3 ms·

The real story is how much they charge company A to defend their search terms vs how much they charge company B to usurp company A's search term, ie they are us

by dbuder 6y ago

The real story is how much they charge company A to defend their search terms vs how much they charge company B to usurp company A's search term, ie they are using all their data to extract maximum rent and not running a "fair" auction.

austinpena 6y ago
What do you mean? I’ve run plenty of brand campaigns and the clicks tend to be an order of magnitude cheaper than running keywords on competitors keywords. My experience typically lies with local companies though.
- canadianwriter 6y ago
  My experience is the same. I've worked with tiny startups as well as giant enterprises and the brand campaign is always super cheap.
  - austinpena 6y ago
    I'm curious, what kind of CTR do you usually see for branded campaigns? I tend to keep call extensions off of branded campaigns (so existing customers scroll down to Location Listings). I see ~30%. And again, this is only for local service businesses.
- vgeek 6y ago
  Cheap on a per click basis. When you take into account the typically high click-through rate, Google is making more on a CPM basis(per 1000 pageviews). Google is making a much higher rate than even $5 non-branded clicks-- and this is for traffic that otherwise would be "free" with organic.
  - austinpena 6y ago
    > When you take into account the typically high click-through rate, Google is making more on a CPM basis(per 1000 pageviews) Is this your direct experience? In my campaigns it's typical for me to see 5% CTR for the keywords I target and then a ~30% CTR for branded terms (depending on the brand name) Branded clicks are more than 6x cheaper than non branded so the CPM is still lower. Again, that at least has been my experience. And regarding the "would have been free" argument, I've gone back and forth and have seen better results with branded campaigns than not having them on. But I've seen accounts where that was not true.

by dbuder 6y ago

austinpena 6y ago

What do you mean? I’ve run plenty of brand campaigns and the clicks tend to be an order of magnitude cheaper than running keywords on competitors keywords. My experience typically lies with local companies though.

canadianwriter 6y ago
My experience is the same. I've worked with tiny startups as well as giant enterprises and the brand campaign is always super cheap.
- austinpena 6y ago
  I'm curious, what kind of CTR do you usually see for branded campaigns? I tend to keep call extensions off of branded campaigns (so existing customers scroll down to Location Listings). I see ~30%. And again, this is only for local service businesses.
vgeek 6y ago
Cheap on a per click basis. When you take into account the typically high click-through rate, Google is making more on a CPM basis(per 1000 pageviews). Google is making a much higher rate than even $5 non-branded clicks-- and this is for traffic that otherwise would be "free" with organic.
- austinpena 6y ago
  > When you take into account the typically high click-through rate, Google is making more on a CPM basis(per 1000 pageviews) Is this your direct experience? In my campaigns it's typical for me to see 5% CTR for the keywords I target and then a ~30% CTR for branded terms (depending on the brand name) Branded clicks are more than 6x cheaper than non branded so the CPM is still lower. Again, that at least has been my experience. And regarding the "would have been free" argument, I've gone back and forth and have seen better results with branded campaigns than not having them on. But I've seen accounts where that was not true.