Organic Search as an alternative to PPC
May 3, 2007 – 7:55 pmSimon Wharton posted an interesting article on “How-Do” discussing how organic search can be used in place of PPC advertising online. I think one of the most interesting assertions is this:
But my proof goes much further: various studies show that a prospective buyer will use organic searches 60% - 80% of the time. Moreover, organic search results gather up to 6 times more clicks than paid for advertising.
If this is true, then why the growth in PPC? Why do we all work on writing the best, most targeted PPC ads, instead of focusing on SEO? Maybe the answer is this:
Online marketing, as with so many disciplines, is not fully understood and so the buyer chooses the option they can quickly get a grip of or feel comfortable with: PPC and paid placement.
What do you think? Is PPC easier than SEO?
One Response to “Organic Search as an alternative to PPC”
Brandi
Just to clarify a point, I’m not from How Do, they were kind enough to publish my article. I do most of my ramblings via http://blog.pushon.co.uk.
As far as I can fathom it, the key drivers behind the dominance of PPC in online marketing spend are:
Immediacy: You can have a PPC ad up and running in half an hour
Pretty Pictures: You can make nice graphs for the Boss very quickly
Education. Marketing departments don’t seem to understand organic search, never mind the MD. Spend is only likely to be made on something that can be easily explained. PPC is easier to explain.
However, even on a PPC campaign, it’s so easy to get it wrong. We strongly favour mining the long tail for high conversion, low cost terms but so many businesses just stick money into the glaringly obvious terms, leading to gross click cost inflation.
A sensible Marketing department would look at a blend of organic and PPC and also factor that in to a mix of traditional marketing.
By Simon Wharton on May 9, 2007