
  19. 19. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Start with list of 2000 mobile pages with errors fixed between 9/09 – 10/25 Keep only pages with sessions Vast majority occur in October 500 pages remaining Goals: Are total number of fixed pages correlated to average number of sessions, bounce rate, or revenue? Does average sessions/day, bounce rate/day, or revenue/day increase as mobile errors are fixed relative to randomized control sample?
  20. 20. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Average Sessions/Day Vs. Total Number of Fixed Pages Correlation coefficient (R) = 0.26 No linear correlation
  21. 21. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Average Sessions/day over time for test group and control group Control group comprised of 1000 randomly selected mobile landing pages with similar number of sessions but with unfixed errors Control group linear fit has a slight negative slope R = 0.32 (weak linear correlation) Linear fit to test group also has slight negative slope R = 0.30 (weak linear correlation) NO statistically significant difference between correlation coefficient with control group (p = 0.95) NO statistically significant difference between fit slope with control group (p = 0.82)
  22. 22. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Average Bounce Rate/Day Vs. Total Number of Fixed Pages Correlation coefficient (R) = 0.07 No linear correlation
  23. 23. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Average Bounce Rate/day over time for test group and control group Control group comprised of 1000 randomly selected mobile landing pages with similar number of sessions but with unfixed errors Control group linear fit has a slope consistent with zero R = 0.03 (no linear correlation) • Linear fit to test group also has a slope consistent with zero R = 0.17 (no linear correlation) NO statistically significant difference between correlation coefficient with control group (p = 0.66) NO statistically significant difference between fit slope with control group (p = 0.48)
  24. 24. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Average Revenue/Day Vs. Total Number of Fixed Pages Correlation coefficient (R) = 0.18 No linear correlation
  25. 25. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Average Bounce Rate/day over time for test group and control group Control group comprised of 1000 randomly selected mobile landing pages with similar number of sessions but with unfixed errors Control group linear fit has a slope consistent with zero R = 0.05 (no linear correlation) • Linear fit to test group also has a slope consistent with zero R = 0.02 (no linear correlation) NO statistically significant difference between correlation coefficient with control group (p = 0.90) NO statistically significant difference between fit slope with control group (p = 0.86)
  26. 26. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Summary Investigated correlation between sessions, bounce rate, or revenue vs. total number of fixed mobile errors In all cases, we found no linear correlation • Investigated average sessions/day, bounce rate/day, or revenue/day increase as mobile errors are fixed relative to randomized control sample In all cases, the correlation coefficients and slopes of the test groups and control groups are indistinguishable.
  27. 27. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Does introduction of Google’s “Mobile Friendly Tag” increase CTR? Does introduction of Google’s “Mobile Friendly Tag” (MFT) increase CTR? MFT introduced on 11/18/2014 Sample includes 21 landing pages having traffic between 11/13/2014 and 11/30/2014 with a variance in average page position of < 0.2 throughout that time Average CTR before MFT: 13.5% Average CTR AFTER MFT: 13.4% DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE CTR IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
  28. 28. searchmarketingexpo.com @BrysonMeunier #SMX #21D Does introduction of Google’s “Mobile Friendly Tag” increase CTR? Does introduction of Google’s “Mobile Friendly Tag” (MFT) increase CTR? MFT introduced on 11/18/2014 Sample includes 21 landing pages having traffic between 11/13/2014 and 11/30/2014 with a variance in average page position of < 0.2 throughout that time Weighted (impressions) average CTR before MFT: 9.6% Weighted (impressions) average CTR AFTER MFT: 9.5% DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE CTR IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

×