• http://www.rimmkaufman.com George Michie

    Really?!? More about the “Buying Cycle” myth that has been debunked by everyone who’s ever looked at the data?

    Absolutely, folks should never credit a brand search that follows a competitive non-brand search; credible platforms bake that logic into their system from the get go. And absolutely, advertisers should monitor the touch paths to see if there is any buying cycle effect worth talking about.

    But given the evidence presented by credible sources — not just RKG, EF and others have blown this myth out of the water repeatedly — the default assumption should be that if the last touch data makes a keyword look unprofitable, that keyword will look unprofitable under any attribution methodology. The onus should be on the agency or engine who’s interest is in convincing advertisers to spend beyond their means to prove otherwise.

    The bulk of “assists” recorded are self-assists (multiple touches on the same ad). Shift all the credit to the first touch and see if you see material differences on those high traffic generic keywords.

  • http://www.chadsummerhill.com ChadSummerhill

    After doing the analysis, it turns out that for our business 90%+ of our clicks are what we call referring-converting clicks (they are the first click and the converting click)—this applies to both SEO and PPC.

    Turn poor performing keywords off (or bid down) and focus on keywords that are clearly winners and post-click conversion funnel optimization. I definitely wouldn’t continue to buy a keyword that performs poorly because you feel it may be contributing–have proof (can be hard to get). I would much rather risk leaving a few conversions on the table than to find out that I’ve been wasting money on what I thought were conversion-assist keywords that have no real value.

  • http://www.facebook.com/endroesia Ens Iz Here

    thanks for information