PPC Reporting - Don't Make Me Think!

Reporting on PPC is killing me! Once I “translate” the reports I get from a vendor I have to explain them to everyone else. Why is it so hard to produce a report that is easy to read and that makes sense? I get these reports that have a tone of numbers on them. I almost always find myself asking, “OK, I get the numbers. But, are these results good?”

I am no moron when it comes to SEM. I have been working in this arena for a long time. I just have better things to do that spend my time cutting through all the crap in a report to determine if the results are good or not.

Vendors hate me and I have no problem with that. They will give me their “standard” reports that they give to all their customers and I tear them apart. I tell them that I want “Crayon Reports”. That is my way of saying, I want the report to be easy to read and I want it to make sense to someone who knows nothing about search engine marketing. In addition, I want all the marketing fluff cut out of the report. Here is an example of the marketing fluff I am taking about. Many of the vendors I have worked with will double the results their campaign produced. Why? They note that there is an estimated 1 to 1 online vs. offline sale. In other words, for every sale made online another is made off line. That’s great, but I don’t want those numbers included in the reports that are given to me.

So, what do I want included in my crayon report?

• Impressions – Tell me how often the ads were displayed.


• Clicks – Tell me how often people clicked on the ads.


• Conversion – Use the two numbers above and tell me what percentage of people who click on the ads are buying.


• Cost – Tell me how much are we spending on the campaign.


• Sales – Tell me how much money we are making from the campaign.


• ROI – Tell me if we are making more money than we are spending.

Using these numbers and simplified information I have found it much easier to determine if a campaign is successful. I spend much less time analyzing reports and more time taking action. I can look at one of these reports and quickly determine that we need to make changes or stop a campaign entirely. The result is a big cost savings and more effective use of marketing funds. In addition, I spend much less time explaining the results to others.

Another Redesign

Prior to taking my current position, I worked for Michaels. You know, the arts are crafts store. I worked in their eCommerce division for almost six years. During that time I think we redesigned the web site at least six times. I am not talking little tweaks and color changes. I am talking major 6 month long efforts that totally changed the structure and design of the site. So, I guess you could say that I spent have my six years at Michaels redesigning their web site.

So, after each redesigned traffic shot through the roof, online revenue grew and my entire team got huge bonuses! I wish. So, what were the results? That would be nothing, nada, zip, goose egg, zero, zilch, zippo… you get my point. Yet we did it again and again and again and again.

Because of this entire experience, this one particular article caught my eye. The article referenced a recent survey that asked established companies where their eCommerce focus would be and what major initiative they would be taking on in 2008. Search engine optimization was second on the list. Paid search was third. The list included email marketing, strategic linking, display advertising and local search. What do you think was number one? That’s right, “Web site redesign”. Not by a small margin either. 28%! Search engine optimization was at 13%.

I have talked with several eCommerce leaders and shared my experience. It turns out that my experience is not unique. The survey would suggest the very same thing. We put more focus on redesigning our web sites than we do on attracting new customers. I know that many redesigns are warranted and need to be done. However my experience tells me that much of the efforts, time and money would be better spent on driving traffic and revenue.

My advice to all is to question the need for a redesign. Avoid the, “If we change it, they will come.” mentality. The biggest argument I would get is that we want to redesign to maximize conversion. My argument back is that there will not be anyone to convert! I recently did a paid search campaign with Google. We spent $10,000 and the return on the spend was almost 7:1. All the redesigns we did at Michaels never had that kind of production. Analyze what impact the changes will have on conversion and be realistic about the expected results. What will the financial impact be if you move the conversion rate from 1.8% to 2.0%?

If you have a huge customer base I totally understand the logic behind redesigning a site. If your competitor’s web site is head-and-shoulders above yours, you need to do a redesign. If your site lacks major transactional functionality, you need to do a redesign. However, if your site gets the job done seriously consider putting your focus on driving traffic.

Consumer Generated Media – Another Tech Bubble

Someone recently asked me if I thought we were heading for another internet crash. At the time I said, “No.” Since then I have changes my mind. If you have not seen the Tech Bubble Video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr3qPRAAnOg) you are missing a funny one. It was not the video that changes my mind, but it is entertaining none the less. What has changed my mind in part are the number of customer review focused travel sites that have popped up in the past year and a half or so.

Everyone is familiar with TripAdvisor. It has become one of my favorites. It is funny how a site like this can move from being a new blip on the radar to a mainstream site so quickly. But look for a second at how many others are out there. Similarly, CGM has moved from being a buzz word to a tool in a very short time. Amazon has done a great job with their product reviews for years. The reviews were the primary tools my wife and I used when purchasing baby products when we were expecting years back. However, for this conversation I want to keep the focus on the travel industry.

There is no doubt that travelers use these tools. I attended a session where someone from JupiterResearch spoke about the popularity of these online tools. The asked a panel, “How did you use content created by other travels while researching your most recent trip (e.g., reviews, ratings, photographs, etc. from other travelers)? 60% answered, “Verify my hotel choice pre-booking”. They also stated that 58% There are lots of numbers that I could share about how people use these site, how many people use these sites, how they are going in popularity, etc. What is astonishing to me is how many of these sites there are. I mentioned TripAdvisor earlier. There are also sites like VibeAgent, WAYN, Vertual Tourist, TravBuddy, SmallWorldReconnect, RealTravel, TravelPost, IgoUgo, Wikitravel, Kango, FlyerTalk, etc. I am sure there are more, but these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

If the majority of these sites ultimately fail, consolidate or are gulped up by larger companies it will obviously not be enough to create another tech bubble like we saw in the early part of the decade. But, let me remind you of some of the dramatic stories we were hearing about back then. Some companies you will recognize, others you will not. Interesting just the same.

• Boo.com – Spent $188 million in six month. Went bankrupt in May of 2000
  
• eToys.com - $80 per share in May 1999. Less than $1 in February of 2001


• Inktomi – Stock peaked at $241 in March 2000. Sold to Yahoo! for $1.63 per share in 2002


• TheLearningCompany.com – Purchased by Mattel in 1999 for $3.5 billion. Sold for nothing in 2000

The online travel market is currently oversaturated with these types of companies that offer similar features and functionality. Only time will tell if we hear similar stories about this wave of internet based companies in the travel industry. Regardless, something has got to give.

No Guarantee?

I don’t get it. I have spoken with several service providers about their search engine optimization offering and none of them will give any kind of guarantee. The latest I heard was, “Nothing about SEO is guaranteed.” This came from the same company that really pushes the importance of visibility and the quality of their reporting. My question to companies like this is, “If you are offering a great service and feel visibility is that important, then why can’t you guarantee an increase in visibility?”

Here is the perception I am left with. If you can not make any kind of guarantee then I feel as if your biggest marketing effort has been on yourself and not your customers. You are selling your services, selling your reports, selling yourselves, etc. However, you are not working hard enough to do the job your customer hired you to do.

If you can not guarantee an increase in search engine visibility, how about guaranteeing an increase in search engine traffic? How about an increase in online sales? How about something as bold as a 10:1 return on your customer’s investment? My point is that there are several metrics that can be reported on and that could be used to back a guarantee. If you are unwilling to offer some kind of guarantee, I question your ability to perform.

So what do the service providers say?
“It is simply impossible to guarantee what an unrelated third party, like Google, is going to do. Therefore companies that guarantee search engine ranking are either intending to use unethical techniques to produce rankings or are misrepresenting their abilities.”

The above statement came directly from Google. It was sent to me by a service provider I spoke with and challenged them when they said they would not provide any kind of guarantee. They copied my boss on the email as well as everyone they knew at the company I work for. They really hung on the “unethical” word. My response is, “So?” Let me be clear, I am not saying use “unethical” practices. I am saying if Google says the company is using unethical techniques and/or misrepresenting their abilities if they are guaranteeing search engine ranking, then find another metric to guarantee that is not considered unethical. Search engine traffic, sales, something.

Search engines & techniques change, so should you.
Let me touch on another part of the statement from Google. They say, “It is simply impossible to guarantee what an unrelated third party, like Google, is going to do.” I understand that, but isn’t it also the responsibility of a company that is paid to provide a service like search engine optimization to be on top of what a third party like Google is doing? If Google is changing their algorithms, shouldn’t a company that says they specialize in search engine optimization know about it and have a strategy to address it?

The internet is always changing. The search engines are always changing. I would expect a company that provides services that are so closely tied to these companies, their practices and their technologies to know as much as possible about what changes are being made as well as what changes are being considered in the future.
The idea that Google, Yahoo, MSN and all the rest of the search engines are always changing what they are doing and the techniques/logic they use to produce results is not an acceptable excuse for not giving some sort of guarantee.

Still, no guarantee.
You have the right to not offer a guarantee. I have the right to choose another company as my service provider.