A beginner’s guide to Conversion Optimizer: Part 2

by Tammy Joseph

In my first post about Conversion Optimizer (CO) I outlined a few guidelines when first setting up Conversion Optimizer. I also documented the results of one of my clients I have been testing it on.

Just to recap the steps that I have taken since implementing this feature:

Initially Google recommended a CPA higher than what my original CPAs were.

I stuck to these recommendations, which were R12.35 for each ad group. Later on I dropped almost all ad groups max CPAs to R10.00.

The Results:

Date	Impressions	Clicks	CTR	CPC	Cost	Sales	Cost Per Sale
Week before CO	4612	196	4.25%	R2.02	R395.45	7	R56.49
Week 1 after	5131	285	5.55%	R2.12	R605.50	12	R50.46
Week 2 after	3780	272	7.20%	R1.70	R461.49	10	R46.15
Week 3 after	3246	208	6.41%	R1.64	R340.45	22	R15.48
Week 4 after	3201	200	6.25%	R1.46	R292.80	5	R58.56

Week 1: Traffic, clicks, CPC and conversions all increased. This was expected as CPCs were higher due to the higher max CPA (Google automatically adjusts the CPC bids).
There was a decrease in clicks and CPC from week 2 to 3. I thought this may be due to me lowering the CPAs (causing CPC to be lowered, and possibly adverts position, causing a decline in clicks).
But position has remained stable, and funnily enough, enquiries and sales increased in that period, and cost per sale went down!
There was a bit of a slump in performance in week 4. This is when I started dropping the CPAs further, so I thought that must be the reason for the decline in performance.
Just to double check though, I compared these results with another campaign in the same account (that didn’t’ have CO enabled) for the same period and there was a corresponding drop in stats.
This means that lowering the CPA did not affect the incoming traffic – there seemed to be a slowing of search volume for this particular industry at this time of the month.

The Findings:

The one thing that put me off at first when I started using CO, was the fact that I couldn’t drop my max CPA lower than R10.00 when some of my ad groups were achieving CPAs of R2.00 and lower in the past! But of course I didn’t want to go against Google’s recommendations.

However, now that CO has been enabled on my campaign for about a month, I’ve started to notice that it no longer tells me “traffic may be reduced” when I put the max CPA lower than R10.00. So I’m assuming it just takes your campaign a little while to adjust to the new bidding system.

Although these results are not that significant, my main goal has still been achieved – lower cost per sale and higher ROI. So I would recommend that if your campaigns’ main goal is focused on getting the best return on investment – you should use CO. Managing your CPA is a much better way of managing your campaign.

I think in managing campaigns we get too focused on CPC bids and how that affects our advert position – I know I am always weary to drop my CPC bids too much in case my advert gets dropped and in return lose out clicks and conversions! So sometimes we just grin and bear a slightly higher CPA than what we really want to ensure we aren’t losing out on valuable clicks that could lead to conversions. But with this you can focus more on letting Google find those “ideal” CPCs and you just worry about setting the right CPA for you campaign – and eventually, if you manage it right, I’m sure you’ll start getting a much lower CPA for the same (or even more) conversions.

2008/05/19 | permalink | comments (0) | trackbacks (0)

Comments

RSS to Email

Get our latest blog posts delivered straight to your inbox.

eMarketing News

Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter which is packed with interesting eMarketing news, views and other quirky titbits.

January

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

« Dec

Feb »

Recent Comments

Kat on Engaging as a Company

I agree with you. There are some things that should ideally not be discussed by an employee in the public sphere.
Would a communications policy have stopped the said journo from speaking out? He/she must have known a huge risk was being taken? I suppose it's also an incredibly difficult thing to predict. The lack of control can be alarming.
I'm definitely interested in seeing a more specific list, so if you find it do share.
Thank you for your comments :). Here's hoping there's a good coffee shop close to you..
vincent on Engaging as a Company

I guess the mark of a well crafted brand starts at HR policy for new recruits - ensuring that they fit the brand's/corporate's persona. So in that sense yes you could argue that left to their own devices employees would, regardless of an online communications policy, communicate in a style the sponsor would approve of. Not sure if that's always the case but I'm inclined to agree with this generalization.
I think what is also important is that the individual writing within the bounds of a sponsor's site does so in a restricted locale. You can police your own domain if you're a corporate, you can't necessarily control the individuals mouth outside of it. For instance on twitter, personal blogs and forums. Owing to the nature of niche stardom you could argue that the employee comes to represent the brand, more so than that personifies the brand in organic conversation with consumers and would carry significant weight both within corporate sites and externally. Making some individuals very wary to write for their companies at all.
For instance in our not too distant past a prominent journo got the boot for publishing his gripes with his employers and their professional ability - he was promptly fired...He would no doubt have been policed on a company blog but owing to the fact that he chose to represent the company elsewhere he took his brand and the papers brand with him - dragging both through the mud as traipsed on towards epic-failuredom...
So to come back to a point, there is definitely a sense that the policies as listed above are quite ambiguous. Even you yourself suggest that requisite legalese is absent, and I have to assume that such legalese would include a fairly long list of do's and dont's. I have a list somewhere laying about which dictates in a very bland corporate fashion how to represent the brand in public - if I find it I will share it with you.
Perhaps its worthwhile to enforce points like "don't tell secrets" and my own favourite, "for the love of god don't gripe about the boss who you've publicly named online"...
That's my mental-riff for the day, I'm afraid I veered rather uncharitably off course but such is the nature of thought.
Now if only the company I worked for had some decent coffee!!
Kat on Engaging as a Company

Transparency is a key issue - as is allowing people to carve their own niche.
My thinking is that people engage with a personality - an individual personality - in conversation more than with a collective. It's just easier. A company personality surely reflects the people who work there as well as a crafted (constructed?) image that the stakeholders choose to present. While you want engagement it's not the same as speaking to an individual.
There are definite risks involved - but I would lean towards allowing people to carve a niche.
vincent on Engaging as a Company

Couldn't have said it better. Nice post, it is most certainly something corporates are going to struggle with. How much transparency is too much? Who should be allowed to represent a brand and to what extent should the individual be given the opportunity to carve their own niche rather than extol the virtues of the mother - brand?
Who knows. We shall soon see as this year pans out and we find out how the big media players tackle the rise of the cost effective digital media channel.
Kat on Engaging as a Company

It is a tough issue, and I can understand why you've never published. I would encourage you to do so though - you probably have a feeling for when your writing reflects your voice and when it doesn't - and the rewards are worth it.
Thanks for reading Wendy. :)

More photos of the QuirkStars At Play

Name:
Friends of Quirk
Websites:
www.quirk.biz

Skribit: Social Suggestions

Name:
E-mail:
Url:
Comments:
Markup guide: makes text bold // makes text italic // -- creates a link -- (two dashes, no http://)
Remember personal info?
Notify me of follow-up comments?
SPAMCHECK:
Captcha:

A beginner’s guide to Conversion Optimizer: Part 2

by Tammy Joseph

Comments

Subscribe

RSS to Email

eMarketing News

January

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments