Connect with us


Off Page SEO: An In-Depth Guide



Off Page SEO: An In-Depth Guide

Off-page SEO is one of the most difficult parts of digital marketing.

It can feel like there are more ways to get it wrong than to do it right.

Somewhere between the advice to “do this, not that” are useful approaches for promoting websites that won’t give cause to looking over one’s shoulder.

Off-page SEO traditionally means acquiring links.

And, because links continue to be an important ranking factor, off-page SEO is an important part of SEO.

Google’s John Mueller acknowledged the importance of links when he said:

“Links are really important for us to find content initially.

So it’s like if nobody links to your website ever then we’re going to have a hard time recognizing that it even exists.”

But Mueller has also said that one shouldn’t be creating links:

Google’s documentation on how to do SEO primarily focuses on optimizing what’s on the webpage (also known as on-page SEO).

The SEO advice provided by Google rarely discusses off-page SEO, except in the context of guidelines on what not to do.

Approached realistically and with the clear eyes of a pragmatist, it’s possible to navigate an off-page SEO strategy that keeps within the narrow boundaries defined by Google – and makes more money.

What Is Off-Page SEO?

The narrow definition of off-page SEO is: It’s link building.

An expansive definition embraces promotional activity outside the website, including press exposure and links (with or without nofollow), and brand awareness campaigns that can involve publishing on other sites and newsletters.

SEO is normally considered in direct relation to attributable search rankings.

When something is done for the purpose of SEO, there is an expectation of better rankings and more search traffic.

And that’s because, in the early days of SEO, search analytics showed which keywords were responsible for each search-derived site visitor.

So, it was simple to attribute search rankings to traffic directly.

And from search traffic, it was possible to attribute clicks from search results to conversions directly.

That made connecting the dots between SEO activities, rankings, and earnings easy.

But that’s not possible any more — because browsers hide the keywords.

And that made it easier to begin thinking of SEO in terms of traffic and earnings, even though it can only be indirectly attributable to SEO.

Anyone who has ever worked in niche B2B knows there is more to cultivating online traffic than what’s available through search engines.

Search traffic is relatively low across many B2B keyword phrases.

For B2B marketers, survival often depends on reaching potential clients who might not even be aware that a solution exists – as is the case for specialized tools such as organization chart software or performance management applications.

While promotional activity doesn’t directly influence search traffic, in the short term, it does influence traffic. In the long term, as it will be shown, it may eventually influence search traffic.

Nobody can search for a product or company if they don’t know either of them exists.

Underlining the importance of promotional activities, Google filed a patent describing how branded searches could be used similarly to links to associate a company with a search term and rank that company higher in the search results.

From that perspective, it makes sense to include online promotional activities in an off-page SEO description.

On-Page SEO Versus Off-Page SEO

On-page SEO is about optimizations done on a website that make it easier for search engines to crawl and understand.

That includes internal linking, using proper canonicalization, editing for content clarity, creating descriptive title tags, and writing unique meta-descriptions.

On-page SEO ranking factors are about what a page is relevant for and are considered stronger signals than off-page SEO factors.

That’s why content is understood to be the strongest ranking signal.

Yet without off-page SEO, a webpage will struggle to rank, especially in highly competitive markets.

Off-page SEO helps search engines discover webpages to crawl and understand what the pages are about. It’s best to think of off-page SEO as promotional activities related to attracting links. But it can also include promotional activities to let consumers know the company exists and what it does.

The documentation available at Google for on-page SEO is extensive. That’s not the case for off-page SEO, presumably because offering that information may provide hints on how to manipulate rankings.

Why Off-Page SEO Is Important

Off-page SEO matters because a website lacking citations from other sites resembles a site that’s not worth crawling and indexing.

Because off-page ranking factors, like links, measure how important a site is, failure to attain any links may very well contribute to stagnant search traffic.

It’s not unlike having a car with no gas.

The most accurate description of what makes off-page SEO important is that it provides forward momentum to a site by helping it rank higher for more keyword phrases.

Do Links Help Build Authority?

While SEO pros like to think about abstract concepts such as website authority in connection with links, Google doesn’t actually have any kind of metric that corresponds to authority.

Google often says that it strives to rank authoritative content. But, that word is generally used in the context of the quality of the content itself – not as a standalone ranking factor that flows to the webpage and imbues it with “authority.”

Google Webmaster Trends Analyst John Mueller debunked the idea that Google uses an authority metric.

He stated it clearly:

“In general, Google doesn’t evaluate a site’s authority.

So it’s not something where we would give you a score on authority and say this is the general score for authority on your website. That’s not something we would be applying here.”

Do Links Build Domain Authority?

Another false notion about links is that they help to build domain authority.

The concept of domain authority has roots in the early days of SEO when Google still displayed the PageRank values for webpages.

What was plain to see was that sites with high PageRank scores tended to rank better than sites with lower PageRank scores.

The home pages of those sites contained the highest PageRank scores.

So, it was understood (at the time) that domains with high PageRank scores ranked better.

Because domains with high PageRank scores were considered authoritative, it was easy to say that they were authoritative domains.

Anyone could see the PageRank scores and how domains with high PageRank were ranked higher than those with less PageRank.

That led to a belief in the concept of “domain authority.”

But Google never actually used any kind of domain authority metric.

The concept of domain authority was simply a loose idea based on what could be visually confirmed.

Eventually, Google adjusted how webpages are ranked so that the PageRank scores played less of a role in deciding what pages ranked highest.

Relevance then began to play a larger role in determining what pages were ranked.

It took more than PageRank to get a page to rank and the proof, once again, was in the search results themselves.

One could see that webpages with low PageRank scores were ranked ahead of webpages from sites with higher PageRank.

But the idea of domain authority persisted.

Articles that insist Google uses domain authority never cite any patent, research paper, or statement by a Googler to back up those claims (because no official confirmation exists).

In a Reddit AMA, Google’s John Mueller answered the question of whether domain authority exists with a witty response:

“Of course it exists, it’s a tool by Moz.”

Three Kinds Of Links

In its SEO Starter Guide, Google’s documentation explicitly condones promoting a website by telling others about it.

Here’s what Google published about obtaining links:

“While most of the links to your site will be added gradually, as people discover your content through search or other ways and link to it, Google understands that you’d like to let others know about the hard work you’ve put into your content.

Effectively promoting your new content will lead to faster discovery by those who are interested in the same subject.”

While Google follows that statement with the caveat that promoting a site at “extreme” levels could damage a site’s reputation, the advice still leaves plenty of room for promoting a website.

Here are three kinds of links that can safely be attained:

1. Research, Write, Tell Others About It

When in the planning stage of webpage content, it’s important to research what kinds of sites link to content pages on that specific topic.

One way to do that is to identify what kinds of sites are linking out and, most importantly, why those pages are linking out.

Every link strategy I create for a client always begins with researching which sites are linking and identifying the topics that trigger them to link out.

Writing the content happens after identifying the right content to publish.

The biggest mistake companies make is writing the content and then trying to get links to it. That doesn’t always work, no matter how good the content is.

Some sites consistently link to clever content that’s riding on trending topics like highly popular media.

Other sites tend to link out according to the zeitgeist.

Every site that links out has a reason for linking out. Find that pattern and write for it.

2. Be Proactive About Getting Quoted

There’s a service called Help A Reporter Out (HARO), where publishers solicit qualified individuals to provide quotes on topics – and maybe provide a link to a website.

Arguably, it could be said that HARO has been overrun for the past 10 years, as there is a large amount of competition from link builders who are swarming the system for links.

And some publishers dangle a quote but never provide one.

For example, it’s been my experience that some publishers abuse the system to collect quotes and article ideas from others without any intention of ever quoting any of the contributors, much less linking out.

Thus, an entire business model has arisen around helping companies obtain what has come to be known as “HARO links.”

But why scrounge like a pigeon jostling for crumbs? There is a better way.

And that way is to be proactive and approach the high-quality sites you want a link from.

Everyone loves a gift – and there’s no better gift for a content publisher than an article that writes itself.

The best way to do that is to do research or compile statistics relevant to the readers of whatever publications are ideal for a link.

As long as the topic is highly relevant, getting quoted in a ready-made article created by a press contact is a good way to get links.

Be sure to request that the article be kept under embargo, which means to withhold publication until a certain date.

For extra punch, publish the entire data set on your own website, then provide some of that data to the publishers and ask them to consider linking to the page with the full report.

What About Infographics?

In the old days, people would produce infographics by creating a visual representation of government statistics, turning dry text into an easier-to-visualize infographic.

But people consume media on mobile phones, and infographics don’t always look great on mobile devices.

The infographics approach for off-page SEO can be considered an expired practice.

Stick To News And Announcements

In the long run, building a list of desirable sites for publication may make more sense. Then, research each site to see what relevant article topics are published, the kind of sources they link to, and article pitches they may be open to entertaining.

They don’t have to be sites that offer link opportunities, either.

There’s immense value in positioning the name of a company in front of tens of thousands of potential clients.

3. Good Old Resource Links

Some sites still publish links to sites that provide a particular kind of resource, like a download, templates, instructions on how to do something, patterns, etc.

Websites love linking to useful content.

But again, don’t build the content and find someone to link to it.

Find out who links to resources, and then build that kind of content.

Be sure to give it a great angle – a twist that makes it stand out from other sites.

Guest Posting For Links… Not

Guest posting has been officially off the table since 2014, when Matt Cutts (a Google engineer at the time) publicly posted that guest posting for links was over.

Matt Cutts wrote:

“So stick a fork in it: guest blogging is done; it’s just gotten too spammy. In general I wouldn’t recommend accepting a guest blog post unless you are willing to vouch for someone personally or know them well.

Likewise, I wouldn’t recommend relying on guest posting, guest blogging sites, or guest blogging SEO as a link building strategy.”

As recently as 2020, Google’s John Mueller explained that Google’s machine learning algorithms had a lot of training data to help it identify guest post links and automatically devalue them so that they don’t help sites rank better.

He had this to say about guest posts for links:

“The other thing is that because this is so old, we have a lot of training data for our algorithms. I wouldn’t be surprised if the largest part of those links are just ignored automatically.”

He then suggested doing something useful instead:

“If all that work is for ignored links, why not just do something useful instead?”

Guest Post For Higher Earnings, Not Links

A better approach to take with guest posts is to use them to build awareness of a site in front of an audience that might be interested in it.

SEO pros will burn an opportunity to build sales by insisting on links.

Why not just do guest posting to build sales? Isn’t money the point of building links and search marketing, to begin with?

There are many opportunities to put your product in a favorable light by forgetting about links and just doing it for sales.

Making money is the point of marketing, so make money while everyone else is wearing out their brain trying to figure out a way to trick a site into giving them a link.

That’s true off-page SEO because once people get to know a site, word of mouth kicks in – and that’s when Google understands that a site is popular, which means the kind of site people expect to see.

There’s even a Google patent about how Google might use branded search queries as a form of links.

I wrote about the Google patent using search queries that contain brand names as if they were links here: Are Brand Mentions Important to Google’s Algorithm?

That shows that building awareness can have an indirect impact on rankings.

The importance of that is to highlight that off-page SEO doesn’t necessarily have to be all about links.

Off-Page SEO Is Site Promotion

It may be helpful to think of off-page SEO as something that encompasses more than just the limited scope of link building.

For that, one has to think of strategies for exposing the company to thousands of decision-makers.

Link builders leave behind many valuable, useful opportunities for building sales and indirectly creating popularity signals that search engines might pick up on.

Off-page SEO is useful for promoting a website to increase rankings, traffic, and earnings.

More resources:

Featured Image: Myvisuals/Shutterstock

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address


Google Documents Leaked & SEOs Are Making Some Wild Assumptions



Google Documents Leaked & SEOs Are Making Some Wild Assumptions

You’ve probably heard about the recent Google documents leak. It’s on every major site and all over social media.

Where did the docs come from?

My understanding is that a bot called yoshi-code-bot leaked docs related to the Content API Warehouse on Github on March 13th, 2024. It may have appeared earlier in some other repos, but this is the one that was first discovered.

They were discovered by an anonymous ex-Googler who shared the info with Erfan Azimi who shared it with Rand Fishkin who shared it with Mike King. The docs were removed on May 7th.

I appreciate all involved for sharing their findings with the community.

Google’s response

There was some debate if the documents were real or not, but they mention a lot of internal systems and link to internal documentation and it definitely appears to be real.

A Google spokesperson released the following statement to Search Engine Land:

We would caution against making inaccurate assumptions about Search based on out-of-context, outdated, or incomplete information. We’ve shared extensive information about how Search works and the types of factors that our systems weigh, while also working to protect the integrity of our results from manipulation.

SEOs interpret things based on their own experiences and bias

Many SEOs are saying that the ranking factors leaked. I haven’t seen any code or weights, just what appear to be descriptions and storage info. Unless one of the descriptions says the item is used for ranking, I think it’s dangerous for SEOs that all of these are used in ranking.

Having some features or information stored does not mean they’re used in ranking. For our search engine,, we have all kinds of things stored that might be used for crawling, indexing, ranking, personalization, testing, or feedback. We even have things stored that we aren’t doing things with yet.

What is more likely is that SEOs are making assumptions that favor their own opinions and biases.

It’s the same for me. I may not have full context or knowledge and may have inherent biases that influence my interpretation, but I try to be as fair as I can be. If I’m wrong, it means that I will learn something new and that’s a good thing! SEOs can, and do, interpret things differently.

Gael Breton said it well:

I’ve been around long enough to see many SEO myths created over the years and I can point you to who started many of them and what they misunderstood. We’ll likely see a lot of new myths from this leak that we’ll be dealing with for the next decade or longer.

Let’s look at a few things that in my opinion are being misinterpreted or where conclusions are being drawn where they shouldn’t be.


As much as I want to be able to say Google has a Site Authority score that they use for ranking that’s like DR, that part specifically is about compressed quality metrics and talks about quality.

I believe DR is more an effect that happens as you have a lot of pages with strong PageRank, not that it’s necessarily something Google uses. Lots of pages with higher PageRank that internally link to each other means you’re more likely to create stronger pages.

  • Do I believe that PageRank could be part of what Google calls quality? Yes.
  • Do I think that’s all of it? No.
  • Could Site Authority be something similar to DR? Maybe. It fits in the bigger picture.
  • Can I prove that or even that it’s used in rankings? No, not from this.

From some of the Google testimony to the US Department of Justice, we found out that quality is often measured with an Information Satisfaction (IS) score from the raters. This isn’t directly used in rankings, but is used for feedback, testing, and fine-tuning models.

We know the quality raters have the concept of E-E-A-T, but again that’s not exactly what Google uses. They use signals that align to E-E-A-T.

Some of the E-E-A-T signals that Google has mentioned are:

  • PageRank
  • Mentions on authoritative sites
  • Site queries. This could be “site: E-E-A-T” or searches like “ahrefs E-E-A-T”

So could some kind of PageRank scores extrapolated to the domain level and called Site Authority be used by Google and be part of what makes up the quality signals? I’d say it’s plausible, but this leak doesn’t prove it.

I can recall 3 patents from Google I’ve seen about quality scores. One of them aligns with the signals above for site queries.

I should point out that just because something is patented, doesn’t mean it is used. The patent around site queries was written in part by Navneet Panda. Want to guess who the Panda algorithm that related to quality was named after? I’d say there’s a good chance this is being used.

The others were around n-gram usage and seemed to be to calculate a quality score for a new website and another mentioned time on site.


I think this has been misinterpreted as well. The document has a field called hostAge and refers to a sandbox, but it specifically says it’s used “to sandbox fresh spam in serving time.”

To me, that doesn’t confirm the existence of a sandbox in the way that SEOs see it where new sites can’t rank. To me, it reads like a spam protection measure.


Are clicks used in rankings? Well, yes, and no.

We know Google uses clicks for things like personalization, timely events, testing, feedback, etc. We know they have models upon models trained on the click data including navBoost. But is that directly accessing the click data and being used in rankings? Nothing I saw confirms that.

The problem is SEOs are interpreting this as CTR is a ranking factor. Navboost is made to predict which pages and features will be clicked. It’s also used to cut down on the number of returned results which we learned from the DOJ trial.

As far as I know, there is nothing to confirm that it takes into account the click data of individual pages to re-order the results or that if you get more people to click on your individual results, that your rankings would go up.

That should be easy enough to prove if it was the case. It’s been tried many times. I tried it years ago using the Tor network. My friend Russ Jones (may he rest in peace) tried using residential proxies.

I’ve never seen a successful version of this and people have been buying and trading clicks on various sites for years. I’m not trying to discourage you or anything. Test it yourself, and if it works, publish the study.

Rand Fishkin’s tests for searching and clicking a result at conferences years ago showed that Google used click data for trending events, and they would boost whatever result was being clicked. After the experiments, the results went right back to normal. It’s not the same as using them for the normal rankings.


We know Google matches authors with entities in the knowledge graph and that they use them in Google news.

There seems to be a decent amount of author info in these documents, but nothing about them confirms that they’re used in rankings as some SEOs are speculating.

Was Google lying to us?

What I do disagree with whole-heartedly is SEOs being angry with the Google Search Advocates and calling them liars. They’re nice people who are just doing their job.

If they told us something wrong, it’s likely because they don’t know, they were misinformed, or they’ve been instructed to obfuscate something to prevent abuse. They don’t deserve the hate that the SEO community is giving them right now. We’re lucky that they share information with us at all.

If you think something they said is wrong, go and run a test to prove it. Or if there’s a test you want me to run, let me know. Just being mentioned in the docs is not proof that a thing is used in rankings.

Final Thoughts

While I may agree or I may disagree with the interpretations of other SEOs, I respect all who are willing to share their analysis. It’s not easy to put yourself or your thoughts out there for public scrutiny.

I also want to reiterate that unless these fields specifically say they are used in rankings, that the information could just as easily be used for something else. We definitely don’t need any posts about Google’s 14,000 ranking factors.

If you want my thoughts on a particular thing, message me on X or LinkedIn.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading


Do Higher Content Scores Mean Higher Google Rankings? Our Data Says It’s Unlikely.



Do Higher Content Scores Mean Higher Google Rankings? Our Data Says It's Unlikely.

I studied the correlation between rankings and content scores from four popular content optimization tools: Clearscope, Surfer, MarketMuse, and Frase. The result? Weak correlations all around.

This suggests (correlation does not necessarily imply causation!) that obsessing over your content score is unlikely to lead to significantly higher Google rankings.

Does that mean content optimization scores are pointless?

No. You just need to know how best to use them and understand their flaws.

Most tools’ content scores are based on keywords. If top-ranking pages mention keywords your page doesn’t, your score will be low. If it does, your score will be high.

While this has its obvious flaws (having more keyword mentions doesn’t always mean better topic coverage), content scores can at least give some indication of how comprehensively you’re covering the topic. This is something Google is looking for.

Google says that comprehensively covering the topic is a sign of quality contentGoogle says that comprehensively covering the topic is a sign of quality content

If your page’s score is significantly lower than the scores of competing pages, you’re probably missing important subtopics that searchers care about. Filling these “content gaps” might help improve your rankings.

However, there’s nuance to this. If competing pages score in the 80-85 range while your page scores 79, it likely isn’t worth worrying about. But if it’s 95 vs. 20 then yeah, you should probably try to cover the topic better.

Key takeaway

Don’t obsess over content scores. Use them as a barometer for topic coverage. If your score is significantly lower than competitors, you’re probably missing important subtopics and might rank higher by filling those “content gaps.”

There are at least two downsides you should be aware of when it comes to content scores.

They’re easy to cheat

Content scores tend to be largely based on how many times you use the recommended set of keywords. In some tools, you can literally copy-paste the entire list, draft nothing else, and get an almost perfect score.

Scoring 98 on MarketMuse after shoehorning all the suggested keywords without any semblance of a draftScoring 98 on MarketMuse after shoehorning all the suggested keywords without any semblance of a draft

This is something we aim to solve with our upcoming content optimization tool: Content Master.

I can’t reveal too much about this yet, but it has a big USP compared to most existing content optimization tools: its content score is based on topic coverage—not just keywords.

For example, it tells us that our SEO strategy template should better cover subtopics like keyword research, on-page SEO, and measuring and tracking SEO success.

Preview of our upcoming Content Master toolPreview of our upcoming Content Master tool

But, unlike other content optimization tools, lazily copying and pasting related keywords into the document won’t necessarily increase our content score. It’s smart enough to understand that keyword coverage and topic coverage are different things.


This tool is still in production so the final release may look a little different.

They encourage copycat content

Content scores tell you how well you’re covering the topic based on what’s already out there. If you cover all important keywords and subtopics from the top-ranking pages and create the ultimate copycat content, you’ll score full marks.

This is a problem because quality content should bring something new to the table, not just rehash existing information. Google literally says this in their helpful content guidelines.

Google says quality content goes beyond obvious information. It needs to bring something new to the tableGoogle says quality content goes beyond obvious information. It needs to bring something new to the table

In fact, Google even filed a patent some years back to identify ‘information gain’: a measurement of the new information provided by a given article, over and above the information present in other articles on the same topic.

You can’t rely on content optimization tools or scores to create something unique. Making something that stands out from the rest of the search results will require experience, experimentation, or effort—something only humans can have/do.

Enrich common knowledge with new information and experiences in your contentEnrich common knowledge with new information and experiences in your content

Big thanks to my colleagues Si Quan and Calvinn who did the heavy lifting for this study. Nerd notes below. 😉

  • For the study, we selected 20 random keywords and pulled the top 20 ranking pages.
  • We pulled the SERPs before the March 2024 update was rolled out.
  • Some of the tools had issues pulling the top 20 pages, which we suspect was due to SERP features.
  • Clearscope didn’t give numerical scores; they opted for grades. We used ChatGPT to convert those grades into numbers.
  • Despite their increasing prominence in the SERPs, most of the tools had trouble analyzing Reddit, Quora, and YouTube. They typically gave a zero or no score for these results. If they gave no scores, we excluded them from the analysis.
  • The reason why we calculated both Spearman and Kendall correlations (and took the average) is because according to Calvinn (our Data Scientist), Spearman correlations are more sensitive and therefore more prone to being swayed by small sample size and outliers. On the other hand, the Kendall rank correlation coefficient only takes order into account. So, it is more robust for small sample sizes and less sensitive to outliers.

Final thoughts

Improving your content score is unlikely to hurt Google rankings. After all, although the correlation between scores and rankings is weak, it’s still positive. Just don’t obsess and spend hours trying to get a perfect score; scoring in the same ballpark as top-ranking pages is enough.

You also need to be aware of their downsides, most notably that they can’t help you craft unique content. That requires human creativity and effort.

Any questions or comments? Ping me on X or LinkedIn.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading


Unlocking Brand Growth: Strategies for B2B and E-commerce Marketers



Unlocking Brand Growth: Strategies for B2B and E-commerce Marketers

In today’s fast-paced digital landscape, scaling a brand effectively requires more than just an innovative product or service. For B2B and e-commerce marketers, understanding the intricacies of growth strategies across different stages of business development is crucial.  

A recent analysis of 71 brands offers valuable insights into the optimal strategies for startups, scaleups, mature brands, and majority offline businesses. Here’s what we learned. 

Startup Stage: Building the Foundation 

Key Strategy: Startups focus on impressions-driven channels like Paid Social to establish their audience base. This approach is essential for gaining visibility and creating a strong initial footprint in the market. 

Case Study: Pooch & Mutt exemplified this strategy by leveraging Paid Social to achieve significant year-on-year revenue gains while also improving acquisition costs. This foundational step is crucial for setting the stage for future growth and stability. 

Scaleup Stage: Accelerating Conversion 

Key Strategy: For scaleups, having already established an audience, the focus shifts to conversion activities. Increasing spend in impressions-led media helps continue generating demand while maintaining a balance with acquisition costs. 

Case Study: The Essence Vault successfully applied this approach, scaling their Meta presence while minimizing cost increases. This stage emphasizes the importance of efficient spending to maximize conversion rates and sustain growth momentum. 

Mature Stage: Expanding Horizons 

Key Strategy: Mature brands invest in higher funnel activities to avoid market saturation and explore international expansion opportunities. This strategic pivot ensures sustained growth and market diversification. 

Case Study: Represent scaled their efforts on TikTok, enhancing growth and improving Meta efficiency. By expanding their presence in the US, they exemplified how mature brands can navigate saturation and seek new markets for continued success. 

Majority Offline Brands: Embracing Digital Channels 

Key Strategy: Majority offline brands primarily invest in click-based channels like Performance Max. However, the analysis reveals significant opportunities in Paid Social, suggesting a balanced approach for optimal results. 

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading