I just typed a generic search into Google for the term "Blogger". I was curious how many results it would yield - approx 388mil. The thing that struck me was that only Blogger.com returned as a main sponsored result, but the first organic result was Blogger.com and some sub sections, then the remainder of the first page of results were mainly blogger subdomains. The question arises is the Google team unsure of their own algorithm and just covering their bases just in case blogger.com didn't return organically? Or have they so much money they need to start spending it on their branding campaigns to help justify their expenses?
It is not the trust factor as such, simply the fact that both the sponsored link and the first result is the same place ... It could be google checking effective conversion from their own adverts - and using that as a basis to judge how other ads should perform?
You are wrong, try any other word, like "new york times" or any other. Trust Rank is there main factor!
I am not saying about the subsections - that was not the reason I started the thread... it has nothing to do with the subsections. The question was: Sponsored result: blogger.com First organic result: blogger.com Now trust factor has nothing to do with sponsored results ... effectively duplicate returns for the same keyword and that was why I was asking if they don't trust their algorithm to return their result... Or, it could be that position #2 in the results pages is THE position to be at, with a higher CTR etc and so they are guaranteed to receive the highest CTR from their organic listing.
They may know that being #1 in both sponsored and organic yields the maximum return for them. The sum of the two is greater than either one. I would always assume they know what they are doing or are experimenting (and they do know how to experiiment ).
My mistake in understanding your thread point (i read it too fast obviously). And I agree with tbarr60.
I can concur that this doesn't have anything to do with Trust Rank. For one of my own sites I am the #1 sponsored link and also the #1 organic result and it does work indeed. Both sites clearly state the same domain name but titles and descriptions are worded a little bit differently. The effective sum of the two is greater than either one individually for sure.
I have seen companies remove a keyword bid when they saw there site hit #1 in organic without checking to see if the total traffic was hurt by removing the sponsored keyword bid. For many business more leads is better whether they are free or a few pennies or dollars (pence, pounds, pesos, etc). Google obviously wants max traffic on key lines of business. I wonder if Google uses more than one credit card to fund their Adwords account.
In our case (as also in the case above) our sponsored link shows up on the top left side just above the organic results as the only sponsored link over there. We leave that one alone, but tend to remove or at least lower our bid on the AdWords link if it moves over to the right hand AdWords column. In the surfer's eye when we are on the top left we are both the #1 and the #2 listing - nothing wrong with that! Our conversion ratio is pretty good and in the end we still make decent money on the sales even after paying AdWords so to us it's worth it. If nothing else we capture their contact information in many cases and they end up returning to the site when we do e-mail campaigns, etc. If we can't sell 'em on the first paid visit we sure as heck try to sell 'em later down the road!
It's more to take the market, than to cover their bases, I think. Imagine if you type in 'blogger' and LiveJournal was the sponsored link. Google lose circa. half the traffic.
Some good points made. It does mean that paying attention to listings for sponsored results and organic search results can be a way to maximise efficiency as well as targeted leads to improve your overall CTR. It would be interesting to see results for those companies who remove their sponsored result when they gain #1 search result placement ...
Good point, and we did try this 6+ months ago. Sales definitely didn't double but we do end up still turning a profit based on income vs. AdWords expense. Just lowers our overall margin on the product a little. Then again, we're not paying very much per click so this scenario may not work if margins are already very slim. I'd guess it would be a case by case basis depending on how much you're able to mark up your products. Obviously if you're only making $5.00 per sale and it takes you 20 clicks at $1.00 each to make that sale it doesn't make sense. You really have to dig deep and look at cost and conversion ratios and take into consideration things such as the people that signed up at our site but didn't buy then yet we later sold them something through an e-newsletter campaign. Lots of tricky variables and it really takes some thorough investigation. For very low margin products it probably doesn't make sense.
In Google's case it may be low margin but it's also low cost for them. The cost would be the opportunity cost to make money off an Adwords advertiser that they are placing themselves above.
Yes, the very fact google hold the position - they are using it to determine quality scoring and bidding on those words. As it is not always the case where the highest bidder gains #1 sponsored result if they quality score is too low. It may be to try and get people bidding higher, but it should also encourage adwords advertisers to increase their quality score by improving landing pages. A subtle way to improve the overall quality of adwords from a customers point of view - and at the same time, adhere more to googles webmaster standards...
My take is that Google chooses to take the premium spot where they want to increase traffic to bolster a line of business say in blogging or advertising (search Adwords or Adsense to see). I don't think you can out bid them or beat them on quality when they are redefining quality constantly.
Yeah - as Google define what quality is, then their websites would therefore be considered as the quality benchmark that other sites would have to emulate but are unlikely to score higher...