How can I get the best results out of my Search Engine Marketing campaign?

Leave a comment


We get this question a lot — and the real answer is: “it depends.”

The best way that I can possibly explain search engine marketing, in general, has to do with your ability to properly “tweak” the dials to optimize for your desired result.

Understanding that more clicks = more cost, it’s best to describe the process is visually in this format:

Search Engine Marketing Dials

The "SEM Dials" can be turned to dictate the performance of your campaign. Here, I illustrate all of the moving parts and their impact on certain areas of the campaign's performance.

To view the full sized image that indicates the search engine marketing dials, please click here.

Allow me to explain in short:

  • Targeting Area
    • Geotargeting to an acute area of focus will limit the search volumes, keeping cost/clicks down.
    • Opening it up to more of a wide area of focus will allow for a higher number of impressions, clicks and cost.
  • Max Daily Budget
    • If your max daily budget is low, Google’s algorithm doesn’t give you “preferential treatment,” which means that your ads will show in off-peak times, or in highly competitive time zones with poor ad positioning.
    • If your max daily budget is high, you’re signaling to Google that you’re capable and willing to spend advertising dollars on your campaign, thereby providing you with a “preferential treatment” in terms of seeding.
  • Max CPC Bid
    • If your max CPC bid is low, you’ll receive poor ad position placements, which will translate to less clicks and less conversions.
    • By maximizing your CPC bid, you can (over time) back off once you’ve “earned clout” by proving that your ads are relevant to certain keywords, but a high CPC amount gives you a chance to compete with a new campaign (although the costs will be high at first).
  • Keyword Specificity
    • The more “general” your keywords, the higher number of visitors you will receive to your website, but your conversion rate will drop, and the visitor quality will be more “shopper” than buyer. That’s not to say that the net result won’t be a higher amount of revenue, just that you’re hoping that you can find buyers sprinkled into the mixture of shoppers that you’re reaching, and your cost per acquisition should rise dramatically.
    • The more specific your keywords are, the inverse relationship will be from the above statement. Ideally, you’ve got a mixture of these keyword types, in their own ad groups, with their own budget requirements.
  • Ad Creative Messaging
    • If you’re attracting more “shopper” audiences in an attempt to attract more visitors, your call to action will be more passive in nature (i.e. “Learn more now”). Your conversion rate should take a hit with the increase in traffic, but could overall net better results than if you optimized for lower traffic volumes.
    • If you want to attract more “buyers,” your ad creative will be written in such a way that pre-qualifies the traffic (i.e., “Become a member now with a $25 or higher donation”). Your conversion rate should improve dramatically, but you’ll be sending far less traffic to your landing page.

Does this make sense? I hope so.

— GC

Further evidence that the preselected level on your conversion form increases your average sale

Leave a comment


Preselected Value Chart

Further evidence that the preselected value increases your average sale.

In an article that I wrote on this  blog back in July titled, “Preselected values — your donation form’s best friend,” I covered a test conducted by our friends at the Salem Web Network regarding how their average gift values were increased by sending visitors in a split test to a form with (A) no preselected values, and (B) a preselected value of $50.

In an effort to further implement this line of thinking into our processes for fund raising, we conducted a test with one of our clients in an attempt to increase our average gift (or average sale) amount.

As seen in the chart above, we had seven different donation levels, each level being given a specific dollar amount tied to each level. Our goal was to set the preselected value at “Supporting Member,” which was a $50 giving level.

We started our testing on 7/28 and ran it through 9/30.

Over the test period, we have seen an increase of “Supporting Member” or the $50 giving level amount increase by 24.2%.

One of the things that we wanted to do was ensure that there were no negative impact on other key measurement categories such as conversion rate, or a decline in upper tiered giving levels. It’s important to pay attention to these figures, as if we increase the number of $50 gifts in exchange for a large decrease in $75, or $100 gifts — we negatively impact the revenue we are generating.

Also, if we decrease the conversion rate, we’re losing donors as a result of our changes — which will have a negative impact on our lifetime donor values and subsequent year revenue figures.

I am proud to report that (at least through this test period) that we did not see a significant decrease in either of the two figures mentioned above.

In fact, you can see an increase in the next level up (“Level 3”) throughout this testing period and a decline in the amount of “Level 1” (the donor level below) throughout.

This tells us that those arriving at the site with the intent to give a gift/donate, are willing to give a gift at our preselected value level, or the next level up, as opposed to the “least expensive” option available on the form.

We’ll continue to run tests, and will be providing sporadic updates on the subject matter as time goes on.

Enjoy.

— GC

How can I measure the level of engagement a web visitor has with my website content?

2 Comments


Recently, our team developed a proprietary formula to properly measure the level of engagement a web visitor has with any particular piece of web content.

By leveraging data found within Google Analytics, we build the following formulaic equation and named it the Aggregate Engagement Index™.

Here is the formula:

((AP x AT) x (1-AB)) + (0.1 x AP)

  • AP = Average Page Views
  • AT = Average Time on Site (measured in seconds)
  • AB = Average Bounce Rate

The Aggregate Engagement Index™ enables us to compare the relative engagement levels of each traffic source to
BioLogos.org. The most engaged audience is the one that receives the highest rank value.

Notice that the formula doesn’t place emphasis upon the amount of traffic arriving at the particular page. We specifically made this decision to give all pages an “equal opportunity” against pages like the home page of a website, etc.

For a few examples of how this works, let’s take a look at some sample data below:

Referral Source Visitors Avg. Pages Avg. Time Avg. Bounce Engagement Rank
Blogs 68,849 3.14 264.32 49.72% 4.48
Facebook 16,579 1.93 146.52 70.67% 1.02
Other Social 4,159 2.99 266.29 54.79% 3.90
Twitter 6,158 1.65 98.71 74.02% 0.59
YouTube 584 4.21 355.48 38.18% 9.66


In this example, I am attempting to measure the engagement rank associated with visitors from a particular type of referral source (in this case, social networks).

As shown in the chart, visitors arriving at my website from Blogs represent the largest amount of visitors, but visitors arriving at my website from YouTube are 115.67% more engaged in my content.

Pretty cool, huh? This can tell me a number different things (I need to focus more attention on attracting visitors from YouTube, Facebook visitors are “overrated”, Twitter visitors are the least engaged, I need to focus on blog syndication, etc).

I hope you enjoyed.

— GC

%d bloggers like this: