Are Google’s search results getting too ad-heavy and leading back to
Google’s own content too much? A new blog post suggesting that Google’s
non-paid listings make up only a tiny fraction of the entire search
results page has sparked some discussion, though the exact percentage
actually varies on how you count what’s on the page and from
query-to-query.
According to the blog post by Aaron Harris, co-founder and CEO of Tutorspree, organic search results
— listings that are not paid ads but ranked highly because Google
thinks they are the best answer to a query — made up from 0-to-13% of a
Google search results page.
However, if you measure the page not by pixel count but by actual
listings, the situation is brighter than some of the “death of organic
listings” proponents might think. Also, some things considered to be
“Google” listings might not make sense to count that way.
Here’s what Harris found, along with some further analysis.
Auto Mechanic: Only 13% Unpaid?
When performing a Google search for “auto mechanic” using his Macbook Air with a 13-inch screen, Harris discovered that AdWords paid
listings took up 29% of the page (12% at the top and another 17% to the
side). The Google navigation bar took up 14% of the page. Unpaid
“organic” listings got 13%, with the Google map plotted with local
results having 7%, as illustrated below:
Vignesh Ramachandran at Mashable experienced similar results
when he performed his own test on Google. Using the same search term as
Harris — “auto mechanic” — Ramachandran found that organic search
results only accounted for an estimated 13.5 percent of screen real
estate on his 15-inch MacBook Pro in a Firefox browser:
Caveats & Counting Issues
Two sources coming away with a 13% figure
for unpaid listings can sound pretty low. But that’s not the same as
being able to declare that all searches are this way. Each search may
have a different mixture of paid and unpaid results, based on the ads
competing to appear, the location of the searcher and whether Google
itself determines if a particular query deserves to be ad-heavy or not.
Beyond the variation from search-to-search,
how you measure the percentage of a page that’s deemed “unpaid” isn’t
as clear cut as it may seem.
One immediate caveat is the assumption that
the map is somehow not worth counting in as “organic” listings.
Clicking on the map leads to a page that will have both organic listings
and paid listings plotted on a map. There’s a usefulness for search
engines to show local information on a map. Arguably, some of the map
“percentage” should count into the organic listings.
Another issue is the idea that the search
box and navigation links should be somehow counted against Google as
some type of new attempt to drive more traffic to Google products.
Google’s long had navigation links. In fact, at some points, the
navigation and search box unit might have been larger than it is now.
Beyond that is the idea that measuring in
pixels is somehow the correct way to go. It assumes that the entire page
is seen and interacted with in the same way. It also, oddly, counts the
ads on the side as having nearly twice as much space as they actually
take-up, because the box around them includes a bunch of white space.
Traditionally, what has concerned search
marketers worried about Google (or any) search engine encroaching on the
organic space has been to count the actual number of listings,
especially those in the middle of the page, where people typically focus
their attention and clicks.
By those measures, the example above works out to have 10 listings that are fully visible, with percentages like this:
- Total paid versus unpaid: 70% to 30%
- Paid versus unpaid, middle column: 50% to 50%
Those percentages are much better than the “13%” you might come away
with from the original blog post. But then again, they still feel pretty
low.
Meanwhile, Over At Bing…
For comparison sake, I ran the same search on my own MacBook Air with a 13-inch screen at Bing:
I didn’t try to measure the pixel count, because as explained, I’m
not sure that’s the right approach for various reasons. But at-a-glance,
it’s pretty clear that an ad-heavy page isn’t just a Google problem. In
this example, Bing manages to push all but a single organic listing to
the bottom of the page — and only the title of that one shows.
Like Google, the map leads you to a mixture of paid and unpaid
listings. Unlike Google, selecting the local listings that appear next
to the map sends you back into Bing Maps rather than to the actual
business. Google used to do the same but changed this practice about a
year or two ago, after criticisms.
Italian Restaurant: Only 7% Unpaid?
For another search, organic listings won even less screen real
estate. When Harris looked for “italian restaurant,” the newly
introduced Google Local Carousel located at the top of the page garnered a full 30% of the screen real estate.
With the navigation bar still taking 14%, AdWords at 9%, the Google map with 15%, a Google-owned Zagat listings (outside of the carousel) at 4%, organic search results for Harris’s search made up for only 7% of the page:
Again, that’s a shockingly low number at first glance. But, it gets
better when you understand more about how the search page actually
works.
The carousel links aren’t paid listings. Clicking on them leads to a
fresh search results pages for the particular restaurants that are
listed. The downside is that, as with Bing, this drives people back into
Google rather than over to the restaurants themselves.
That’s disappointing. Google’s goal here is that the carousel is part
of its Knowledge Graph, where it’s trying to share answers and
information about things, including restaurants. But if someone clicks
on the name of the restaurant, there’s a good assumption they just want
to go to that restaurant’s page, not get stuck in an endless loop of
Google search results.
As said, Google changed how its map results did this in the past; hopefully it will reconsider how the carousel works.
Another issue is counting the Zagat listing separately from the
overall “organic” figure just because it’s a Google-owned property.
Google asserts those properties are competing with all other pages and
only appear if its algorithm believes they are relevant. There’s no
programmatic command to always show a Zagat page at the top. Some won’t
believe this, of course. But still, that’s far different than the
assumption that a Zagat page might always show.
Indeed, here’s what I see in my location for the same search:
In this case, I don’t get any ads at all. I also don’t get any Zagat
listings. Instead, I get the Olive Garden, an LA Times article and two
listings from Google-competitor Yelp.
Meanwhile, Over At Bing…
On the one hand, I’m much happier with what I get from Bing:
There are ads, but they are over in the
middle column, under the map. Clicking on the main listings takes you to
the restaurants, unlike how Google’s carousel works. Organic search is
far from “dead” here.
Then again, Google’s giving me a more
colorful display that actually lists more restaurants than Bing does. If
the carousel took me directly to those restaurants, rather than back
into the search results (where you can then get to them), I think it
would be a much better winner.
A final caveat in all this. Looking at a
page doesn’t help you understand some of the interactivity that goes on.
With Bing, selecting the “Reviews” link changes the middle column into
showing more information from Bing’s own sources. How that gets measured
is another complication, if we’re counting pixel space versus listings.
0% On Mobile?
Organic search results fared even worse in mobile
searches, claiming 0% of the initial screens. When Harris searched
“Italian Restaurants” from his iPhone, he had to scroll through four
full screens before seeing any organic listings, which appeared after ad
units, Google-owned Zagat listings, and a Google map followed by Google
local listings:
Again, it sounds terrible until you get into the caveats. First,
there’s the counting of Zagat in the first example as not being an
organic search results, when it is. That really makes the results on
that page 50/50 paid versus organic, unless you assume based on one
search that Zagat will always occupy the top spot and that there will
always be an ad. That’s not the case for me, in my location. In my area,
Yelp has the entire page first screen.
After that, I get the same type of Google local listings as shown as
“2″ in Harris’s example. I suppose that’s bad news for the Yelps of the
world who want even more of that page, and it really does illustrate
what Harris said, something the Yelps and others have already themselves
said many times before:
“If you compete with Google in any way, you’re in its
crosshairs. Your chances of ranking high enough to garner traffic are
virtually nil and getting smaller.”
Life Harder For Competing Search Engines; Not Necessarily For Web Sites
Indeed. While the future may not be as bad as Harris paints it for
other local search providers, in getting traffic from Google, the trend
is pretty clear. Where Google can provide answers, it’s going to do that
more and more directly, rather than feeding out to competing search
engines.
That, however, isn’t necessarily bad for the user. If I’m on my
phone, and I want to learn about a restaurant, the Google local results
in the second screenshot are extremely useful, offering to let me call
the restaurant or get directions to it. If I drill in, I’d even get an
Urbanspoon menu. I’d also likely get Yelp reviews along with Zagat
reviews, if that’s what Yelp wanted. But that’s not what Yelp wants,
because Yelp blocks those reviews from appearing in Google.
But Google Owning Content Is Troubling
For me, the concern isn’t that Google doesn’t show enough listings of
other search engines, any more than I’m not concerned that the New York
Times doesn’t run enough Wall Street Journal articles.
To me, the real concern has been the transformation of Google from
being a search engine that pointed out to destination sites (like those
restaurants) to wanting to be a destination of its own.
SEO and organic search is far from dead, and anyone who runs a site
can look at their traffic logs to know how much traffic Google sends
them every day, for free. But selling movies, offering restaurant
reviews, hosting video, hosting book content and more does further
pollute the clarity we used to have about what Google’s role was as a
search engine, and whether it pushes its own content above others.
