Branded Keywords - Paid Listings vs. Natural Listings

[lmb]

Hello -

I have a client who is questioning the validity of branded keyword paid listings on majore engines, vs. just relying on the natural listings - does anyone have any research supporting paid listing of branded terms over natural listings?

Thank you! Linda

[Bernard]

Hi Linda, could you clarify what you mean by "branded keyword paid listings"? Do you mean any PPC ad (like AdWords, Overture, etc.) targeted to a specific search term, one of those scumware patches that let you type in a search term into the IE address bar or something else entirely?

Validity is a strange word. If a PPC campaign has a positive ROI, then it's valid in my book.

Of course, in the long run, effort (whether in-house time or outsourced $$$) and money (one-time directory submissions) spent improving natural listings may yield substantially greater dividends as the benefits last long after the money is spent and the wallet closed.

Both methods can drive targeted traffic.

[lmb]

Bernard,
Thank you for your response, and I agree - the term validity is vague, but alas, so be our clients!

Here's the story: Sr. Mgt at a major airline that I'm working with is querying why they should PAY for placement for their branded terms (for ex. "American Airlines"), when they feel that the consumer will find them under the natural listings.

I'm looking for research (data) other than qualitative statements, that back up the argument here for paying for placement with branded terms. I've to date not found any data that quantifies the benefit of deriving more traffic, conversions, etc from these placements (for branded terms or other).

Any help (data/studies/case studies/white papers) here would be greatly appreciated.

-Linda

[cline]

You may be able to find some research on PPC advertising for a term where you have high organic listings, but I don't think I've ever seen anything about advertising on your own brand name.

I can say I do routinely do this on my clients' accounts, just as a safety precaution, as the clicks are cheap and conversion tracking has indicated that they have stellar conversions. Of course, all of that may have come without the click charges, but it just seems to me to be cheap insurance.

[Bernard]

OK. That's a bit clearer. Especially if it is United Airlines (but we do not need to discuss that here).

I'm guessing that the airline offers fare booking and that would be what you can measure for ROI. If they have been conducting PPC campaigns for some time now, they should have some data available (assuming they are using a conversion tracking system) to calculate what the ROI is (or isn't) for searches on their brand name. That should offer the only answer they need. Either the ads are generating significantly more revenue than they cost or they aren't. There might be some additional arguments that searches specifically for the brand name would seek the natural listings if the PPC ad was not there. This could easily be tested by comparing traffic levels with and without the PPC ads.

Aside from the ROI, the only possible benefit to running PPC on your own brand name (assuming that you are #1 in natural search listings [which I would assume any airline would be]) would be additional branding opportunities available through content matching syndication (AdSense partners, etc.) where searches are not specifically conducted.

[cline]

Bernard, excellent point re Content Delivery. In the case of a well-known brand, content delivery is likely to kick in.

Imb, maybe you can redefine the question to make it go away. Sure, there's no research, but what about the content ads that could get delivered -- and at low click costs, too?

[doppelganger]

I think it was SES in NYC this year, but I saw some data out there that suggests running PPC ads on keywords you are also ranking well in naturally can increase overall click-throughs... 3x.

Anyone remember that one? I want to say it had something to do with Enquiro or iProspect...

[Elisabeth]

The value of bidding on a brand name is huge. I've definitely seen an average of 20% CTRs on popular brand names, and conversions from that point.

Anytime you appear more than once on a SERP, you're creating 'surround sound impact' - while greatly adding to credibility, and increasing the chances of your site getting clicked.

[Bernard]

The value of bidding on a brand name is huge. I've definitely seen an average of 20% CTRs on popular brand names, and conversions from that point.

Is this from the brand/trademark owner on SERPs where they occupy the #1 natural listing? If so, does 20% CTR on the PPC ad represent an increase in total traffic from the SERP? Ie. did the PPC ad just divert traffic from the natural listing (paying for what was otherwise free) or did it capture new traffic?

Anytime you appear more than once on a SERP, you're creating 'surround sound impact' - while greatly adding to credibility, and increasing the chances of your site getting clicked.

Sounds good in theory. Anyone have some numbers to "prove" it?

[seobook]

a person could do an A/B test by figuring out what the average daily spend for a single word is and then set it up as its own ad group and then cut it in half.

the problem is that to do a meaniful test you would want to do it across many terms and while you are not there your competitors are.

[haplo]

Anyone have some numbers to "prove" it?

Yes.

We have a biopharmaceutical client who ranks #1 for their product brand name.

We started PPC and their overall traffic spiked (of course, we started with lots of non-branded keywords, too) and sales climbed.

ROI tracking showed that non-branded keyword advertising gave them very little return -- so we nixed it (until additional content and customized landing pages are added).

Their traffic fell sharply, but remain above previous levels. CTR on the branded keywords fluctuate between 10%-35%. Their web sales remain more than 100% higher than with organic rankings alone. And the PPC advertising on their brand name earns between 10,000% and 25,000% ROI.

Proportionally, they get more sales from the organic listings, but there's no doubt their overall sales have increased with the branded PPC advertising.

[Bernard]

Thanks haplo. Does your client sell their brand name drugs direct from their website? For some reason, I thought that manufacturors could not sell directly over the 'net. Even Tylenol (over the counter/non-prescription) does not sell direct from the their site as far as I can tell.

If they do not sell direct, how are you measuring conversions/ROI?

[haplo]

Bernard, they do sell from their site.

I'm sure they've researched the legality of their business model, though I admit I have not.

They had distribution contracts in place before they launched their own website. After launch, they became the sole distributor.

[Bernard]

OK. Then your example fits the expectation. Thanks for sharing. Anyone have a counter-example?

[cjtripnewton]

I don't have a counter example, but you could persuade your client to buy its brand in search by explaining to them the fact that it would enable them to send visitors exactly where they want them to go. They could create and constantly rotate through landing pages, continuing to adjust them until they became star converters. You just can't do that with SEO reliably.

[AussieWebmaster]

Bernard,
Thank you for your response, and I agree - the term validity is vague, but alas, so be our clients!

Here's the story: Sr. Mgt at a major airline that I'm working with is querying why they should PAY for placement for their branded terms (for ex. "American Airlines"), when they feel that the consumer will find them under the natural listings.

I'm looking for research (data) other than qualitative statements, that back up the argument here for paying for placement with branded terms. I've to date not found any data that quantifies the benefit of deriving more traffic, conversions, etc from these placements (for branded terms or other).

Any help (data/studies/case studies/white papers) here would be greatly appreciated.

-Linda
Okay If your company owns the trademarked name then you can restrict the use of it. You will have to find out what the numbers are but fax the copy and they will restrict the use of the trademarked name.
The only way it can be countered is if the advertisers is doing comparisons of prices and services etc. (that's how the weightloss guys got to use WeightWatchers as a term)

But I would suggest you try getting them to pull the term down if it is trademarked. Or even the company name. Google and Overture should give you a little break and then no one advertsies and your position in the organic listings is solid, or should be.

[AussieWebmaster]

I sure you could get someone here to bang out a paper... one of the mods etc. But as far as a statistical study that would be hard to pull off... unless it is for a company by themselves... getting the competition to give up numbers would be tough.

[cjtripnewton]

Google no longer restricts the use of adwords on others' trademarks. They were successfully sued in France, and so continue to enforce that old rule there and in a few other European countries, but in America, you're free to pay Google to place an ad on anyone else's trademarks. The companies themselves are now left to work out the issues. They changed their position midstream as I was working to stop one of my client's competitors from buying ads on my client's company name.

[cjtripnewton]

April 9th Email from Google:

Thank you for your inquiry. I am writing to inform you that we have
recently revised our trademark policy, and in accordance with our new
policy we will not be able to remove the ad using your client's trademark
term as a keyword trigger.

As a provider of space for advertisements, please note that Google is not
in a position to arbitrate trademark disputes between the advertisers and
trademark owners. As stated in our Terms and Conditions, the advertisers
themselves are responsible for the keywords and ad text that they choose
to use. Accordingly, we encourage trademark owners to resolve their
disputes directly with the advertisers, particularly because the
advertisers may have similar advertisements on other sites.

As a courtesy to trademark owners, we previously performed a limited
investigation of reasonable trademark concerns, reviewing both ad text and
keywords. Under the new policy, trademark complaint investigations will no
longer include keywords that are targeted to the U.S. or Canada. As a
result, Google will not attempt to prevent trademarked terms in keywords
from triggering ads in the U.S. or Canada. However, we will continue to
perform a limited courtesy investigation of complaints regarding ad text
purported to be in violation of a trademark, regardless of where the ads
are targeted.

Mods, if this isn't allowed, I apologize in advance and ask that you delete it.

[Jeff Martin]

Ive been asked by clients about bidding on competitors trademarked terms and brands and I always advise them to be very careful. I strongly oppose the use of another companies trademarks outside of fair use.

To further a previous example, If Im a Delta Airlines I should not be allowed to buy the phrase "American Airlines" or "Southwest Airlines". Those companies have spent billions of dollars on name and brand recognition and I wouldnt want someone riding on my coat tails to steal a piece of my pie. Its more than liekly that the search user is indeed looking for "American Airlines".

We are more than likely one major lawsuit away from setting an acceptable standard.

[cjtripnewton]

I agree Jeff. Buying another company's trademarked terms is a breach of ethics in my opinion. When our client decided to just by the competition's business name as a retaliatory measure, we simply refused, citing the AMA's code of ethics. It would be putting our client at risk legally, and we can't do that.

[hotwheel]

How many newspapers, magazines, radio shows, television stations or any other medium restrict advertising based on the current content being delivered?

It would be a stretch to say you have never been watching a 20/20 or 60 Minutes piece on the lack of safety features in Car Brand X, and during the commercial break seen an advertisement for Car Brand Y.

These are some of the most sought after positions in any medium.

Lets address the 'American Airlines' example (I recognize that American Airlines is an established brand, but nonetheless it is a very poor brand name - see "The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding" for more on that statement). I am Canadian and I will be traveling exclusively through the US on soon. So I want to know all my options and therefore search for 'American' airlines. To say that SouthWest, JetBlue, Alaska, United or any other airline should refrain from targeting those keywords is ridiculous.

I know that was a loaded example, but if you are to make a convincing argument you must use convincing and irrefutable examples.

[medkraft]

I think it was SES in NYC this year, but I saw some data out there that suggests running PPC ads on keywords you are also ranking well in naturally can increase overall click-throughs... 3x. Anyone remember that one? I want to say it had something to do with Enquiro or iProspect...

Anne Kennedy from Beyondink wrote an article back in October (featured on Search Engine Watch) that mentioned a study by SEO-PR that revealed click-through rates tripled for a site positioned in top spots for both natural and paid listings.

You can find the full article here:

http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3095871

[cline]

There's nothing ethically wrong with targeting advertising to appear on searches for competitors trademarks. It's no different from similar, offline targeting techniques. For example:

A customer asks a travel agent about an American Airlines route between Katmandu and Timbucktoo, and the travel agent says "did you know that Delta and United also fly that route? Would you like information on them, too?"

You buy a box of Post cereal, and the POS terminal automatically spits out a coupon for box of Kellogg's.

Trademark protection is about preventing deception; it's not about preventing advertising. As long as a reasonable consumer is not deceived about what they're being sold (e.g., Post cereal is not being labled as Kellogg's), in response to a consumer's inquiry about one brand it's ethical to suggest competing brands in response.

[Jeff Martin]

I appreciate everyone's input. Undoubtedly this will be decided for all of us in a courtroom.

I ask my clients if it would be worth it to advertise on trademarked keywords if it meant months of litigation and employee manpower and thousands of dollars in legal fees. If the answer is no then they should avoid advertising on trademarked keywords.

If they got deep pockets then they maybe they can buy their way out of it or hire a 900lb lawyer gorilla...wait...that doesn't happen in the US now does it??!?!?!

:D

[cline]

Very good point about reviewing the risks with the client first. I always discuss the risks of this first with my clients, although IMO the risks aren't serious. In my pre-internet days I used to work for a company that with some regularity got hit with cease-and-desist letters re trademark infringement. As long as the accused complies, that's normally the end of it, as the accuser has to demonstrate damages to take the matter further. To prove damages the acuser has to prove that customers were deceived into thinking they were buying from the trademark holder when they in fact were not.

I have one client that is waist deep in this kind of targeting. The client's lawyer did not feel this was a significant legal risk. Theclient has been doing heavy PPC advertising on trademark terms for over a year, without any problems.

[bradbyrd]

jeff,

one thing to consider: what happens when you run a broad match campaign? let's take the "american airlines" as client example. unless you run negative terms (only an option in Google, currently), you will match for competitors if, for example, you go broad on "airline" and the search is "delta airlines" or "southwest airlines" etc. is that brand infringement? should you forgo a broad match for fear of this overlap?

Google's legal position makes sense, and you can be sure they researched it extensively before making it policy. as cline mentioned, trademarks are about preventing DECEPTION or CONFUSION. as i understand it, Google's new policy is to not allow branded keywords in the creative, but they do allow you to buy the keyword itself. this means that you can have an american airlines ad show up for a delta keyword, but you can't have the listing say: "Looking to Fly Delta? We offer the lowest prices on flights nationwide"... ie. the prevent you from leveraging the brand in the creative to confuse customers.

of course, this begs an interesting question: what about "dynamic keyword inclusion" (where your title automatically reflects the keywords that were searched on)...? how do they handle brand management there?

[AussieWebmaster]

Google no longer restricts the use of adwords on others' trademarks. They were successfully sued in France, and so continue to enforce that old rule there and in a few other European countries, but in America, you're free to pay Google to place an ad on anyone else's trademarks. The companies themselves are now left to work out the issues. They changed their position midstream as I was working to stop one of my client's competitors from buying ads on my client's company name.
Hey last month I had my use of 'FX trading' pulled because it was also a company name... until they were told it also is a descriptive term.

[hotwheel]

Google still honors trademarks if the registered owner of the mark has requested no one use their TM.

[cline]

Google still honors trademarks if the registered owner of the mark has requested no one use their TM.
Not in the US and Canada, only elsewhere. Just yesterday I got a client approved for a bunch of previously verboten terms.

[brookwater]

ppc by seo's has led all search engines to push this method for inclusion in their directory's/ listings. this is a flawed concept recent research has pointed out the the general "buying" public to not trust paid/ppc listings as much as they trust natural/organic listings.

ppc in my book is lazy seo. any fool can do ppc! it is not cost effective, it does not generate buyers, just browsers.

in seo, as in anything in life, the easy route is not always the best route. it may work maginally at best, at worst be a waste of time & money.

it is time the seo community woke up to the scam that google, yahoo, overture etal have got away with so far. ppc is not the answer.

Trust natural/organic listings, the general "buying" public do.

[Bernard]

Anne Kennedy from Beyondink wrote an article back in October (featured on Search Engine Watch) that mentioned a study by SEO-PR that revealed click-through rates tripled for a site positioned in top spots for both natural and paid listings.

Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, it appears that the thrust of the research was carried out on generic (non-trademark) terms. In these cases, I would definitely expect an additional benefit to double representation.

However, I would expect the impact to be much less noticable (if it exists at all) for specific trademark/brand name queries. I suspect that the results will differ depending upon the nature of the trademark and whether people are looking for the trademark/brand owner or a retailer.

[seobook]

ppc in my book is lazy seo. any fool can do ppc! it is not cost effective, it does not generate buyers, just browsers.

if it is so lazy and easy then why can't you make any money from it? if it does not generate any sales that tells me you are doing it all wrong.

in seo, as in anything in life, the easy route is not always the best route. it may work maginally at best, at worst be a waste of time & money.

many accounts work way better than marginally. if it only works marginally in your mind that is because you do not have a solid tested and refined system put together.

it is time the seo community woke up to the scam that google, yahoo, overture etal have got away with so far. ppc is not the answer.

Trust natural/organic listings, the general "buying" public do.

targeted traffic is worthless? what is your answer then? should search engines work free?

anyone can complain, but complaints without any sort of answer do nothing to improve situations.

while many sales occur from natural listings many also occur from the paid side.

[hotwheel]

Anyone who says PPC is a waste of time and generates no buyers is a fool.

Our company has grown a product from the ground to a million+ dollar product in under a year on the back of PPC (and organic). Without the two method used together, there is no way we'd be where we are.

[hotwheel]

Not in the US and Canada, only elsewhere. Just yesterday I got a client approved for a bunch of previously verboten terms.

Straight from the horses mouth:

https://adwords.google.com/select/faq/guidelines.html

What is Google’s Trademark Policy?
As a provider of space for advertisements, we cannot arbitrate trademark disputes between advertisers and trademark owners. As stated in our Terms and Conditions, advertisers are responsible for the keywords and ad text that they choose to use. We encourage trademark owners to resolve their disputes directly with our advertisers, particularly because the advertisers may have similar advertisements on other sites.

As a courtesy, we are willing to perform a limited investigation of reasonable complaints. When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, our review is limited to ensuring that the advertisements at issue are not using the trademarked term as a keyword trigger. If they are, we disable those keywords from the ad campaign. Please note that any such investigation will only affect ads served on or by Google. Trademark claims can be filed at any time. The trademark owner is not required to be a Google AdWords advertiser in order to file a claim.

[cline]

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.google.com/tm_complaint.html#1

Trademark Complaint Procedure – Trademark rights in US and Canada

When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, we will only investigate whether the advertisements at issue are using terms corresponding to the trademarked term in the advertisement's content. If they are, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademarked term from the content of the ad and prevent the advertiser from using the trademarked term in ad content in the future. Please note that we will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.

[AussieWebmaster]

Well I know they told me I had to take a word off the list so I guess they investigated... but not very thoughtfully..
fx trading was the term.... my response was it was as generic and kitchen sinks so I was going to register kitchensinks.com and then not let them advertise that term...
had the word back before close of business that day.

[hotwheel]

Looks like someone has their policies communicated incorrectly.

[AussieWebmaster]

Okay having reread the above I now realize that I was misunderstanding them and some of what has been said here.
They were pushing me to take the terms out of my ad. They may have let me keep the adword.
But it seems like they have some tweaking to do.