Connect with us


SEO Recap: PageRank – Moz



What Are the Best Tools for Storytelling With Data Visualization?

The author’s views are entirely his or her own (excluding the unlikely event of hypnosis) and may not always reflect the views of Moz.

Have you ever wondered how Moz employees learn internally? Well, here’s your chance to get a sneak peek into never seen before, internal webinar footage with Tom Capper! Learning is important at Moz, and the sharing of information amongst employees is crucial in making sure we stay true to our core values. Knowledge sharing allows us to stay transparent, work together more easily, find better ways of doing things, and create even better tools and experiences for our customers.

Tom started these sessions when everyone was working remotely in 2020. It allowed us to come together again in a special, collaborative way. So, today, we give to you all the gift of learning! In this exclusive webinar, Tom Capper takes us through the crucial topic of PageRank.

Video Transcription

This is actually a topic that I used to put poor, innocent, new recruits through, particularly if they came from a non-marketing background. Even though this is considered by a lot people to be an advanced topic, I think it’s something that actually it makes sense for people who want to learn about SEO to learn first because it’s foundational. And if you think about a lot of other technical SEO and link building topics from this perspective, they make a lot more sense and are simpler and you kind of figure out the answers yourself rather than needing to read 10,000 word blog posts and patents and this kind of thing.

Anyway, hold that thought, because it’s 1998. I am 6 years old, and this is a glorious state-of-the-art video game, and internet browsing that I do in my computer club at school looks a bit like this. I actually didn’t use Yahoo!. I used Excite, which in hindsight was a mistake, but in my defense I was 6.

The one thing you’ll notice about this as a starting point for a journey on the internet, compared to something like Google or whatever you use today, maybe even like something that’s built into your browser these days, there is a lot of links on this page, and mostly there are links to pages with links on this page. It’s kind of like a taxonomy directory system. And this is important because if a lot of people browse the web using links, and links are primarily a navigational thing, then we can get some insights out of looking at links.

They’re a sort of proxy for popularity. If we assume that everyone starts their journey on the internet on Yahoo! in 1998, then the pages that are linked to from Yahoo! are going to get a lot of traffic. They are, by definition, popular, and the pages that those pages link to will also still get quite a lot and so on and so forth. And through this, we could build up some kind of picture of what websites are popular. And popularity is important because if you show popular websites to users in search results, then they will be more trustworthy and credible and likely to be good and this kind of thing.

This is massive oversimplification, bear with me, but this is kind of why Google won. Google recognized this fact, and they came up with an innovation called PageRank, which made their search engine better than other people’s search engines, and which every other search engine subsequently went on to imitate.

However, is anything I said just now relevant 23 years later? We definitely do not primarily navigate the word with links anymore. We use these things called search engines, which Google might know something about. But also we use newsfeeds, which are kind of dynamic and uncrawlable, and all sorts of other non-static, HTML link-based patterns. Links are probably not the majority even of how we navigate our way around the web, except maybe within websites. And Google has better data on popularity anyway. Like Google runs a mobile operating system. They run ISPs. They run a browser. They run YouTube. There are lots of ways for Google to figure out what is and isn’t popular without building some arcane link graph.

However, be that true or not, there still is a core methodology that underpins how Google works on a foundational level. In 1998, it was the case that PageRank was all of how Google worked really. It was just PageRank plus relevance. These days, there’s a lot of nuance and layers on top, and even PageRank itself probably isn’t even called that and probably has changed and been refined and tweaked around the edges. And it might be that PageRank is not used as a proxy for popularity anymore, but maybe as a proxy for trust or something like that and it has a slightly different role in the algorithm.

But the point is we still know purely through empirical evidence that changing how many and what pages link to a page has a big impact on organic performance. So we still know that something like this is happening. And the way that Google talks about how links work and their algorithms still reflects a broadly PageRank-based understanding as do developments in SEO directives and hreflang and rel and this kind of thing. It still all speaks to a PageRank-based ecosystem, if not a PageRank-only ecosystem.

Also, I’m calling it PageRank because that’s what Google calls it, but some other things you should be aware of that SEOs use, link equity I think is a good one to use because it kind of explains what you’re talking about in a useful way. Link flow, it’s not bad, but link flow is alluding to a different metaphor that you’ve probably seen before, where you think of links as being sent through big pipes of liquids that then pour in different amounts into different pages. It’s a different metaphor to the popularity one, and as a result it has some different implications if it’s overstretched, so use some caution. And then linking strength, I don’t really know what metaphor this is trying to do. It doesn’t seem as bad as link juice, at least fine, I guess.

More importantly, how does it work? And I don’t know if anyone here hates maths. If you do, I’m sorry, but there’s going to be maths.

So the initial sort of question is or the foundation of all this is imagine that, so A, in the red box here, that’s a web page to be clear in this diagram, imagine that the whole internet is represented in this diagram, that there’s only one web page, which means this is 1970 something, I guess, what is the probability that a random browser is on this page? We can probably say it’s one or something like that. If you want to have some other take on that, it kind of doesn’t matter because it’s all just going to be based on whatever number that is. From that though, we can sort of try to infer some other things.

So whatever probability you thought that was, and let’s say we thought that if there’s one page on the internet, everyone is on it, what’s the probability a random browser is on the one page, A, links to? So say that we’ve pictured the whole internet here. A is a page that links to another page which links nowhere. And we started by saying that everyone was on this page. Well, what’s the probability now, after a cycle, that everyone will be on this page? Well, we go with the assumption that there’s an 85% chance, and the 85% number comes from Google’s original 1998 white paper. There’s an 85% chance that they go onto this one page in their cycle, and a 15% chance that they do one of these non-browser-based activities. And the reason why we assume that there’s a chance on every cycle that people exit to do non-browser-based activities, it’s because otherwise we get some kind of infinite cycle later on. We don’t need to worry about that. But yeah, the point is that if you assume that people never leave their computers and that they just browse through links endlessly, then you end up assuming eventually that every page has infinite traffic, which is not the case.

That’s the starting point where we have this really simple internet, we have a page with a link on it, and a page without a link on it and that’s it. Something to bear in mind with these systems is, obviously, web pages don’t have our link on them and web pages with no links on them are virtually unheard of, like the one on the right. This gets really complex really fast. If we try to make a diagram just of two pages on the Moz website, it would not fit on the screen. So we’re talking with really simplified versions here, but it doesn’t matter because the principles are extensible.

So what if the page on the left actually linked to two pages, not one? What is the probability now that we’re on one of those two pages? We’re taking that 85% chance that they move on at all without exiting, because the house caught fire, they went for a bike ride or whatever, and we’re now dividing that by two. So we’re saying 42.5% chance that they were on this page, 42.5% chance they were on this page, and then nothing else happens because there are no more links in the world. That’s fine.

What about this page? So if this page now links to one more, how does this page’s strength relates to page A? So this one was 0.85/2, and this one is 0.85 times that number. So note that we are diluting as we go along because we’ve applied that 15% deterioration on every step. This is useful and interesting to us because we can imagine a model in which page A, on the left, is our homepage and the page on the right is some page we want to rank, and we’re diluting with every step that we have to jump to get there. And this is crawl depth, which is a metric that is exposed by Moz Pro and most other technical SEO tools. That’s why crawl depth is something that people are interested in is this, and part of it is discovery, which we won’t get into today, but part of it is also this dilution factor.

And then if this page actually linked to three, then again, each of these pages is only one-third as strong as when it only linked to one. So it’s being split up and diluted the further down we go.

So that all got very complicated very quick on a very simple, fictional website. Don’t panic. The lessons we want to take away from this are quite simple, even though the math becomes very arcane very quickly.

So the first lesson we want to take is that each additional link depth diluted value. So we talked about the reasons for that, but obviously it has implications for site structure. It also has implications in some other things, some other common technical SEO issues that I’ll cover in a bit.

So if I link to a page indirectly that is less effective than linking to a page directly, even in a world where every page only has one link on it, which is obviously an ideal scenario.

The other takeaway we can have is that more links means each link is less valuable. So if every additional link you add to your homepage, you’re reducing the effectiveness of the links that were already there. So this is very important because if you look on a lot of sites right now, you’ll find 600 link mega navs at the top of the page and the same at the bottom of the page and all this kind of thing. And that can be an okay choice. I’m not saying that’s always wrong, but it is a choice and it has dramatic implications.

Some of the biggest changes in SEO performance I’ve ever seen on websites came from cutting back the number of links on the homepage by a factor of 10. If you change a homepage so that it goes from linking to 600 pages to linking to the less than 100 that you actually want to rank, that will almost always have a massive difference, a massive impact, more so than external link building could ever dream of because you’re not going to get that 10 times difference through external link building, unless it’s a startup or something.

Some real-world scenarios. I want to talk about basically some things that SEO tools often flag, that we’re all familiar with talking about as SEO issues or optimizations or whatever, but often we don’t think about why and we definitely don’t think of them as being things that hark back quite so deep into Google’s history.

So a redirect is a link, the fictional idea of a page with one link on it is a redirect, because a redirect is just a page that links to exactly one other page. So in this scenario, the page on the left could have linked directly to the page on the top right, but because it didn’t, we’ve got this 0.85 squared here, which is 0.7225. The only thing you need to know about that is that it’s a smaller number than 0.85. Because we didn’t link directly, we went through this page here that redirected, which doesn’t feel like a link, but is a link in this ecosystem, we’ve just arbitrarily decided to dilute the page at the end of the cycle. And this is, obviously, particularly important when we think about chain redirects, which is another thing that’s often flagged by the SEO tools.

But when you look in an issue report in something like Moz Pro and it gives you a list of redirects as if they’re issues, that can be confusing because a redirect is something we’re also told is a good thing. Like if we have a URL that’s no longer in use, it should redirect. But the reason that issue is being flagged is we shouldn’t still be linking to the URL that redirects. We should be linking directly to the thing at the end of the chain. And this is why. It’s because of this arbitrary dilution that we’re inserting into our own website, which is basically just a dead weight loss. If you imagine that in reality, pages do tend to link back to each other, this will be a big complex web and cycle that is, and I think this is where the flow thing comes around because people can imagine a flow of buckets that drip round into each other but leak a little bit at every step, and then you get less and less water, unless there’s some external source. If you imagine these are looping back around, then inserting redirects is just dead weight loss. We’ve drilled a hole in the bottom of a bucket.

So, yeah, better is a direct link. Worse is a 302, although that’s a controversial subject, who knows. Google sometimes claim that they treat 302s as 301s these days. Let’s not get into that.

Canonicals, very similar, a canonical from a PageRank perspective. A canonical is actually a much later addition to search engines. But a canonical is basically equivalent to a 301 redirect. So if we have this badgers page, which has two versions, so you can access it by going to badgers?colour=brown. Or so imagine I have a website that sells live badgers for some reason in different colors, and then I might have these two different URL variants for my badger e-com page filtered to brown. And I’ve decided that this one without any parameters is the canonical version, literally and figuratively speaking. If the homepage links to it via this parameter page, which then has canonical tag pointing at the correct version, then I’ve arbitrarily weakened the correct version versus what I could have done, which would be the direct link through. Interestingly, if we do have this direct link through, note that this page now has no strength at all. It now has no inbound links, and also it probably wouldn’t get flagged as an error in the tool because the tool wouldn’t find it.

You’ll notice I put a tilde before the number zero. We’ll come to that.

PageRank sculpting is another thing that I think is interesting because people still try to do it even though it’s not worked for a really long time. So this is an imaginary scenario that is not imaginary at all. It’s really common, Moz probably has this exact scenario, where your homepage links to some pages you care about and also some pages you don’t really care about, certainly from an SEO perspective, such as your privacy policy. Kind of sucks because, in this extreme example here, having a privacy policy has just randomly halved the strength of a page you care about. No one wants that.

So what people used to do was they would use a link level nofollow. They use a link level nofollow, which . . . So the idea was, and it worked at the time, and by at the time, I mean like 2002 or something. But people still try this on new websites today. The idea was that effectively the link level nofollow removed this link, so it was as if your homepage only linked to one page. Great, everyone is a winner.

Side note I talked about before. So no page actually has zero PageRank. A page with no links in the PageRank model has the PageRank one over the number of pages on the internet. That’s the seeding probability that before everything starts going and cycles round and figures out what the stable equilibrium PageRank is, they assume that there’s an equal chance you’re on any page on the internet. One divided by the number of pages on the internet is a very small number, so we can think of it as zero.

This was changed, our level nofollow hack was changed again a very, very long time ago such that if you use a link level nofollow, and by the way, this is also true if you use robots.txt to do this, this second link will still be counted in when we go here and we have this divided by two to say we are halving, there’s an equal chance that you go to either of these pages. This page still gets that reduction because it was one of two links, but this page at the bottom now has no strength at all because it was only linked through a nofollow. So if you do this now, it’s a worst of both world scenario. And you might say, “Oh, I don’t actually care whether my privacy policy has zero strength,” whatever. But you do care because your privacy policy probably links through the top nav to every other page on your website. So you’re still doing yourself a disservice.

Second side note, I said link level nofollow, meaning nofollow in the HTML is an attribute to a link. There is also page level nofollow, which I struggled to think of a single good use case for. Basically, a page level nofollow means we are going to treat every single link on this page as nofollow. So we’re just going to create a PageRank dead-end. This is a strange thing to do. Sometimes people use robots.txt, which basically does the same thing. If I block this page with robota.txt, that’s the same in terms of the PageRank consequences, except there are other good reasons to do that, like I might not want Google to ever see this, or I might want to prevent a massive waste of Google’s crawlers’ time so that they spend more time crawling the rest of my site or something like this. There are reasons to use robots.txt. Page level nofollow is we’re going to create that dead-end, but also we’re going to waste Google’s time crawling it anyway.

Some of the extreme scenarios I just talked about, particularly the one with the privacy policy, changed a lot for the better for everyone in 2004 with something called reasonable surfer, which you occasionally still hear people talking about now, but mostly implicitly. And it is probably actually an under-discussed or underheld in mind topic.

So these days, and by these days, I mean for the last 17 years, if one of these links was that massive call to action and another one of these links was in the footer, like a privacy policy link often is, then Google will apply some sense and say the chance people click on this one . . . Google was trying to figure out probabilities here, remember. So we’ll split this. This 0.9 and 0.1 still have to add up to 1, but we’ll split them in a more reasonable fashion. Yeah, they were doing that a long time ago. They’ve probably got very, very good at it by now.

Noindex is an interesting one because, traditionally, you would think that has nothing to do with PageRank. So, yeah, a noindex tag just means this should never show up in search results, this page at the bottom, which is fine. There are some valid reasons to do that. Maybe you’re worried that it will show up for the wrong query that something else on your site is trying to show up for, or maybe it contains sensitive information or something like this. Okay, fine. However, when you put a noindex tag on something, Google eventually stops crawling it. Everyone sort of intuitively knew all the pieces of this puzzle, but Google only acknowledged that this behavior is what happens a couple of years ago.

So Google eventually stops crawling it, and when Google stops crawling on it, it stops passing PageRank. So noindex follow, which used to be quite a good thing or we thought quite a good thing to do for a page like an HTML sitemap page or something like that, like an HTML sitemap page, clearly you don’t want to show up in search results because it’s kind of crap and a poor reflection on your site and not a good UX and this kind of thing. But it is a good way to pass equity through to a bunch of deep pages, or so we thought. It turns out probably not. It was equivalent to that worst case scenario, page level nofollow in the long run that we talked about earlier. And again, this is probably why noindex is flagged as an error in tools like Moz Pro, although often it’s not well explained or understood.

My pet theory on how links work is that, at this stage, they’re no longer a popularity proxy because there’s better ways of doing that. But they are a brand proxy for a frequently cited brand. Citation and link are often used synonymously in this industry, so that kind of makes sense. However, once you actually start ranking in the top 5 or 10, my experience is that links become less and less relevant the more and more competitive a position you’re in because Google has increasingly better data to figure out whether people want to click on you or not. This is some data from 2009, contrasting ranking correlations in positions 6 to 10, versus positions 1 to 5. Basically, both brand and link become less relevant, or the easily measured versions become less relevant, which again is kind of exploring that theory that the higher up you rank, the more bespoke and user signal-based it might become.

This is some older data, where I basically looked at to what extent you can use Domain Authority to predict rankings, which is this blue bar, to what extent you could use branded search volume to predict rankings, which is this green bar, and to what extent you could use a model containing them both to predict rankings, which is not really any better than just using branded search volume. This is obviously simplified and flawed data, but this is some evidence towards the hypothesis that links are used as a brand proxy.

Video transcription by

Source link


How to optimize your online forms and checkouts



How to optimize your online forms and checkouts

Forms are probably the most important part of your customer journey. They are the final step where the user entrusts you with their precious personal information in exchange for the goods or services you’ve promised.

And yet, too many companies spend minimal time on making sure their form experience is a good one for their users. They don’t use data to establish where the UX problems are on their forms, and they don’t run form-specific experiments to determine how to improve their conversion rate. As a result, too many forms are unnecessarily driving potential customers away, burning potential revenue and leads that could have been converted if they had only spent a little time and effort on optimization. Two-thirds of people who start a form don’t go on to complete it, meaning that a lot of money is being left on the table.

This article contains some of our top tips to help optimize your forms + checkouts with the goal of improving their conversion rate and delivering more customers and leads.

Use data to identify your problem fields

While user testing and session replay tools are useful in identifying possible form issues, you should also be using a specialist form analytics tool, as this will allow you to quantify the scale of the problem – where are most people dropping out – and prioritize improvements accordingly. A good form analytics tool will have advanced insights that will help work out what the problem is as well, giving you a head start on creating hypotheses for testing.

A/B test your forms

We’ve already mentioned how important it is to nurture your forms like any other part of your website. This also applies to experimentation. Your A/B testing tool such as Optimizely should allow you to easily put together a test to see if your hypothesis will improve your conversion rate. If there is also an integration with your form analytics tool you should then be able to push the test variants into it for further analysis.

Your analytics data and user testing should guide your test hypothesis, but some aspects you may want to look at are:

  • Changing the error validation timing (to trigger upon input rather than submission)
  • Breaking the form into multiple steps rather than a single page
  • Removing or simplifying problem fields
  • Manage user expectations by adding a progress bar and telling them how long the form will take upfront
  • Removing links to external sites so they are not distracted
  • Re-wording your error messages to make them more helpful

Focus on user behavior after a failed submission

Potential customers who work their way through their form, inputting their personal information, before clicking on the final ‘Submit’ button are your most valuable. They’ve committed time and effort to your form; they want what you are offering. If they click that button but can’t successfully complete the form, something has gone wrong, and you will be losing conversions that you could have made.

Fortunately, there are ways to use your form data to determine what has gone wrong so you can improve the issue.

Firstly, you should look at your error message data for this particular audience. Which messages are shown when they click ‘Submit? What do they do then? Do they immediately abandon, or do they try to fix the issue?

If you don’t have error message tracking (or even if you do), it is worth looking at a Sankey behavior flow for your user’s path after a failed submission. This audience will click the button then generally jump back to the field they are having a problem with. They’ll try to fix it, unsuccessfully, then perhaps bounce back and forth between the problem field a couple of times before abandoning in frustration. By looking at the flow data, you can determine the most problematic fields and focus your attention there.

Microcopy can make the checkout experience less stressful

If a user is confused, it makes their form/checkout experience much less smooth than it otherwise could be. Using microcopy – small pieces of explanatory information – can help reduce anxiety and make it more likely that they will complete the form.

Some good uses of microcopy on your forms could be:

  • Managing user expectations. Explain what information they need to enter in the form so they can have it on hand. For example, if they are going to need their driver’s licence, then tell them so.
  • Explain fields. Checkouts often ask for multiple addresses. Think “Current Address”, “Home Address” and “Delivery Address”. It’s always useful to make it clear exactly what you mean by these so there is no confusion.
  • Field conditions. If you have strict stipulations on password creation, make sure you tell the user. Don’t wait until they have submitted to tell them you need special characters, capital letters, etc.
  • You can often nudge the user in a certain direction with a well-placed line of copy.
  • Users are reluctant to give you personal information, so explaining why you need it and what you are going to do with it is a good idea.

A good example of reassuring microcopy

Be careful with discount codes

What is the first thing a customer does if they are presented with a discount code box on an ecommerce checkout? That’s right, they open a new browser tab and go searching for vouchers. Some of them never come back. If you are using discount codes, you could be driving customers away instead of converting them. Some studies show that users without a code are put off purchasing when they see the discount code box.

Fortunately, there are ways that you can continue to offer discount codes while mitigating the FOMO that users without one feel:

  • Use pre-discounted links. If you are offering a user a specific discount, email a link rather than giving them a code, which will only end up on a discount aggregator site.
  • Hide the coupon field. Make the user actively open the coupon box rather than presenting them with it smack in the middle of the flow.
  • Host your own offers. Let every user see all the offers that are live so they can be sure that they are not missing out.
  • Change the language. Follow Amazon’s lead and combine the Gift Card & Promotional Codes together to make it less obvious.

An example from Amazon on how to make the discount code field less prominent

Get error messages right

Error messages don’t have to be bad UX. If done right, they can help guide users through your form and get them to commit.

How do you make your error messages useful?

  • Be clear that they are errors. Make the messages standout from the form – there is a reason they are always in red.
  • Be helpful. Explain exactly what the issue is and tell the user how to fix it. Don’t be ambiguous.

Don’t do this!

  • Display the error next to the offending field. Don’t make the user have to jump back to the top of the form to find out what is wrong.
  • Use microcopy. As noted before, if you explain what they need to do early, they users are less likely to make mistakes.

Segment your data by user groups

Once you’ve identified an issue, you’ll want to check whether it affects all your users or just a specific group. Use your analytics tools to break down the audience and analyze this. Some of the segmentations you might want to look at are:

  • Device type. Do desktop and mobile users behave differently?
  • Operating system. Is there a problem with how a particular OS renders your form?
  • New vs. returning. Are returning users more or less likely to convert than first timers?
  • Do different product buyers have contrasting expectations of the checkout?
  • Traffic source. Do organic sources deliver users with higher intent than paid ones?


About the author

Alun Lucas is the Managing Director of Zuko Analytics. Zuko is an Optimizely partner that provides form optimization software that can identify when, where and why users are abandoning webforms and help get more customers successfully completing your forms.

Source link

Continue Reading


3 Smart Bidding Strategies To Help You Get the Most Out of Your Google Ads



3 Smart Bidding Strategies To Help You Get the Most Out of Your Google Ads

Now that we’ve officially settled into the new year, it’s important to reiterate that among the most effective ways to promote your business are Google Ads. Not only do Google Ads increase your brand visibility, but they also make it easier for you to sell your services and products while generating more traffic to your website.

The thing about Google Ads, though, is that setting up (and running) a Google Ads campaign isn’t easy – in fact, it’s pretty beginner-unfriendly and time-consuming. And yet, statistically speaking, no platform does what Google Ads can do when it comes to audience engagement and outreach. Therefore, it will be beneficial to learn about and adopt some smart bidding strategies that can help you get the most out of your Google Ads.

To that end, let’s check out a few different bidding strategies you can put behind your Google Ads campaigns, how these strategies can maximize the results of your Google Ads, and the biggest benefits of each strategy.

Smart bidding in Google Ads: what does it mean, anyway?

Before we cover the bidding strategies that can get the most out of your Google Ads, let’s define what smart bidding means. Basically, it lets Google Ads optimize your bids for you. That doesn’t mean that Google replaces you when you leverage smart bidding, but it does let you free up time otherwise spent on keeping track of the when, how, and how much when bidding on keywords.

The bidding market is simply too big – and changing too rapidly – for any one person to keep constant tabs on it. There are more than 5.5 billion searches that Google handles every day, and most of those searches are subject to behind-the-scenes auctions that determine which ads display based on certain searches, all in a particular order.

That’s where smart bidding strategies come in: they’re a type of automated bidding strategy to generate more conversions and bring in more money, increasing your profits and cash flow. Smart bidding is your way of letting Google Ads know what your goals are (a greater number of conversions, a goal cost per conversion, more revenue, or a better ROAS), after which Google checks what it’s got on file for your current conversion data and then applies that data to the signals it gets from its auctions.

Types of smart bidding strategies

Now that you know what smart bidding in Google Ads is and why it’s important, let’s cover the best smart bidding strategies you can use to your advantage.

Maximize your conversions

The goal of this strategy is pretty straightforward: maximize your conversions and get the most out of your budget’s allocation toward said conversions. Your conversions, be they a form submission, a customer transaction, or a simple phone call, are something valuable that you want to track and, of course, maximize.

The bottom line here is simply generating the greatest possible number of conversions for your budget. This strategy can potentially become costly, so remember to keep an eye on your cost-per-click and how well your spending is staying inside your budget.

If you want to be extra vigilant about keeping conversion costs in a comfy range, you can define a CPA goal for your maximize conversions strategy (assuming you’ve got this feature available).

Target cost per acquisition

The purpose behind this strategy is to meet or surpass your cost-per-acquisition objective that’s tied to your daily budget. When it comes to this strategy, it’s important to determine what your cost-per-acquisition goal is for the strategy you’re pursuing.

In most cases, your target cost per acquisition goal will be similar to the 30-day average you’ve set for your Google Ads campaign. Even if this isn’t going to be your end-all-be-all CPA goal, you’ll want to use this as a starting point.

You’ll have lots of success by simply leveraging target cost per acquisition on a campaign-by-campaign basis, but you can take this one step further by creating a single tCPA bid strategy that you share between every single one of your campaigns. This makes the most sense when running campaigns with identical CPA objectives. That’s because you’ll be engaging with a bidding strategy that’s fortified with a lot of aggregate data from which Google’s algorithm can draw, subsequently endowing all of your campaigns with some much-needed experience.

Maximize clicks

As its name implies, this strategy centers around ad optimization to gain as many clicks as possible based on your budget. We recommend using the maximize clicks strategy if you’re trying to drive more traffic to your website. The best part? Getting this strategy off the ground is about as easy as it gets.

All you need to do to get started with maximizing clicks is settle on a maximum cost-per-click that you then earmark. Once that’s done, you can decide how much money you want to shell out every time you pay for a bid. You don’t actually even need to specify an amount per bid since Google will modify your bids for you to maximize your clicks automatically.

Picture this: you’ve got a website you’re running and want to drive more traffic to it. You decide to set your maximum bid per click at $2.5. Google looks at your ad, adjusts it to $3, and automatically starts driving more clicks per ad (and more traffic to your site), all without ever going over the budget you set for your Google Ads campaign.


If you’ve been using manual bidding until now, you probably can’t help but admit that you spend way too much time wrangling with it. There are plenty of other things you’d rather be – and should be – spending your time on. Plus, bids change so quickly that trying to keep up with them manually isn’t even worth it anymore.

Thankfully, you’ve now got a better grasp on automated and smart bidding after having read through this article, and you’re aware of some important options you have when it comes to strategies for automated bidding. Now’s a good time to explore even more Google Ads bidding strategies and see which ones make the most sense when it comes to your unique and long-term business objectives. Settle on a strategy and then give it a whirl – you’ll only know whether a strategy is right for you after you’ve tested it time and time again. Good luck!

Source link

Continue Reading


Is Twitter Still a Thing for Content Marketers in 2023?



Is Twitter Still a Thing for Content Marketers in 2023?

The world survived the first three months of Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover.

But what are marketers doing now? Did your brand follow the shift Dennis Shiao made for his personal brand? As he recently shared, he switched his primary platform from Twitter to LinkedIn after the 2022 ownership change. (He still uses Twitter but posts less frequently.)

Are those brands that altered their strategy after the new ownership maintaining that plan? What impact do Twitter’s service changes (think Twitter Blue subscriptions) have?

We took those questions to the marketing community. No big surprise? Most still use Twitter. But from there, their responses vary from doing nothing to moving away from the platform.

Lowest points

At the beginning of the Elon era, more than 500 big-name advertisers stopped buying from the platform. Some (like Amazon and Apple) resumed their buys before the end of 2022. Brand accounts’ organic activity seems similar.

In November, Emplifi research found a 26% dip in organic posting behavior by U.S. and Canadian brands the week following a significant spike in the negative sentiment of an Elon tweet. But that drop in posting wasn’t a one-time thing.

Kyle Wong, chief strategy officer at Emplifi, shares a longer analysis of well-known fast-food brands. When comparing December 2021 to December 2022 activity, the brands posted 74% less, and December was the least active month of 2022.

Fast-food brands posted 74% less on @Twitter in December 2022 than they did in December 2021, according to @emplifi_io analysis via @AnnGynn @CMIContent. Click To Tweet

When Emplifi analyzed brand accounts across industries (2,330 from U.S. and Canada and 6,991 elsewhere in the world), their weekly Twitter activity also fell to low points in November and December. But by the end of the year, their activity was inching up.

“While the percentage of brands posting weekly is on the rise once again, the number is still lower than the consistent posting seen in earlier months,” Kyle says.

Quiet-quitting Twitter

Lacey Reichwald, marketing manager at Aha Media Group, says the company has been quiet-quitting Twitter for two months, simply monitoring and posting the occasional link. “It seems like the turmoil has settled down, but the overall impact of Twitter for brands has not recovered,” she says.

@ahamediagroup quietly quit @Twitter for two months and saw their follower count go up, says Lacey Reichwald via @AnnGynn @CMIContent. Click To Tweet

She points to their firm’s experience as a potential explanation. Though they haven’t been posting, their follower count has gone up, and many of those new follower accounts don’t seem relevant to their topic or botty. At the same time, Aha Media saw engagement and follows from active accounts in the customer segment drop.

Blue bonus

One change at Twitter has piqued some brands’ interest in the platform, says Dan Gray, CEO of Vendry, a platform for helping companies find agency partners to help them scale.

“Now that getting a blue checkmark is as easy as paying a monthly fee, brands are seeing this as an opportunity to build thought leadership quickly,” he says.

Though it remains to be seen if that strategy is viable in the long term, some companies, particularly those in the SaaS and tech space, are reallocating resources to energize their previously dormant accounts.

Automatic verification for @TwitterBlue subscribers led some brands to renew their interest in the platform, says Dan Gray of Vendry via @AnnGynn @CMIContent. Click To Tweet

These reenergized accounts also are seeing an increase in followers, though Dan says it’s difficult to tell if it’s an effect of the blue checkmark or their renewed emphasis on content. “Engagement is definitely up, and clients and agencies have both noted the algorithm seems to be favoring their content more,” he says.

New horizon

Faizan Fahim, marketing manager at Breeze, is focused on the future. They’re producing videos for small screens as part of their Twitter strategy. “We are guessing soon Elon Musk is going to turn Twitter into TikTok/YouTube to create more buzz,” he says. “We would get the first moving advantage in our niche.”

He’s not the only one who thinks video is Twitter’s next bet. Bradley Thompson, director of marketing at DigiHype Media and marketing professor at Conestoga College, thinks video content will be the next big thing. Until then, text remains king.

“The approach is the same, which is a focus on creating and sharing high-quality content relevant to the industry,” Bradley says. “Until Twitter comes out with drastically new features, then marketing and managing brands on Twitter will remain the same.

James Coulter, digital marketing director at Sole Strategies, says, “Twitter definitely still has a space in the game. The question is can they keep it, or will they be phased out in favor of a more reliable platform.”

Interestingly given the thoughts of Faizan and Bradley, James sees businesses turning to video as they limit their reliance on Twitter and diversify their social media platforms. They are now willing to invest in the resource-intensive format given the exploding popularity of TikTok, Instagram Reels, and other short-form video content.

“We’ve seen a really big push on getting vendors to help curate video content with the help of staff. Requesting so much media requires building a new (social media) infrastructure, but once the expectations and deliverables are in place, it quickly becomes engrained in the weekly workflow,” James says.

What now

“We are waiting to see what happens before making any strong decisions,” says Baruch Labunski, CEO at Rank Secure. But they aren’t sitting idly by. “We’ve moved a lot of our social media efforts to other platforms while some of these things iron themselves out.”

What is your brand doing with Twitter? Are you stepping up, stepping out, or standing still? I’d love to know. Please share in the comments.

Want more content marketing tips, insights, and examples? Subscribe to workday or weekly emails from CMI.


Cover image by Joseph Kalinowski/Content Marketing Institute

Source link

Continue Reading