Last week we featured a column titled “Marketer’s Unite – Open Up the Kimono.” The better title and the one used on my blog, is “Google versus Yahoo by the numbers.” This week, we continue the fascinating look at performance differences between the two engines in “Google versus Yahoo by the numbers – Part 2.” In a more ideal world, other search marketers would share similar data so that we could all help keep the engines honest not to mention our sanity in check. In the interim, enjoy this other perspective of comparing Google versus Yahoo.
Similar to last week, the data in these examples comes from lead generation campaigns. Again we compare Google versus Yahoo, but this time, instead of line graphs that look at the engines’ conversion rates over a period of time, we take a more holistic view for quality. The charts below look first at Yahoo Search Traffic, then Yahoo Content Network Traffic, onto Google Search Traffic, and finally Google Content Network Traffic. Each chart depicts traffic in three buckets based on the conversion rate. Traffic above a certain conversion rate is considered great (green); traffic below a certain conversion rate is bad (red), with traffic in between the two as fair (yellow).
Chart #1 – Description: This chart shows Yahoo Search traffic performance during a two-week period in February. It is a period where, for these particular campaigns, Yahoo performed below their metrics for most of 2005.
Chart #1 – Explanation: Yahoo Search traffic consisted primarily of “Great”, which made up 44% of all visitors with Fair being next at 31% and Poor being 25%. Overall, the traffic is fairly balanced, and were we to do a comparison between this time period and November of last year, the biggest difference would be the percentage of Poor traffic. If you remember, it was the overall decline in Yahoo conversion rates that prompted this series of analysis in the first place.
Chart #2 – Description: This chart shows Yahoo Content Network traffic performance during a two-week period in February. Last week’s comparison did not include data from the Content Network.
Chart #2 – Explanation: This one is a little harder to read but the color dispersion tells the whole story. There is a strong amount of Great traffic (43%), but much more Poor traffic than was seen on the Search side. More than half of the traffic qualified as Poor (56%), and surprisingly virtually none fell in the generous Fair bucket. The takeaway here, is that there are some high quality content sites, but certainly not all. It shows why paying the same click price per partner site is not a good deal and the benefit of right pricing on a granular level.
Chart #3 – Description: This chart shows Google Search traffic performance during a two-week period in February. It is a period where, for these particular campaigns, the engine actually performed slightly better than their metrics for most of 2005.
Chart #3 – Explanation: A sea of green, that is what Google Search looks like for these campaigns. More than two-thirds the traffic qualified as Great (68%) as opposed to Yahoo’s 44%. The levels of Fair traffic were close – 24% for Google and 31% for Yahoo, which means that it’s the Poor traffic where Yahoo had more – 25% to Google’s 8%.
Chart #4 Description: This chart shows Google’s Content Network traffic performance during a two-week period in February. Last week’s comparison did not include data from the Content Network.
Chart #4 – Explanation: Another interesting chart, especially when compared to Yahoo Chart. Google content had a much lower Great percent than Yahoo – 11% to Yahoo’s 43%. Instead of Great, the vast majority of the traffic, 64% was Fair, which might not look so good, but consider that Great plus Fair equals 75% with Google Content Network and only 44% with Yahoo Content Network. The big difference again was the Poor component – 25% with Google but 56% with Yahoo.
This makes two weeks in a row where performance data points in Google’s favor. Objectively it helps validate the engines lead in the search race and shows the value of moving towards a right pricing model. But, just because Google converts well and charges variable rates in a more sophisticated manner than Yahoo doesn’t mean they work better for marketers. This might sound confusing, but it’s because of Google’s efficiency that making money on them becomes tougher. There are simply fewer gaps of opportunity, fewer areas where pricing is below the maximum market value. As a result, you get good traffic, but it costs you, often to the detriment of profitability, at least as far as immediate marketing goes. Hats off to Google there for extracting so much out of so many, but I’d personally settle for a little bit more inefficiency, or at the very least their stock price to rebound.
Network
