What Percentage Of Brand Name Traffic Should Brand Names Get?

[dannysullivan]

Study: 15% of Brand Searches Stray from Company's Site (http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3599281) from ClickZ summarized a new Hitwise study showing that not everyone who searches on a brand name ends up at the official brand name web site. I had to chuckled a bit that ClickZ said "only 85 percent" do. I thought that was a pretty high percentage.

For example, if I search for McDonald's, lots of people want the McDonald's site. But some people might be researching the company; some might be looking for an anti-McDonald's site and so on.

If I search for a particular product, like a new Toshiba TV model I've recently been looking at, there's an excellent chance I will not go to the official Toshiba site if I've already researched the TV in other ways and just want to buy it. The percentage going to Toshiba on a product name there might be naturally a lot smaller.

What do people thing? Is 85 percent pretty good? Should a brand expect to get in the high 90 percent of all traffic?

[sootledir]

I can't imagine any term would get 85-90% CTR, regardless of how relevant it is.

[fulton savage]

My adwords groups on competitors names have the highest CTR in my account. Sometimes I'll see 50% on them.

I think with brandnames a lot of average surfers click blindly at the top of the page, so it all depends on how convincing the first sponsoreds look.

[cline]

It depends tremendously on whether the brands products are delivered directly to the public or through retailers or other intermediaries. Direct advertisers should see very high CTRs. Indirect advertisers could see a wide range of CTRs depending on the degree to which the product was purchased over the internet.

[shor]

What do people thing? Is 85 percent pretty good? Should a brand expect to get in the high 90 percent of all traffic?

If someone is performing an exact search on a brand term I would assume a very high percentage due to the qualified nature of the search, but this will vary with brand awareness, the brand's natural & paid search prominence, as well as the brand term itself.

For example, our brands have excellent online brand awareness, are positioned at no.1 for natural search and we get around ~85% of all searches, paid + natural for the exact brand term. This % is even higher if you can disallow competitors from mentioning your trademarked brand in their sponsored listings. Naturally, if you are below the fold or not on the first page, you aren't going to be getting a high % of clicks, no matter what your brand awareness is.

Then there is the term itself. For example with the brand term "Hoover" searchers might genuinely be (synonymously) looking for a vacuum, or Hoover's the financial firm rather than Hoover the vacuum maker.

[SuperZu]

I think the percentage should be as high as 95%. It would also be a good idea for Google to not allow bidding on brand names from competitor sites.

[vayapues]

85% seems a bit high. In the case of Expedia, (from the article) people typing in expedia are A. Looking for their site, and B. they are #1, #2, #3, and #4 in the G SERPS, so it is almost impossible not to go to their site if you search that brand name.

However, in many other cases, such as the examples Danny shared, they are probably looking for other sites, and the percentage is going to be much lower. I wonder how big the sample size was for this study.
Our best CTR and conversion for that matter comes off of brand name searches, in a manner similar to the Toshiba example shared by Danny.

[vayapues]

I think the percentage should be as high as 95%. It would also be a good idea for Google to not allow bidding on brand names from competitor sites.
According to the Geico case, which I agree with, it is not Google's responsibility, it is the individual advertiser. Further, I don't think we should ever get into the realm of limiting what and how people can talk about a company and its brands. As long as you are not trying to trick people that you are in fact the brand they are looking for. Fair use should not preclude you from using their brands in your advertising. Coke and Pepsi use each others trademarked stuff all the time.

[SuperZu]

I agree, but in a lot of cases it is competitors posting as the brand name owners and users might actually think they will be taken to the official brand web site.

[fulton savage]

I agree, but in a lot of cases it is competitors posting as the brand name owners and users might actually think they will be taken to the official brand web site.

Then the owner of said brand needs to take action to protect their property. It's not up to Google to police that.

Think of the Hoover example mentioned above. How would you want Google to handle "allowing" that keyword?

[SuperZu]

In that case Google should also allow very common words like "last minute" to be used in an add. It now blocks the word for being a trademark while to the best of my knowledge it is also a fairly common word in the English language. There are lots of cases in which you would naturally use this word without any intention of "robbing" someone from their brand. The only thing I'm saying is fot Google to be consistent.

[vayapues]

In that case Google should also allow very common words like "last minute" to be used in an add. It now blocks the word for being a trademark while to the best of my knowledge it is also a fairly common word in the English language. There are lots of cases in which you would naturally use this word without any intention of "robbing" someone from their brand. The only thing I'm saying is fot Google to be consistent.
Why make it so complicated? It is simpler and more appropriatly placed to leave it up to the trademark owner to protect their trademark by taking action against the offenders directly.

Half the words in the English dictionary are probably trademarked in one form or another.

[SuperZu]

You'reprobably right, I give up ;) . My company who has trademarked a fantasy name has had to deal with a lot of this kind of thing so it's my frustration talking! Sounds like I have to contact the compay lawyers once again :cool:

[sportsguy]

I thikn they should be damned happy at hitting "85%". The turth is, when i search for things online, like most folks, I want THE ITEM. I could give a rat's booty about the manufacturer - I know who you are, I don't need your company history or design philosophy to purchase that new toaster.

I do, however, want the best price, lowest shipping rate and best return policy going.

If anything, I'd say that in some cases, brandname searches should NOT go to the brand-holder's sites. if folks want products and you make, but don't sell direct to consumers, for example, stand aside.

[fulton savage]

If anything, I'd say that in some cases, brandname searches should NOT go to the brand-holder's sites. if folks want products and you make, but don't sell direct to consumers, for example, stand aside.

I'm almost off topic, but I agree completely--searching for information and shopping are two different kinds of searches, and its not always easy to get one or the other.

[SuperZu]

I agree when it comes to shopping, but what if your barnd name is a shopping site itself? Then somebody else using your brand name is definitely trying to get traffic off of your good reputation. In this case, the use of competitor sites of your brand name is definitely misleading.

[bwelford]

Someone should mention of course for completeness that we should only be dealing with brand names that have uniqueness. Make sure that brand name doesn't have other usages that people might be searching for.

I wouldn't mention this, but you see the craziest things. Let's not forget that PwC (PricewaterhouseCooper) tried to trademark Monday as the name of their consulting company when trying to distance themselves from their accounting parent. Luckily that nonsense was buried when PwC was bought up by IBM. :)

[addmomark]

No, I don't think that a brand should either
a) expect to get 85-90% of CTR, or
b) expect its keywords to be excluded to others.

If people are using search simply because they don't know the URL and are wanting to find a brand's homepage, then they will in nearly all cases find it, The URLs are listed in results and the brand's domain is often placed top.

What is the rest of the page supposed to contain though? White space?

People are obviously happy to click on alternatives. After all, search is for giving people access to a range of the web's relevant information. That's why there are 10-20 results (inc ppc) each page. Users themselves are pretty good at sniffing out relevance. Where the protection for brands should come in, is in the area of ad copy -- i.e. to prevent passing off (in SuperZu's example.) This is how press / TV / other advertising is regulated.

I think if a brand is getting over 50% of clickthrough it is doing well. From what I've seen, users searching by brand name is a sign of increased purchase intent but not necessarily exclusive focus on that brand -- it's often that they're gathering details in the final stages of purchase research.

As a result I'm sure weaker and stronger brands all benefit from being found on each others' keyword searches.

[andrewgoodman]

Surprise: in the living world of words, people are searching for another meaning of a word even when it's a "brand."

Coke - several meanings
Target - quite a few meanings
Avis - means "warning" or "counsel" in French
Burger King - not too many meanings

85% seems high to me, but certainly for many of these it's hard to imagine that a user would be searching for anything but the official corporate site... unless.... there was a big news story that day and rather than go to the news search engine they knew they could type the company name into a toolbar search box, then click the "news tab" to get the smart cluster of most recent news items on that day's hottest story...

The web ain't all about your official website, corporate America. :)

[andrewgoodman]

In that case Google should also allow very common words like "last minute" to be used in an add. It now blocks the word for being a trademark while to the best of my knowledge it is also a fairly common word in the English language. There are lots of cases in which you would naturally use this word without any intention of "robbing" someone from their brand. The only thing I'm saying is fot Google to be consistent.

You simply apply for an exception to get past the automated challenge to your ad copy. Usually you'll get the exception granted unless it's a clear violation of trademark law.

I've seen words like "explorer" and "enterprise" (obviously related to Microsoft and a rental car company holding trademarks on these words) banned from my ad copy. Obviously, that's ridiculous, but you just challenge it in the box provided and Google won't usually hold you up after they review. Unless of course you are a direct competitor, i.e. in browsers, desktop search, or rental cars, in these examples. Or travel in the "last minute" example.

[Phoneranger]

Memory says that the study showed that brand name CTR fell sharply if additional searchterms are added....to about 70% if I recall. Let's say I want a camcorder...probably a JVC...and maybe from Amazon. What are the chances that I am going to end up a) buying anything? b) buying a camcorder? c) a JVC camcorder or d) a JVC camcorder from Amazon? If I enter that term in my search engine I get adwords inviting me to go to overstock.com, camcoder-guide.com etc etc. Bad news for both Amazon and perhaps JVC. That's why Amazon's plugin shows me a picture of the JVC corder in my search results. Same search substituting J&R for Amazon comes without a picture. J&R loses out to Amazon. Obviously CTRs on brand names (especially multiple brands) depend on competition from other brands in natural results and esp. Adwords. By the looks of Google's earnings number on Thursday, Adwords is winning.

[B-Double-U]

There are so many factors at play here that it is virtually impossible to gauge your traffic expectations from something as broad as a brand search. So many, in fact, I'm not even going into detail.

But what I will offer is that you should expect a few percentages over everyone else..

One thing to remember is that some "brands" are so far diluted with parent companies that they leave the actual online advertising to their affiliates, resellers, distributors, and even competitors. This is to say that they might not even own the domain that reflects the name of their service or product.

I know it's not the answer you are probably looking for, but I can offer a solution of sorts. (Assuming that the reason for the question means that there is interest in taking proactive measures towards it)

I keep, on hand, a copy of a letter I had to write years ago explaining what I call the "Unfair competitive advantage". I periodically send this out to manufacturers and distributors to enlighten them to the savvy ways of the web. It explains, in lay terms, what they either don't understand about online advertising or don't care to get involved in, as well as why they should.

I have been in scenarios more than once, where a reseller buys the domain name of a product and builds a custom tailored website (logos and all) of the parent company or manufacturer. I feel that this leads to an unfair competitive advantage for the entity that does not control the domain name and usually convince them to engage the parties involved asking to relinquish the entire site back to the parent company. It's actually fairly easy and getting easier as the learning curve moves forward.

The real question is what the end goal is. Do you want the traffic? Do you want your resellers to get the traffic to make the sales? Why field all of the phone calls if you don't offer it for sale directly to the consumer? Wouldn't you want to build the customer service cost into the pricing model and let the reseller manage that expense......

[Jonathan Mendez]

So much though depends on ad placements, t&d's and channel partners/competition.

Do a G search for "Ford" and I see no top sponsor listings. Rest assured their CTR on the natural listing is over 90% (they have the top 4 natural results).

Do a G search on "Toyota" and I see two top sponsor results for non brand sites offering information on discounts and models.

...or search for "Sony." Here Sony has no ads other then its own with their brand name. Search on "Panasonic" and the page is blanketed with "Panasonic" titles being used by channel partners.

[vayapues]

I agree when it comes to shopping, but what if your barnd name is a shopping site itself? Then somebody else using your brand name is definitely trying to get traffic off of your good reputation. In this case, the use of competitor sites of your brand name is definitely misleading.
What about Albertson's brand cough syrup? Right on the label it says "Compare to Nyquil".
Clearly, they are trying to get business off of Nyquils good reputation. But it is not misleading. Everyone knows they are not buying Nyquil, just something that compares to it.
I believe search is the same. People are pretty smart. Okay, um... Most people are pretty smart. There is nothing imho wrong with advertisers using another company's brand names, as long as they are clear that they are not the trademark holder, and they are not the site, but that their service or product "compares" to that of the trademark holder.

[Phoneranger]

When I go into the drug store I always buy the generic brand (of NyQuil or Sudafed). I've compared the ingredients and know the efficacy should be the same. The drug store is happy that when I buy their brand but really doesn't care as they make nice margins on the higher-priced brand name products as well.

Google et al have a different motivation. If I search on Pontiac in Google, I can click on the organic result and GM is happy and Google gets nothing. Or I can click on the Adwords link for Mazda and Google is happy and GM loses a customer. A few quarters from now when GOOG isn't growing quite so quickly the temptation to make paid ads even more distracting will be irresistable.

[vayapues]

When I go into the drug store I always buy the generic brand (of NyQuil or Sudafed). I've compared the ingredients and know the efficacy should be the same. The drug store is happy that when I buy their brand but really doesn't care as they make nice margins on the higher-priced brand name products as well.

Exactly.

At the drug store, Nyquil is paying for shelf space. For those who have not been involved with retail shelf space, stores do not give it away for free. The manufacturers rent it. Yet even in this case, the drug store still allows for competitors to use each other's trademarked terms.

Not sure what the difference is between rented shelf space at the drug store, and rented ad space online is?


Google et al have a different motivation. If I search on Pontiac in Google, I can click on the organic result and GM is happy and Google gets nothing. Or I can click on the Adwords link for Mazda and Google is happy and GM loses a customer. A few quarters from now when GOOG isn't growing quite so quickly the temptation to make paid ads even more distracting will be irresistable.
I too would be happy if I were GM, and someone visited my site off of the free organic listing in Google. Something for nothing is always a good thing. But just because Google is kind enough to give me something for nothing does not mean the same rules should not apply to their PPC program that have applied to retailers / brick and mortar for years.

Am I off base? Ian?

[Phoneranger]

So let's be clear. GOOG owns the store. Just like Pfizer (Sudafed) has to pay for slotting at Walgreens, GM (Pontiac) has to pay for position in adwords. If they don't pay, they take their chances in (free) organic results.

See anything missing here? It depends on consumers thinking that GOOG is still a just bunch of geeks rather than the new Walmart (but without the Target or Costco.)

[vayapues]

So let's be clear. GOOG owns the store. Just like Pfizer (Sudafed) has to pay for slotting at Walgreens, GM (Pontiac) has to pay for position in adwords. If they don't pay, they take their chances in (free) organic results.

See anything missing here? It depends on consumers thinking that GOOG is still a just bunch of geeks rather than the new Walmart (but without the Target or Costco.)

Yes they do own the store. While I think that many consumers are loosing the warm and fuzzy feeling for the Google brand, you are right that there are still many many who are loyal, and who don't look at them as a Wal-Mart. that's just good PR on Google's part. Nothing is to say that Wal-Mart can't try and convince everyone that they are geeky too.

A lot of retailers do have the warm and fuzzy feeling, such as Starbucks, Ben & Jerry's, etc. Being good at PR does not mean that the same rules should not apply to their PPC program that have applied to retailers / brick and mortar for years.

[AussieWebmaster]

We have a 4 letter brand name and it has some competitors in the space... however our CTR for our ads is around 35-45% - add the organic searches that are also part of the grab at the impressions and I think we do well.... we receive maybe another 30+ % for organic clicks so if they are counting both maybe we do get the 85%