The document discusses arguments for and against search engine advertising (SEA) and search engine optimization (SEO). It summarizes two case studies where branded SEA campaigns were paused, resulting in losses of traffic, leads, orders, and revenue. While generic SEO and SEA campaigns saw some gains, they did not compensate for losses from pausing branded campaigns. The document concludes that pausing branded campaigns can negatively impact performance and growth. It advises using SEA for marketing visibility, control, and defensive purposes while being careful with testing, as SEO is not truly "free" and SEA can have incremental effects.

1. Search University
Julien Cornet
eBusiness Consultant @ Semetis
31 May 2013
Hotel Crowne Plaza – Brussels

2. Arguments in favor SEA + SEO
Arguments against brand buying
Our testing @ Semetis
Observations and suggestions
Agenda
Premise

3. « I already rank high in SEO, which is free. Why should I
pay for SEA ?»
« SEA will cannibalize my organic traffic »
« Visitors looking for my brand are already informed
and will find their way to my site without SEA »
« Keyword buying (brand & generic) requires more
ressources than it is worth »
Premise

4. Arguments against brand
buying: the eBay case
Postulate
Test
Findings

5. eBay’s postulate
Consumers who query such a narrow
term intend to go to that firm’s website
and are seeking the easiest route there.
Paid search links simply intercept
consumers at the last point in their
navigational process.
“
„
eBay’s premise about “Brand” Keyword advertising
Quote from : Consumer Heterogeneity and Paid Search Effectiveness: A Large Scale Field Experiment (with Tom Blake
and Chris Nosko) February 2013

6. Test
Test in the USA Control
March 2012
+ Test in Europe
Brandqueriesonhold

7. Findings
Results
SEO immediately made up for lost SEA traffic & sales

8. Arguments in favor of SEA + SEO
Improved Marketing Visibility
Improved Control
Defensive Marketing
Low Cost
Systemic Effect

9. Improved Marketing Visibility
• Above Organic Results
• Yellow background
• Ad extentions (Location, Sitelinks, Social, …)

10. Improved Control
• 100% control over USP’s, Geolocalisation, Language, LP
• Manually push products/service (Ad text & Sitelinks)
• Dynamic bidding

11. Defensive Marketing
Broad match type

12. Low Cost
No need to break the bank
High CTR
High QS
Low CPC
Low CPA
High ROI
BRAND =

13. Systemic Effect
New AdWords campaign
quality history
Traffic acquisition channels
diversity
Google: SEA traffic is
incremental*
*From: Impact Of Ranking Of Organic Search Results On The Incrementality Of Search
Ads (David X. Chan, Deepak Kumar, Sheng Ma, Jim Koehler) March 2012

14. Our testing @ Semetis
Theory
Case 1 – Retail
Case 2 – e-Commerce

15. • Semetis Experience
– SEA Brand strategy = Traffic +10%
– SEA Brand strategy = Conversions +20%
– Interactions between SEA Brand & Generic campaigns
• Marketing, Control & Cost
– SEA = Additional Marketing (extentions, Google local,…)
– Control of costs & USP
– Low cost
• Defensive Marketing & systemic effect
– Competitor buying/appearing on my Brand
– Positive effect on account
Why should I buy my own Brand?
Theory

16. 1. Brand Campaigns
Global loss in Search (Natural & Paid) traffic and conversions. The
Organic does not recover all SEA branded visits and conversions!
2. Generic Campaigns
Partial recovery of the traffic loss from the Brand Off but not enough
to compensate it. Search (Natural & Paid) traffic and conversions were
still lower than the weeks before.
Campaign KPI Search Brand-On Brand-Off Off vs. On
BRAND
Visits
SEO 60,000 100,000
-15%SEA 58,000 0
Leads
SEO 2,100 3,500
-20%SEA 2,300 0
Orders
SEO 560 900
-30%SEA 720 0
All Seasonality Variations Excluded
Case 1 – Retail

17. Historical Data: interrupting a Branded SEA campaign impacts the
performances beyond the date range => Negative CPC impact
Higher CPC after
Brand-off test
Case 1 – Retail
Visits
CPC

18. Conclusions
• Loss of opportunities through the Brand Off test
– 18.000 visits
– 900 leads
– 380 orders
• Brand has a limited monthly budget (high QS & low CPC)
• Branded historical data’s are partly lost  need to rebuild it!
Advice
• Buy Brand and use it as a Marketing Tool
– Sitelinks / USP / Leverage offline / Strategy for stores/ Defensive / …
• Avoid pausing Campaign  Loss of historical data’s
Case 1 – Retail

19. Campagne KPI Search
Brand-
On
Total Brand-Off Total Off vs. On
BRAND
Visits (K)
SEO 132
301
199
199 -34%SEA 169 -
Revenue (k€)
SEO 499
1,138
805
805 -29%SEA 639 -
Sales
SEO 6,120
13,950
10,270
10,270 -26%SEA 7,830 -
Generic/Other
Visits (K)
SEO 61
142
79
161 +13%SEA 81 82
Revenue (k€)
SEO 32
63
31
61 -3%SEA 31 30
Sales
SEO 364
742
366
762 +3%SEA 378 396
All Seasonality Variations Excluded
Generic increases – but not enough to compensate brand loss !
Case 2 – e-Commerce

20. Conclusions
• Loss of opportunities through the Brand Off test
– 83.000 visits
– 335.000 €
– 3.660 sales
• Brand has a limited monthly budget (high QS & low CPC)
• Branded historical data’s are partly lost  need to rebuild it!
All Account Data
Case 2 – e-Commerce

21. Observations and Suggestions
Recap
Observations and Suggestions

22. Recap
Arguments against brand buying:
Cannibalization, SEO is free, brand = navigational tool.
Arguments in favor of SEA + SEO:
Marketing visibility, control, defensive marketing, low cost
for brand, systemic effect.
Case 1 – Retail & Case 2 – eCommerce
Slight cannibalization, but SEA has an incremental effect.
 Overal loss of performance & growth
 SEA generic not enough to compensate SEA brand

23. Be careful with testing
Appearing in the top position does not guarantee a click
Ranking in top organic positions is not a guarantee either.
eBay has almost become a generic term. Is your brand as strong?
SEA can be a smart agressive strategy for a new site launch
Search Funnel: SEA ≠ SEO
Search Funnel: Generic ≠ Brand
SEO is not free
Observations and Suggestions

24. Thank You
Images from www.morguefile.com