HERE’S WHY YOU SHOULD PPC ADVERTISE ON YOUR BRAND KEYWORDS

HERE’S WHY YOU SHOULD PPC ADVERTISE ON YOUR BRAND KEYWORDS

<< BY TAD MILLER ON APRIL 19TH, 2013

There have been multiple studies about the incremental lift in search traffic that Pay Per Click Advertising provides in recent years.  I’ve been quoting to clients the Google Study that said that search ads provide 89% incremental traffic.  The studies essentially say that when ads are shut off that the natural search results will only pick up for 11% of the lost traffic.

The study results, are almost in every case met with doubt and skepticism by the clients because the clients don’t trust that the information is valid because Google did the study. The issue is particularly doubted with regard to advertising on the companies name or brand names that they already rank number one for in natural search.

OUR TEST

We recently started a test for a retailer that had not previously utilized PPC advertising on its brand names before and monitored both the impact on natural search when those ads were turned on and the impact on PPC with the addition of the clicks on those specific brand keywords.

The results pretty much backed the premise of the Google study.  The study said:

…even when advertisers show up in the number one organic search result position, 50% of clicks they get on ads are not replaced by clicks on organic search results when the ads don’t appear.

Naturally, people think of their brand keywords when they think of their number one rankings.  Our client’s search traffic (both paid and natural search combined) on their company nameincreased 88%.  Paid search on that word obviously was the major contributor to that increase, but natural search clicks on that same word increased 26% also.  The appearance of both paid and natural listings at the top of the search results increases click through rates for both mediums.

Merely adding brand keywords into the PPC mix had a huge impact on overall search traffic. It increased 27%.  Paid search traffic increased 118% with little to no changes in budget spend.

Those are just traffic numbers and they are great.  But, I’m more interested in what the traffic does in terms of conversions.  We track multiple conversion actions for this client and the volume of that conversion increase was an incredible 370%.  Store locator search conversion were up over 360%.  Inventory Searches were up over 430%, Coupon Views went up over 450% and Site Registrations went up over 320%.

The costs to advertise on the brand keywords are incredibly low.  The Exact Match version of the company name is costing only $0.08 per click.  All of the combined brand keywords are costing on average less than $0.20 per click.

You literally pay a few pennies per click on brand keywords. They convert more effectively than any other keyword type and those conversions turn into sales.  What are you waiting for?

http://blog.search-mojo.com/2013/04/19/heres-why-you-should-ppc-advertise-on-your-brand-keywords/

Successful negotiation tactic used for electric power In India

Finding the Right Process in India

EDITED BY PON_STAFF ON MARCH 6TH, 2013 / CRISIS NEGOTIATIONS

• inShare
•  Comment
•  
• 

In 1995, a new government came into power in the Indian state of Maharashtra and canceled a 20-year power purchase agreement with the Dabhol Power Company, a joint-venture formed by Enron, General Electric, and Bechtel. Claiming that the deal was improper and even illegal, the government declared publicly that it would not renegotiate.

When the government recognized that it had no other options to secure power, it began to soften its position. But if renegotiations were to take place, the parties would need a process that would preserve the government’s dignity and prestige. Ultimately, the government chose to appoint a “review panel” consisting of disinterested energy experts to reexamine the project. The panel met with Dabhol representatives and project critics, and then submitted a proposal to the government that contained the terms of a renegotiated electricity supply agreement that both sides accepted.

The use of an expert panel to conduct what amounted to a renegotiation, in lieu of face-to-face discussions between the two sides, served to protect governmental dignity. The panel’s independent status also assured the public that the renegotiated agreement protected Indian interests.

http://www.pon.harvard.edu/?p=33991/?mqsc=E3476229&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=PON%20Harvard+Negotiation%20Insider%20Tuesday&utm_campaign=Negotiation_Insider_03122013

Dispute Resolution, NHL style

FEBRUARY 12TH, 2013 / DISPUTE RESOLUTION

• inShare
•  Comment
•  
• 

In the early hours of January 6, the National Hockey League (NHL) and the NHL Players’ Association (NHLPA) concluded a 16-hour mediation session by announcing they had reached agreement to end a 113-day lockout. The deal was finalized a week later, and the players returned to the ice for a shortened 2012-2013 season on January 19.

The dispute escalated as the two sides faced the task of negotiating a new collective-bargaining agreement beginning in July 2012. Citing a desire to bring player salaries in line with those of other professional U.S. sports leagues, the NHL opened with an aggressive proposal to reduce players’ percentage of hockey-related revenue from 57% to 43%, among other demands.

Offended by the proposal, the NHLPA held off a full month before delivering a counterproposal. Donald Fehr, the union’s lead negotiator, put forth an offer that separated player salaries from league revenue, slowing the growth of player salaries, and dividing revenues saved among financially struggling teams.

The team owners accused the union of ignoring their demand to greatly reduce player salaries. When the two sides failed to reach agreement by September 15, the expiration date of their existing contract, the league locked out the players and began cancelling games.

Weeks of cancelled game turn into months, and the season threatened to go the way of the NHL’s 2004 labor dispute, which led to the cancelation of the entire season.

The players eventually agreed to a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue with the NHLPA. But the two sides remained at impasse on other issues, and a breakthrough didn’t come until federal mediator Scot L. Beckenbaugh entered the picture, according to USA Today.

When face-to-face negotiations got heated, Beckenbaugh separated the two sides and engaged in shuttle diplomacy, visiting each side in turn to identify issues where they were willing to be flexible.

The two sides reached agreement on a host of issues, but their deal ultimately hinged on the issue of player pensions. The team owners agreed to establish a pension plan similar to that of Major League Baseball players, with the teams making significant contributions to grow the plan. Previously, players were solely responsible for making voluntary contributions to the league’s retirement plan.

The agreement allowed NHL players, whose careers are often short, to concede on the short-term issue of salary in return for peace of mind regarding their long-term financial future. Winnipeg Jets defenseman Ron Hainsey, a key negotiator for the NHLPA, called the pension plan the “centerpiece” of the deal, reports USA Today.

The deal suggests a valuable way for business negotiators in all realms to break through thorny disputes: expand your focus by looking for tradeoffs that cut across time periods. Specifically, consider offering a long-term gain for the other side in return for a short-term concession that you value highly. By looking beyond the immediate future, you may be able to identify new sources of leverage—and resolve your dispute.

http://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-nhl-style/