Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.nytimes.com)
Category: Search Marketing
3 Comments
3 Comments
Save the date for:
SMX China (Nanjing) - Sept. 23-24
SMX Stockholm - Sept. 23-24: See who's speaking or register now.
SMX East (New York City) - Oct.
6-8: See the agenda or register today and save!
SMX London - Nov. 4-5: Pre-agenda rate now available. Click here.
Comments
Personally I dont think the article explores the long term and the Long tail effect of organic search. The vakuse of PPC vs SEO differs greatly across industries.
In fact its quite misleading to report such a generic point of view on such a well known site.
Can't see the whole piece without registering @ NY Times.
There are a whole host of factors to be considered though - paid search ads tend to be better at bringing the visitor to a more targeted landing page for a start. It would be interesting to know exactly how they reached the conclusion but I'm not inclined to register right now.
Cost per visitor is almost always far lower through SEO than PPC though.
I agree with both comments - I have a lot of questions about how the research was conducted...
Who was involved? Why were they chosen? Is the sample size large enough? What was the time frame of said research? Which search engines/ad types were used? What kinds of products were advertised?
Then we get into one huge thing that could skew the data: the pure creativity of the ads vs the copy of the description/title tags displayed in organic results...etc. We all know that copy is powerful - was it the exact same copy for organic/ppc or did they vary?
I could go on for a while before I would be convinced that the numbers are a legitimate representation of the entire retail web as a population.