The document provides an executive summary and analysis of key trends in the search marketing industry in Q2 2014. Some of the key findings include:
- Paid search spending growth accelerated to 23% year-over-year as advertisers responded to improving conversion performance by increasing their cost-per-click (CPC) rates. Google saw paid search spending growth of 24% while Bing grew 19%.
- Product listing ads (PLAs) and product ads continued to see huge growth, with spending up 72% year-over-year. PLAs accounted for 26% of Google search clicks and 50% of non-brand clicks for retailers.
- Mobile devices accounted for 37% of paid search clicks
2. 04 PAID SEARCH
03 Executive Summary
15 ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL
20 COMPARISON SHOPPING ENGINES
23 DISPLAY ADVERTISING
26 ABOUT RKG & METHODOLOGY
TaBLE OF CONTENTS
3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Paid Search
• Google paid search spending growth accelerated to 24% Y/Y in Q2. Paid clicks rose 13%, while CPCs rose 10%
as advertisers responded to improving conversion performance.
• Bing Ads search spending grew 19% Y/Y across Bing, Yahoo and their search partners. Paid clicks rose 22%, but
CPCs fell 3% due to a mix shift to mobile.
• Advertiser spending on Google Product Listing Ads (PLAs) and Bing Product Ads rose 72% Y/Y. For retailers,
PLAs produced 26% of Google search clicks overall.
• Smartphones generated 19% of paid search clicks and 9% of search spend, while tablets produced 18% of clicks
and 19% of spend. Smartphone clicks rose 47% Y/Y, compared to a 43% increase for tablets and a 2% decline for
desktop.
• Google conversion tracking data and estimates show that cross-device tracking surfaces 7% more conversions
overall and 14% more smartphone conversions that would otherwise not be attributed to search.
Organic Search & Social
• Organic search produced 31% of all site visits in Q2 2014, which was down from 36% in the first half of 2013. As
the major search engines work to better monetize their listings with larger and more appealing ads, organic
search volume will continue to get squeezed in favor of paid.
• Smartphones and tablets produced a combined 34% of organic search visits in Q2, up from 31% in Q1. Both
iPhone and Android picked up share, while iPad traffic share was flat.
• Social media sites produced 1.6% of all sites visits in Q2. Facebook continues to lead the way with 51% of visits
produced by social media sites, but its contribution has slipped as Pinterest has become a larger traffic source
for retail sites.
• Mobile devices accounted for 42% of visits produced by social media in Q2. That was up two percentage points
from Q1 and 17 points from a year earlier.
Comparison Shopping ENGINES
• The eBay Commerce Network and PriceGrabber both made large gains in CSE spend share compared to a year
earlier as all other major engines saw losses.
• Among advertisers running both Amazon Product Ads and Google PLAs, revenue volume from Amazon’s
program was just 7% that of PLAs in Q2, down from 9% in Q1.
DISPLAY ADVERTISING
• For advertisers actively advertising on the Google Display Network (GDN) and running AdWords paid search
ads, GDN accounted for 6% of total Google spending, the same rate as the previous quarter.
5. PAID SEARCH 5
Total Paid Search Spending Growth Accelerates
to 23% Y/Y
After a slow start to the calendar
year, paid search spending growth
accelerated at the end of Q1 and
remained elevated through Q2.
Advertisers responded to improving
conversion performance by pushing
CPCs up 8% Y/Y to capture additional
volume. Paid search click growth
improved to 14% Y/Y from an 11%
growth rate in the prior quarter.
Overall U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013
+45%
+30%
+15%
2013-Q2
–15%
BASELINE
ClicksAd Spend CPC
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
+8%
+14%
+23%
Google Paid Search Clicks Up 13% Y/Y, CPC
Growth Continues to Rise
While advertisers are paying
considerably lower CPCs for their own
brand terms due to Google Ad Rank
changes in 2013, total Google search
CPCs rose 10% Y/Y on the strength
of non-brand text ads and PLAs. Click
volume improved 13% Y/Y resulting
in 24% growth in ad spend. This was
an appreciable increase from 17% Y/Y
spending growth in Q1.
Google Overall U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
+10%
+13%
+24%
ClicksAd Spend CPC
+45%
+30%
+15%
2013-Q2
–15%
BASELINE
Bing Ads Delivers Big Increase in Click Volume,
But CPCs Slip Y/Y
While Bing Ads was able to deliver
an impressive 22% Y/Y increase in
clicks, that additional volume may
have come at the expense of traffic
quality. Responding to a slight dip in
conversion performance, advertisers
brought their CPCs down 3% from
a year earlier. We may be seeing the
effects of a relative shift to mobile, as
we did see Bing Ads appear to make
strides in that area.
Bing Ads Overall U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013
–3%
+22%
+19%
+40%
+20%
+10%
2013-Q2
–20%
BASELINE
–10%
+30%
–30%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
ClicksAd Spend CPC
6. PAID SEARCH 6
PLA CPC Growth Helps Drive Google Non-Brand
Spending Up 29%
While Google non-brand text ad CPCs
rose 12% Y/Y, CPCs for PLAs rose
nearly 35% and helped push total non-
brand spending up 29% Y/Y in Q2.
Google advertisers have been able to
push the gas on PLAs because the ROI
there still remains higher than that for
non-brand text ads.
Google Non-Brand U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013
+18%
+9%
+29%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
+50%
+25%
2013-Q2
BASELINE
–25% ClicksAd Spend CPC
Product Ads Still Producing Huge Growth with
Spend Up 72% Y/Y
Including Google’s PLA format and
the Product Ad format that Bing
Ads introduced in late 2013, search
advertiser spending on image-based
product ads rose 72% Y/Y in Q2 on
a 28% increase in click volume and a
35% increase in CPC. Text ad spending
growth ticked up from 6% Y/Y in Q1 to
11% in Q2.
Overall U.S. Paid Search Growth by Format
Q2 2014
Ad Spend Clicks CPC
Text Ads
PLAs/Product Ads60%
40%
20%
80%
0%
Bing Ads Non-Brand Spending Growth at 19%
Although we didn’t see Bing Ads
achieve the same year-over-year non-
brand spending growth as Google in
Q2, Bing Ads spend nearly reached
its Q4 levels. Non-brand click volume
rose 26% Y/Y, while CPCs fell 6%. As
noted above, this is indicative of a
greater contribution from mobile.
Bing Non-Brand U.S. Paid Search Trends
Relative to Q2 2013+40%
+20%
2013-Q2
BASELINE
–20%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
–6%
+26%
+19%
ClicksAd Spend CPC
–40%
72%
11%
4%
28%
7%
35%
7. PAID SEARCH 7
PLA Click Share Flat from Quarter to Quarter
Following a decent jump from Q4
to Q1 as Google gave PLAs more
prominence by serving them above
the organic listings more frequently,
PLA click share was flat from Q1 to Q2.
For retailers running both text ads and
PLAs, PLAs generated 26% of Google
paid search clicks overall and 50% of
non-brand clicks.
PLA Share of Google Paid Search Clicks
Aggregate Results - U.S. Retail60%
40%
20%
0%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
26%
50%
Non-Brand
Overall
30%
50%
10%
Despite Large CPC Rise, PLA ROI Remains 13%
Better than Comparable Text Ads
Even with CPCs running 35% higher
than a year earlier, advertiser ROI
from PLAs was still 13% above that
for comparable non-brand text ads in
Q2. Although it is not a pure apples-
to-apples comparison because of
differences in query mix, PLAs also
generated click-through rates that were
2.5X that for non-brand text ads and
conversion rates that were 37% higher.
PLA Performance vs Text Ads
Median Site Results - U.S. Retail
CPC CTR ROI Conv. Rate AOV
+150%
+50%
Text Ads
–100%
+100%
–50%
BASELINE
43%
1% 13%
149%
–65%
13%
–26%
37%
–18% –15%
PLAs vs Non-Brand Text AdsPLAs vs Overall Text Ads
PLA CPCs Slip Again Compared to Text Ads,
But Have Come a Long Way
Before Google completed its transition
to the paid Google Shopping model,
we found PLA CPCs to run 23% lower
than comparable text ads. That gap
quickly narrowed and PLA CPCs
eventually overtook text ads in late
2013. While PLA CPCs have slipped
versus text ads following the Q4
holiday season, that trend will likely
reverse later this year.
Google PLA CPC vs Non-Brand Text Ads
Median Site Results - U.S. Retail+10%
Non-Brand
Text Ads
-25%
BASELINE
+5%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
1%
Q1 Q2
2013
Q3 Q4Q2
2012
Q3 Q4 Q1
2014
Q2
8. PAID SEARCH 8
PLA Click Share Varies by 36% Across Retail Sub-
Industries
In Q2, we once again found that the
contribution of PLAs to click volume
was greatest for Consumer Electronics
retailers where PLAs provided 65%
of non-brand Google clicks. At the
low end, PLAs were 29% of non-
brand Health & Beauty clicks. Apparel
retailers generated 37% of their non-
brand clicks from PLAs.
PLA Share of Non-Brand Google Paid Search Clicks
Q2 2014
Median Site Results - U.S. Retail
Flowers
& Gifts
Cars &
Auto
Health &
Beauty
Apparel Sporting
Goods
Books Home &
Garden
Consumer
Electronics
60%
40%
20%
0%
30%
50%
10%
70%
Bing Product Ads Edge Up in Volume and
Spend Share
Among sites participating in the Bing
Product Ads program, the new format
produced 8% of Bing Ads non-brand
search clicks and spend. That was just
a modest uptick from Q1 where the
same metrics were 7%. The revenue
contribution of Product Ads fell slightly
from quarter to quarter.
Bing Ads — Product Ads Share of Non-Brand
Median Site Results
Ad Spend Clicks Revenue
2014-Q2
2014-Q1
2013-Q4
0%
5%
10%
15%
Bing Product Ads Produce 48% Higher Revenue
Per Click than Text Ads
While Bing Product Ad CPCs ran
slightly below those for non-brand
text ads, revenue per click was 48%
higher in Q2. For comparison, Google
PLA revenue per click was just 17%
higher than that for non-brand text
ads, suggesting that Bing Ads has a
big opportunity to expand the serving
of Product Ads to a broader range of
queries.
Bing Ads — Product Ads vs Non-Brand Text Ads
Q2 2014
Median Site Results
CPC
RPC CTR
48%
-8%
19%
+20%
+50%
Text Ads
BASELINE
Non-Brand
+30%
+40%
+10%
8.3%
7.1%
6.5%
5.9%
7.1%
7.6%
8.3%
12.2%
10.3%
29% 30%
33%
37%
44%
48% 49%
65%
9. PAID SEARCH 9
GoogleGainsSpendShare,BingAdsGainsonClicks
We find Google gaining roughly half
a percentage point of paid search
spend share from year to year in
Q2. At the same time, Bing Ads
has gained a little over one point of
paid search click share. As Google
PLA CPCs have caught up to and
surpassed text ad CPCs, Google has
exhibited relative strength on the
spend side.
Google Share of U.S. Paid Search
2014-Q2
2013-Q2
81%
82%
83%
Ad Spend Clicks
Google Commanding Higher Non-Brand CPCs
Due to Advantage in Conversion Rate
In Q2, the conversion rate for non-
brand Google search ads was 52%
higher than the same metric for Bing
Ads.Withaverageordervalueroughly
equal for the two engines, Google
commanded 48% higher non-brand
CPCs than Bing. The contribution of
Google PLAs is a large factor here
as PLAs produced a 37% higher
conversion rate than text ads.
Non-Brand: Google Metrics vs Bing Ads
Q2 2014
Median Site Results
+20%
+40%
+60%
+10%
+30%
+50%
CPC CTR ROI Conv. Rate AOV
Non-Brand
BASELINE
Bing Ads
48%
8% 9%
52%
0.4%
Brand Ads Still Considerably Less Expensive on
Google
Although search ads for most sites’
own brand terms are much less
expensive than non-brand ads for
both engines, brand ads cost 34%
less per click on Google in Q2 than
Bing Ads. Google brand ads also
produced much higher click-through
rates, suggesting advertisers face
greater competitive pressure for their
brand on Bing compared to Google.
Brand: Google Metrics vs Bing Ads
Q2 2014
Median Site Results
Non-Brand
BASELINE
Bing Ads
+50%
+100%
+200%
+150%
—50%
CPC CTR ROI Conv. Rate AOV
–34%
183%
93%
14% 4%
82.2%
82.8%
82.6%
81.5%
10. PAID SEARCH 10
Google Search Partner Contribution On the Decline
With its Q2 earnings report, Google
is set to provide CPC and click
growth broken out by property for
the first time. Our results suggest
that Google’s search partner
network has slipped more on the
CPC side compared to Google.com
as its share of ad spend has fallen
nearly 5% in the past year, while its
share of clicks fell just 2%.
Google Search Partner Share
Median Site Results
2014-Q2
2013-Q2
Ad Spend ShareClick Share
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
18%
17% 17%
12%
PLAs Not Well-Monetized on Google Search
Partner Sites
While PLAs produced 26% of total
Google search clicks this past
quarter, they only produced 7% of
Google search partner clicks. That
is up from providing nearly 0% of
partner clicks a year earlier, but the
relatively slow monetization of PLAs
on the partner network may explain
a large part of the decline in search
partner share that we see.
PLA Share of Google Paid Search Clicks
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2014-Q22013-Q2
Search Partners Google Overall
26%
7%
0.1%
Search Partner Conversion Rates About Half
That of Google.com
Although we’ve seen some
improvement in the conversion
rates produced by Google search
partners in the past year, partner
conversion rate still ran 47% below
that of Google.com traffic, according
to Google conversion tracking data.
Advertisers have limited ability
to account for this performance
difference beyond turning partner
traffic completely off.
Google Search Partner Conversion Rate
vs Google.com
Median Site Results
2014-Q22013-Q2
Google.com
–20%
–10%
BASELINE
–52%
–47%–40%
–30%
–60%
–50%
11. PAID SEARCH 11
Smartphones and Tablets Combine for 37% of
Paid Search Clicks
At 37%, mobile traffic share was
up one percentage point from Q1.
Smartphones provided the bulk of that
lift as tablet traffic share was essentially
flat at 18%. While we saw larger mobile
gains for Bing Ads, those were washed
out by Google’s much greater volume.
Mobile Share of Paid Search Clicks
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q22012-Q4
Tablet Smartphone
10%
13%
14%
16%
16%
18% 18%
9%
12%
14% 14%
16%
18%
19%
0%
10%
20%
40%
30%
Mobile’s Share of Bing Ads Clicks Jumps 8%
from Quarter to Quarter
While mobile’s share of Google traffic
was roughly flat from Q1 to Q2 at
38%, we saw a surprisingly large jump
in mobile’s contribution to Bing Ads
traffic. In Q1 we found that mobile
produced 25% of Bing Ads clicks,
but that figure rose to 33% in Q2. We
cannot conclusively explain the rapid
increase, but it may reflect increased
broad matching on mobile and
greater adoption of Bing’s Enhanced
Campaigns functionality.
Mobile Click Share by Engine
0%
10%
20%
40%
30%
Google Bing Ads
Combined Smartphone Tablet
Mobile Share of Paid Search Spend Reaches 28%
Although they generated a higher share
of clicks than tablets, smartphones
produced less than half the spend that
tablets did in the second quarter due
to smartphone’s poorer conversion
performance. In Q2, 9% of paid search
spend went to smartphone traffic, while
19% of spending went to tablet traffic.
Mobile Share of Paid Search Ad Spend
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q22012-Q4
0%
10%
20%
30% Tablet Smartphone
10%
5%
37.5%
32.7%
19.1%
16.3%
18.4%
16.5%
14%
15% 17%
18%
20% 19%
7%
9%
6%
7% 7%
9%
15.5%
21.5%
24.1% 23.9%
25.2%
26.9% 27.7%
19.5%
25.1%
27.9%
29.6%
32.5%
35.5% 36.5%
12. PAID SEARCH 12
Desktop Traffic Click Volume Down 2%, Despite
Aggressive CPC Increases
Reflecting improvement in the value
produced by desktop traffic, advertisers
pushed CPCs up 16% Y/Y in Q2.
However, desktop click volume still fell
2% Y/Y. Smartphone CPCs were down
12% Y/Y, but click volume rose 47%.
Smartphone CPC growth is likely to turn
positive in Q3 as we pass the anniversary
of the Enhanced Campaigns transition,
when many advertisers opted to raise
their ROI targets for smartphone traffic.
Year-Over-Year Growth by Device Class
Ad Spend Clicks CPC
Smartphone
Desktop
Tablet
14%
30%
56%
47%
43%
–2%
16%
–12%
9%
20%
0%
–20%
40%
60%
Tablet Revenue Per Click Continues to Slide,
Now at 77% of Desktop Levels
Although tablets are grouped with
desktop under Google’s Enhanced
Campaign model, their conversion
performance has not been as strong
for a number of quarters and that
gap has only widened. Bing Ads
recently announced that they will also
group tablets with desktop, but allow
advertisers to bid tablets down by as
much as 20%. These results suggest
that this range will not be sufficient for
many sites.
Revenue Per Click vs Desktop
120%
60%
40%
20%
80%
100%
0%
77%
34%
Desktop
TabletSmartphone
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
Smartphone CPCs Reverse Declines Compared
to Desktop
Following three quarters of declines
relative to desktop, smartphone CPCs
edged back up in Q2 coming in at
41% of desktop levels. Smartphone
revenue per click has been improving
and more advertisers have been
incorporating Google’s cross-device
tracking insights into their ROI target
considerations.
Google Mobile CPC vs Desktop
120%
60%
40%
20%
80%
100%
0%
93%
41%
Desktop
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
TabletSmartphone
13. PAID SEARCH 13
Old Browser Versions Yield Poor Performance
While Google will take into account the
type of browser a searcher uses in some
of the automated bidding adjustments
advertisers can allow Google to make
for them, Google has not provided a
mechanism for advertisers to do this
themselves. That is unfortunate since
browser version can be highly predictive of
conversionperformance,withSafari7users
producing a 96% higher than average
revenue per click and users of old versions
of Firefox producing a 60% lower than
average RPC.
Revenue Per Click by Desktop Browser
vs Overall Average
OtherChrome
Chrome34
Chrome35
OtherFirefox
Firefox28
Firefox29
OtherMSIE
MSIE9
MSIE10
OtherSafari
Safari6
Safari7
OtherBrowsers
15% 4%
–60%
14% 18%
–39% –11% –6%0.6% 0.5%
22%
82%
96%
–75%
+100%
+50%
–25%
+25%
+75%
Average
BASELINE
Overall
–50%
iPad Tablet Traffic Share at 79%, Windows
Tablets Reach 7%
We find the iPad losing about six
percentage points of tablet traffic
share over the past year, with most
of those losses going to touch-
compatible Windows computers.
The latter group of devices includes
Microsoft’s Surface, but also a number
of computers that may be better
grouped with traditional laptops in
their form and function.
Share of Tablet Paid Search Clicks
Other Tablets
75%
50%
25%
0%
100%
iPad Other
Tablets
4%
3%
2%
0%
5%
1%
Windows
Tablet
Other
Android
Kindle Galaxy
Tablet
Nexus
Tablet
6%
7% 2014-Q2
2014-Q1
2013-Q3
2013-Q2
2013-Q1
2013-Q4
Android Tablets Weighing Down Tablet
Revenue Per Click
While iPad traffic generates a revenue
per click that is about 10% lower
than that from desktop and laptop
computers, the best performing
Android tablet produces a revenue
per click that is only half that seen
from the desktop group. These results
demonstrate that user context beyond
the three main device categories can
greatly shift performance.
Revenue Per Click by Device vs Desktop
Q2 2014
100%
80%
60%
20%
0%
40%
120%
Desktop
Windows
Tablet
Desktop iPad Nexus
Tablet
Other
Android
Tablets
Other
Tablets
iPhoneKindle
Fire
Android
Phone
Windows
Phone
116%
100%
92%
50%
45% 42% 41%
31% 28%
6%
14. PAID SEARCH 14
Smartphones Produce 25% of Cross-Device
Conversions, 12% of Traditionally Tracked Conversions
According to Google conversion
tracking and estimates, smartphones
contributed 12% of the conversions
that took place on the same device
as the ad clicks that led to them.
Among the pool of additional orders
surfaced from cross-device tracking,
smartphones contributed nearly 25%
of orders.
Share of Cross-Device
Conversions
Share of Single-Device
Conversions
Desktop
72%
Tablet
15%
Smartphone
12%
Desktop
59%
Tablet
16%
Smartphone
25%
Cross-Device Tracking Surfaces 7% More Orders
Overall, 14% More Smartphone Orders
In anticipating the impact Google’s
cross-device estimates may ultimately
have on advertiser spending, we see
that cross-device tracking surfaces 7%
more orders overall, but 14% more
smartphone orders. That will not be
nearly enough to completely close the
gap in CPCs between smartphones
and desktop, but more advertisers are
taking these figures into account in
setting smartphone ROI targets.
Lift in Conversions from Including Cross-Device
16%
4%
8%
12%
0%
Total Desktop Tablet Smartphone
7%
6%
7%
14%
Not Provided Stable at Nearly 80% of
AdWords Clicks
The day after Google announced it
would stop passing search queries to
advertisers via referrer, Not Provided
share of Google paid search jumped to
45%. We saw another large increase in
Not Provided share a little over a week
later and it has remained at a little
below 80% since then. Advertisers can
still gain insights into user queries via
Google’s search terms report.
Not Provided Share of Google AdWords
Paid Search Traffic100%
50%
75%
0%
78%
April
25%
May June July
2014 2014 2014 2014
16. ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 16
Organic Traffic Share Down as More Clicks
Become Paid
Although the share of all site visits
generated by organic search has held
steady at 31% for three quarters, that
is down appreciably from an average
of 36% for the first half of 2013. As the
major search engines work to better
monetize their listings with larger and
more appealing ads, organic search
volume will continue to get squeezed
in favor of paid.
Organic Search
Share of All U.S. Site Visits
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
31%30%
20%
10%
40%
50%
0%
Bing Slowly Gaining Search Share at the
Expense of Smaller Engines
Over the past year, we have seen Bing’s
share of organic search visits increase
from 8% in Q2 2013 to nearly 10% in
Q2 2014. These gains have come at
the expense of second-tier search
engines, as well as Google. Note
that these figures represent site visits,
so any shifts in SERP monetization
may exaggerate or understate the
underlying trends in raw search query
volume.
U.S. Organic Search Visit Share by Engine
Other Engines
Google Other
Engines
Bing Yahoo Other
10%
8%
6%
12%
0%
4%
2%
60%
40%
20%
80%
100%
0%
2014-Q2
2014-Q1
2013-Q3
2013-Q2
2013-Q1
2013-Q4
Google Owns U.S. Mobile Search with 88%
Share, But Yahoo Edging Up
In Q2 2014, 88% of mobile organic
search visits were produced by
Google, compared to 81% across all
devices. Yahoo has seen its share of
mobile organic tick up though, from
7% in Q2 last year to nearly 8% this
year. Bing has made smaller gains over
the same time period and remains
a distant third, producing just 4% of
mobile organic search visits.
Share of U.S. Mobile Organic Search by Engine
Q2 2014
Google
Yahoo
Bing
88%
8%
4%
17. ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 17
2014-Q12013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
Tablets and Smartphones Account for 34% of
Organic Search in Q2
On the growth of iPhone and Android
traffic, mobile share of organic search
rose from 31% in Q1 to nearly 34%
in Q2. Both device groups saw their
share rise 1.3 percentage points from
Q1 to Q2 with the iPhone accounting
for 12% of visits in Q2 and Android
devices accounting for 10%. iPad
traffic share was flat at a little over 11%
in Q1 and Q2.
Mobile Share of U.S. Organic Search Visits
Android iPhoneiPad Other35%
20%
10%
0%
30%
25%
15%
5%
12%
11%
10%
Organic Search Visits Fall Year-Over-Year
Despite Mobile Growth
Mobile search visits were up 18%
year-over-year in Q2, but that was not
enough to offset desktop declines,
and total organic search visits fell 7%.
The overall decline is indicative of
a shift from organic to paid search,
where growth has been robust and
even accelerating.
Y/Y Growth in Organic Search Visits
Q2 2014
Mobile Overall
5%
0%
–5%
10%
–10%
15%
20%
18%
–7%
Bing Not Keeping Pace in Organic Mobile Visits
Google and Yahoo were neck and
neck in the share mobile contributed
to each engine’s organic search visits
in Q2, while Bing remained well
behind both. In Q2, 37% of Yahoo
organic search visits were mobile,
up 10 percentage points from a year
earlier. For Google, 36% of organic
search visits were mobile, which was
up 7 points. Bing saw 17% of its visits
from mobile in Q2 2014, which was just
a 4 point increase from a year earlier.
Share of Each Engine’s Traffic from Mobile
Google Yahoo Bing
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
30%
20%
10%
40%
0%
28%
29%
31% 31%
33%
36%
23%
27%
31% 30%
37% 37%
8%
13%
16%
14%
16%
17%
18. ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 18
Not Provided Visit Share Reaches 90%
The share of Google organic searches
that did not pass queries to site owners
shot up from 40% to 80% over just a
10 week period last year. Since then,
tracking the subsequent rise in Not
Provided share has been more of a
curiosity than anything, but we finally
saw it reach 90% at the end of Q2. As
we’ve noted before, queries still being
passed are skewed towards certain web
browsers and likely do not represent
total Google queries very well.
Not Provided Share of
Google Organic Search Traffic 90%
Q
1
Q
2
2013
Q
3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
2012
Q
3
Q
4
Q
1
2014
Q
2
75%
50%
25%
0%
100%
Yahoo Not Provided Share Hovering Just
Above 40%
Speaking of curiosities, it is interesting
to see that Yahoo’s Not Provided share,
as recorded by Google Analytics, has
stayed only just above 40% since the
engine moved to secure search earlier
this year. Given that all searches on
Yahoo.com should be secure and not
pass queries, we would expect the
figure to run much higher.
Not Provided Share of
Yahoo Organic Search Traffic
30%
0%
50%
41%40%
20%
10%
2014
M
ar 30
Apr 6
Apr 13
Apr 20
Apr 27
M
ay 4
M
ay 11
M
ay 18
M
ay 25
Jun
1
Jun
8
Jun
15
Jun
22
19. ORGANIC SEARCH & SOCIAL 19
Mobile Devices Produce 42% of Social Media
Visits
Outpacing the trends we see for
search, mobile accounted for 42% of
site visits produced by social media.
That is up two percentage points
from the previous quarter and 17
percentage points from a year earlier.
Mobile Share of Social Media Visits
42%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
30%
0%
50%
40%
20%
10%
Social Media Sites Produce 1.6% of Site Visits
on Average
In what may be a reflection of the
decline in organic Facebook reach
many site owners are witnessing,
average visit share from social media
sites, including earned and paid traffic,
rose only slightly in Q2 2014 compared
to a year earlier and fell from Q1 to Q2.
Although a small contributor to traffic
on average, social media’s importance
is variable from site to site, with some
seeing nearly a quarter of their traffic
from the channel.
Social Media Share of All Site Visits
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0%
2.0%
2014-Q12013-Q1 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q2
1.4%
1.5%
1.6% 1.6%
1.8%
1.6%
Facebook Share of Social Media Visits Slips to 51%
With Pinterest referrals growing
rapidly, particularly for retailers,
and among reports of declining
organic reach, Facebook is a smaller
contributor to social media referrals
this year than last for the average site.
In Q2 2013 Facebook produced 57%
of visits from social media sites. In
Q2 2014 that rate has slipped to 51%.
Pinterest accounted for 21% of social
visits on average, but its share was
much smaller for many sites.
Share of Social Media Visits
Facebook Pinterest Reddit Twitter YouTube Google+ LinkedIn Other
40%
20%
0%
60%
2014-Q22013-Q257%
51%
13%
21%
23%
19%
2% 3% 2% 3%
1.5% 1% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.1%
21. COMPARISON SHOPPING ENGINES 21
eBay Commerce Network Up Big Year-Over-Year
Same site revenue on the eBay
Commerce Network was up 69% year-
over-year, far outpacing all other CSEs.
Nextag and Shopzilla continue to
struggle to bring returns for advertisers
as same site revenue decreased 62%
and 35%, respectively.
Same Site Revenue Growth
Y/Y Q280%
40%
0%
–80%
–40%
Amazon
Product Ads
NexTag eBay
Commerce
Network
Shopzilla-
Bizrate
PriceGrabber
22%
–62%
15%
69%
–35%
Amazon Spend Share Down as Advertisers
Pushed Out
Share of total CSE spend going to
Amazon dropped from 17% in Q2 of
last year to 9% in Q2 of 2014 as large
advertisers were moved out of Amazon
Product Ads by Amazon, ostensibly
to move them into the Amazon
Marketplace. With Nextag also down
significantly in spend share year-over-
year as a result of poor returns for
advertisers, eBay and PriceGrabber
have seen huge gains in spend share
year-over-year.
Ad Spend Share by Engine
15%
0%
35%
20%
10%
5%
25%
30%
Amazon
Product Ads
NexTag Other PriceGrabber eBay
Commerce
Network
Shopzilla-
Bizrate
2014-Q22013-Q2
17%
15%
5%
15%
21%
28%
9%
2%
4%
33%
31%
20%
Amazon Product Ad CPC Up 34% Year-Over-Year
Average CPC for Amazon Product
Ads was up significantly year-over-
year in Q2, marking the largest Y/Y
quarterly increase in CPC among CSEs
for the second straight quarter. eBay
Commerce Network CPC continues to
hold steady as their flexible bidding
options allow advertisers more ability
to control CPC.
CPC by Engine
Amazon
Product Ads
NexTag Other PriceGrabber eBay
Commerce
Network
Shopzilla-
Bizrate
$0.30
$0.00
$0.70
$0.40
$0.20
$0.10
$0.50
$0.60
2014-Q22013-Q2
$0.47
$0.63
$0.40
$0.49
$0.35 $0.36
$0.32
$0.39 $0.39 $0.40
$0.48
$0.53
22. COMPARISON SHOPPING ENGINES 22
Google
& Bing
Product Ad
CSEs Offer Advertisers Great Returns
Across all Comparison Shopping
Engines, ROI was 26% higher than
that of Google and Bing product ads
in Q2. This is partly the result of the
inefficiencies inherent in the rate card
system of some CSEs, under which
poorly performing products must be
filtered out of the product feed as
opposed to simply being bid down
like search engine product ad targets.
CSE vs Search Engine Product Ad ROI
60%
0%
140%
80%
40%
20%
100%
120%
Google & Bing
Product Ad
CSE
+26%
Google
PLA
Q2 PLA CPCs Once Again Higher than Amazon
Product Ads
Average CPC for Amazon Product
Ads was 20% lower than that of
Google Product Listing Ads in Q2
after being 31% higher in Q1, when
advertisers bid PLAs down as a result
of decreasing demand following the
holidays while Amazon’s rate card
remained unchanged. In terms of CPC
comparison, Q2 was much more like
Q4, when CPCs for Amazon Product
Ads were 18% lower than that of PLAs.
Amazon Product Ads vs Google PLA CPC
60%
0%
80%
40%
20%
100%
120%
Google
PLA
Amazon
Product Ad
–20%
Google PLAs Continue to Grow Relative to
Amazon Product Ads
Among those participating in both
programs, advertisers have consistently
produced much more revenue from
Google PLAs than Amazon Product
Ads, and the difference continues to
grow. Amazon Product Ads accounted
for 7% as much revenue as Google PLAs
in Q2 of 2014, down from 9% in Q1 and
11% in Q4 of 2013.
Amazon Product Ads vs Google PLA Revenue
2014-Q12013-Q4 2014-Q2
+6%
+8%
+4%
+2%
+10%
+12%
11%
9%
7%
Google PLA
BASELINE
24. DISPLAY ADVERTISING 24
2014-Q1
FBX Ad Spend and CPC Up Significantly in Q2
Advertisers increased their total FBX
investment 72% Q/Q following a
slower Q1 in which advertisers scaled
back following the holiday season. The
increased investment has been used
to increase visibility for ad formats
already in use as well as to try out
formats new to the advertisers. We
may continue to see CPC increase as
the larger right hand rail ads recently
rolled out for FBX result in less real
estate and more competition.
Facebook Exchange Ad Spend & CPC Q/Q
2014-Q1 2014-Q2
Ad Spend CPC
200%
100%
150%
0%
50%
+72%
+20%
FBX CPC Up Q/Q Relative to Other Display
Advertising
While FBX CPC remains lower than that
for other display ads, the difference
is shrinking, as FBX clicks were just
24% cheaper in Q2 compared to 33%
cheaper in Q1. Revenue per click
remains nearly equal between the two,
though FBX measured a hair higher
than other display in Q2 after being
slightly lower in Q1.
Facebook Exchange vs Other Display
Revenue Per Click
–10%
–25%
–5%
–15%
–20%
+5%
CPC
Display
BASELINE
Overall +2%
–24%
FBX Continues to Have Higher CR, Lower AOV
than Other Display
While FBX ads continue to convert
at higher rates with smaller order
values than other display ads, the
gap between the two for both metrics
seems to be closing as the difference in
each is a meager 6%. This convergence
may be a natural result of consumer
behavior on social networks becoming
more like that on the web as a whole.
Facebook Exchange vs Other Display
–10%
–5%
+5%
+10%
Conversion Rate AOV
Display
BASELINE
Overall
+6%
–5%
25. DISPLAY ADVERTISING 25
Retargeting Strategy Far More Common
Among Display Advertisers
Between those advertisers pursuing
a mixed strategy of prospecting
and retargeting and those who are
retargeting only, 94% of display
advertisers include retargeting in their
ad strategy. The share of prospecting
only advertisers has dropped to 6%,
down from 10% in Q1 and 12% in Q4
of last year, as more advertisers seek to
take advantage of the typically higher
ROI and customer retention qualities
of retargeting.
Percentage of RKG Clients’ Display Goals
Prospect & Retargeting
Retargeting Only
Prospecting Only
67%6%
28%
GDN Remains Small Part of Total Google
Investment
Google text ad and PLA spend
continued to dwarf Google Display
Network spend, accounting for 94%
of total Google investment in Q2, the
same as Q1. While Google does not
reveal the share of ad revenue that
is generated from the GDN, these
results suggest that the percentage is
fairly small.
Share of Total Google Spend
Google Text Ad & PLA Spend GDN Spend
100%
50%
75%
0%
25%
94%
6%
Placements &
Retargeting
Placements & Retargeting Remain Primary
Investment on GDN
Advertisers continue to invest more
heavily in Google Display Network
placement and retargeting campaigns
than contextual campaigns, as the
gap between spend and CPC levels
between the two only grew larger in
Q2. Contextual spend was 15% that of
placement and retargeting spend in
Q2, compared to 27% in Q1.
GDN Placements & Retargeting vs Contextual
Spend CPC
Placements & Retargeting Contextual
60%
0%
80%
40%
20%
100%
120%
–85%
–60%
26. Founded in 2003, RKG is a search and digital marketing agency that combines superior marketing
talent with world-class digital media capabilities to create the industry’s most effective data-driven
digital marketing solutions. RKG drives business to clients by maximizing a full range of opportunities
including paid search, SEO, product listing ads, social media, display advertising and comparison
shopping engine management services. In 2014, RKG became a part of Merkle, creating the largest
independent search agency. RKG is headquartered in Charlottesville, VA with offices in Bend, OR
and Boston, MA. For more information visit www.rimmkaufman.com or follow the company on Twitter
@rimmkaufman.
ABOUT RKG, A Merkle Company
info@rimmkaufman.com
@rimmkaufman
rimmkaufman.com
rkgblog.com
METHODOLOGY
Figures are derived from samples of RKG clients who have worked with RKG for each respective
marketing channel. Where applicable, these samples are restricted to those clients who 1) have
maintained active programs with RKG for at least 19 months, 2) have not significantly changed their
strategic objectives or product offerings, and 3) meet a minimum ad spend
threshold. All trended figures presented in this report represent same-site
changes over the given time period. Unless otherwise specified, the data
points in this report are derived from the North American market region.
Merkle, a technology enabled, data driven customer relationship marketing (CRM) firm, is the nation’s
largest privately-held agency. For more than 25 years, Fortune 1000 companies and leading nonprofit
organizations have partnered with Merkle to maximize the value of their customer portfolios. By
combining a complete range of marketing, technical, analytical and creative disciplines, Merkle
works with clients to design, execute and evaluate connected CRM programs. With more than 2,100
employees, the privately held corporation is headquartered in Columbia, Maryland with additional
offices in Boston; Chicago; Denver; Hagerstown; Little Rock; London; Minneapolis; Montvale, NJ;
Nanjing; New York; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; San Francisco and Shanghai. For more information, contact
Merkle at 1-877-9-Merkle, visit www.merkleinc.com or follow the company on Twitter @MerkleCRM.
ABOUT MERKLE