search volume
Evian baby viral video has much higher ROI than Etrade baby superbowl ad
The Evian baby viral ad (red spike) got almost as much search volume as eTrade’s Superbowl ad of 2009 (blue spike). But Evian paid millions less by skipping the expense of airing the video on traditional media; instead they just posted it to YouTube for free. But notice that in both cases the effect was ephemeral (not long lasting) — notice the narrowness of the spike. Interest in the viral video also subsided quickly. But at least Evian didn’t waste millions on producing and airing it — thus achieving a massively larger ROI than Etrade who paid to make the ads and then air it at great expense on the Superbowl for the last 3 years.
Etrade Baby Ad
Evian Baby Viral Video
The numbers vary depending on who you ask or whose data you use
Bing search volume continues to drop despite tons of ads and cheating — redirecting traffic from live.com, msn.com, microsoft.com, and windows search (see also – http://bit.ly/7qDBEz) .
The Nielsen Company today reported December 2009 data for the top U.S. Search Providers.
MegaView Search data – including total searches, unique searchers, search share, and all other search figures – cannot be trended with search results prior to October 2009 due to recent methodology changes.
Searches represent the total number of queries conducted at the provider. Example: An estimated 6.7 billion search queries were conducted at Google Search, representing 67.3 percent of all search queries conducted during the given time period.
versus Oct 2009 numbers from hitwise
Net Promoter Score (NPS) – A Metrics “Sacred Cow” That Should be Slaughtered?
My main issues with the Net Promoter Score (NPS) is that it doesn’t tell me anything new, is based on flawed math, the number cannot stand alone, and is not actionable (does not tell marketers what to go do).
Read More about Net Promoter Score Challenges
Thanks for all the retweets!
ZebraBites@adamferrier Another one for the NPS collection; http://www.clickz.com/3635696 (via @jhenning and @acfou)
acfouIt’s an “it is what it is” metric (which isn’t actionable) – #netpromoterscore #netpromoter #NPS - http://bit.ly/6EYyc
spiralsThought provoking Net Promoter article http://www.clickz.com/3635696 -Good idea to use search as an indicator of customer satisfaction
VirtualMRRT @berniemalinoff: RT @JHenning @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3
seangibRT @glenngabe: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://bit.ly/84Jh2P via @acfou on ClickZ – some interesting comments as usual w …
glenngabeWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://bit.ly/84Jh2P via @acfou on ClickZ – some interesting comments as usual w/Dr. Fou. 
MetriclyWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score - http://bit.ly/8U3VVD
christinet6dOh snap… RT @lizapost What’s the value of the Net Promoter score? According to @acfou, not much. ‘http://bit.ly/6EYyc
lizapostWhat’s the value of the Net Promoter score? According to @acfou, not much. ‘What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score’http://bit.ly/6EYyc
berniemalinoffRT @JHenning @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 || healthy debate pros/cons of #NPS
contactjrFrom @acfou: What’s wrong with the Net Promoter Score? http://bit.ly/17ahJC
Noakesi@holycow RT @jonnylongden: RT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot#measure
acfouNet Promoter Score (NPS) like brand sentiment scores are oversimplified averages that are not actionable - http://bit.ly/6EYyc
ju2ltdRT @jonnylongden: RT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure
jonnylongdenRT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure #retail – why use this?
Adtraction_RAJ_What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://bit.ly/17ahJC (mmm)
KarmaMediaLabs#NetPromoterScore not all it’s cracked up to be? Decide for yourself: http://bit.ly/17ahJC
EricheadRT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure #retail – why use this?
PeteHealyNet Promoter Score = useless; replace w/ search volume. Augustine Fou @acfou http://www.clickz.com/3635696 Your thoughts? #in
helena_chariRT @mrnews: #NPS ‘tells you the obvious, isn’t predictive, doesn’t answer the “So what?” question.’ http://bit.ly/1DqmgD (via @DavidPenn …
makingcjcAn it is what it is” metric…debate on the Net Promoter score. http://www.clickz.com/3635696
DannyGavinRT @EstherSteinfeld Interesting read: “What’s Wrong with the Net Promoter Score?” @acfou says, “So many things.”http://bit.ly/1ojkfk
ZaliciousRT @kevinertell: This is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696
hellosmalldogArticle about NPS is interesting – thanks to @mjayliebs for CCing us! We’re reading it now. (via @acfou, @wimrampen)http://tr.im/Fgv3
bigmacherRT @kevinertell: This is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696
DavashRT @rj_berg: Gr8 article: problems w/Net Promoter Score (#NPS) (http://bit.ly/2h5jot ) #measure [A grad of stats 101 could see all of this]
BobbleHeadGuruRT @rj_berg: Gr8 article: problems w/Net Promoter Score (#NPS) (http://bit.ly/2h5jot ) #measure [A grad of stats 101 could see all of this]
EstherSteinfeldInteresting read: “What’s Wrong with the Net Promoter Score?” @acfou says, “So many things.” http://bit.ly/1ojkfk
kevinertellThis is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696
rj_bergGreat article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure #retail
mjayliebsRT @wimrampen: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 (cc @hellosmalldog)
jestodcWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696
jonathanmendez“NPS is what I call an “it is what it is” metric — it tells you the obvious” http://bit.ly/6EYyc
mrnews#NPS ‘tells you the obvious, isn’t predictive, doesn’t answer the “So what?” question.’ http://bit.ly/1DqmgD (via @DavidPenn1@jhenning)
DavidPenn1RT @jhenning RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 Maybe we need to take it less literally?
wimrampenRT @JHenning: RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3
NicoPeruzziPhDRT @JHenning: RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 – the emperor has no clothes…
JHenningRT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 Builds on my criticisms with some of his own.
acfouNet Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” (is based on bad math, is not actionable) – what say you? http://bit.ly/6EYyc
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing(tm) – Digital String Theory
Just as physicists and mathematicians have been searching for the grand unified theory of the universe, I have been looking for a way to tie together the disparate disciplines of marketing and advertising, a way to correlate metrics from different industries that interrelate with marketing (e.g. market research, Nielsen, etc.), a way to put all past theories in context and perspective (Michael Porter’s Five Forces, Net Promoter, etc.), and a way to explain marketing successes and failures — all in one.
My method is the scientific method – which is simply put doing experiments and making observations that either support or refute hypotheses.
A grand unified theory will also need to be able to take into account phenomena such as social networks, etc. What are the organizing principles of such; what is the value? Why now?
Using digital tools — such as search volume trends — we can start to correlate marketing spend effectiveness across different forms of media and also different advertising and marketing techniques. The example below compares eTrade and Drobo. What is most embarrassing is that eTrade, a well known brand from the first dot-com heyday, spent lots of money creating and airing TV ads which it hoped would go viral. They even paid for Superbowl ads for the last 2 years to promote the “eTrade talking babies” as you see from the 2 spikes in search volume during February of 2008 and 2009. However, when compared to Drobo (a startup company that developed a very easily upgradeable back up hard drive array), it is shocking to note that Drobo spent NOTHING on advertising and relied entirely on word of mouth and an awesome product. And their search volume is not only larger than eTrade but also sustainably larger despite zero advertising and media cost. The “totals” even suggest that the volume under the curve of Drobo is 8X (EIGHT TIMES) that of eTrade.
So if you consider that eTrade spent millions of dollars to create the TV ads and even more millions of dollars to air them on TV in order to drive interest, demand, and hopefully new customers, then Drobo can be considered to have gotten the equivalent of 8X more dollars in advertising and media – for FREE using techniques and channels other than TV advertising. So what does that say about the relative value of TV advertising compared to these other, newer techniques?
godaddy vs megan fox
Interesting Search Observations – chocolate covered cherries vs chocolate covered strawberries
Chocolate covered cherries are more popular (more searched) at Christmas; but chocolate covered strawberries are more popular at Valentines. By observing what people pull for, we can derive insights that are useful in business strategy, inventory planning, and marketing (by ads around chocolate covered strawberries for valentines but cherries for christmas)
Source: Google External Keyword Tool – Search Volume Trends
via Niall McKinney, uTalk Marketing. At Valentines, women need more help picking gifts (search volume for “gifts for guys” consistently higher every February for the past 5 years). But “gifts for girls” shows dramatically higher volume every Christmas.
How Megan Fox got the equivalent of $50 million of Superbowl ad spending – for FREE! — the marketing of Megan Fox
godaddy superbowl ad spending led to sharp spikes in search volume every February for the last 5 years straight. Other advertisers who spent on Superbowl ads have similar lift in search volume from the TV advertising.
Source: Google Insights for Search
If you believe that lift in search volume indicates interest and intent and if you consider that each 30-second ad cost $3 million in 2009 (WSJ: NBC Super Bowl Ads to Cost $3 Million) and assuming GoDaddy’s ad did not air more than once, they spent $3 million to get their ad in front of a TON of people and to get people’s attention. Those people who saw the ad and were interested enough to take action went online and searched for more information by typing godaddy into search (see lift in search volume during February of each year) .
If we assume that it took $3 million to generate a certain lift in search we can use multiples to calculate the media dollar equivalent of any lift in search — for example, if godaddy spent $3 million to get X lift in search, then a 2X lift in search would have required $6 million of media (in a very very simplified back of the envelope estimate; it usually would cost more than 2x to get that lift) — i.e. it would have cost at least $6 million in superbowl ad media dollars to achieve a 2X lift in search volume.
So, if we now compare search volume on megan fox side by side with godaddy search volume, we will see that in Feb 2009 Megan Fox was indexing at 21 while godaddy was indexing at 12 (this is normalized to a scale of 0 – 100). So search volume on megan fox indicates she was getting the equivalent value to $6 million of super bowl media ad spend – FOR FREE — roughly 2X the search volume of godaddy in the same time period.
At the peak of her search volume in June 2009 (corresponding to the release of Transformers 2: The Revenge of the Fallen), she was indexing at 100 and godaddy at 7. This is 8x the index of godaddy of 12 during the Feb 2009 time period when they were airing their superbowl ads. This implies that she was getting the search volume that would have required the equivalent to a $24 million super bowl ad spend to achieve — again for FREE!
If you want to research futher, use the following link to bring up Google Insights for Search to see relative search volume
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=godaddy%2Cmegan%20fox&cmpt=q
In February 2008, Megan Fox indexed at 8 and GoDaddy at 8. In 2008, Superbowl ad spots cost only $2.7 million — so she had the equivalent search volume as a paid advertising spending $2.7 million on a Superbowl ad.
In 2007, Godaddy indexed at 6 during Feb 2007 Superbowl. Megan Fox indexed at 43 during the July release of the first Transformers movie — this is an 8X multiple on Superbowl ads that cost $2.6 million — or $21 million
So the perfect “product placement” of Megan Fox in the two Transformers movies garnered her nearly $50 million worth of advertising based on search volume equivalency. This does not even take into account her sustained and increasing search volume, compared to most advertisers’ search volumes which drop right back down to pre-ad levels once the ad is finished airing.
Lift in search volume indicates that customers …
… saw the ad, recalled it, and thought it relevant enough at the time to make the effort to take action — search for more information about it (beyond the tidbit of info contained in the 30 second ad, print ad, radio spot, or banner ad).
But traditional ads are still very very costly and inefficient due to the extremely large media cost.
For example, at the extreme cost of a Superbowl ad, the following advertisers were able to drive fleeting (short-lived) lift in search volume: godaddy, etrade, sobe lifewater, dennys.
related: http://go-digital.net/blog/2009/03/lift-in-search-due-to-paid-tv-advertising/
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and other Harry Potter Movies
interest in Harry Potter movies (indicated by search volume) match exactly to the launch of the movies themselves. What is interesting is that the current movie (Half Blood Prince) and the upcoming 7th Harry Potter Movie (Deathly Hallows) had enormous search volume over 2 years ahead of each movie, 2005 and 2007, respectively. See second chart below.
Daniel Radcliffe…Harry Potter
Michael Gambon…Professor Albus Dumbledore
Dave Legeno…Fenrir Greyback
Elarica Gallagher…Waitress
Jim Broadbent…Professor Horace Slughorn
Geraldine Somerville…Lily Potter
Bonnie Wright…Ginny Weasley
Julie Walters…Molly Weasley
Rupert Grint…Ron Weasley
Emma Watson…Hermione Granger
Helena Bonham Carter…Bellatrix Lestrange
Helen McCrory…Narcissa Malfoy
Timothy Spall…Wormtail
Alan Rickman…Professor Severus Snape
Oliver Phelps…George Weasley
The hardest thing to do in web 2.0 …
is keep your audience, keep them interested, or provide enough value to them to get them to switch or get them to come back.
Case in point, Wolfram Alpha. In many ways it is superior (in a different way) than Google because it is a computational search engine — its results are focused on things that can be calculated — e.g. distance between NY and San Fran, etc.
Interest has waned (see search volume chart) and traffic has dropped (see Compete chart).
Fading Stars, Hit Driven Stars, Flatliners, Rising Stars
search volume of various movie and television celebrities is driven by movie or television show; some are hit drive, others have sustaining power
Increasing and sustaining search volume – Megan Fox
Hit Driven – Emma Watson search volume goes with Harry Potter movie search volume, exactly
Spider Man Movie, Kirsten Dunst and Toby Maguire stars – search volume match exactly
Fading Stars – Jessica Alba has some search volume spikes around the time when movies come out, but there is an overall decline in baseline search volume over time.
Fading TV Show – in January of 2006 and 07 there was still significant search volume around the star of Fox’s 24. In 2008 and 09 there was not. Kim Bauer (Elisha Cuthbert)
Flatliners – Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt search volume
About Me
Tags
Recent Posts
- A Predictable Failure: Kimberly-Clark Offering Kleenex Hand Towels
- 1024-bit RSA encryption cracked by carefully starving CPU of electricity
- 975
- Apple vs Microsoft vs Sony [Graphs]
- This Is Why that Amazing NASA Earth Image Looked So Familiar
- 972
- Please Euthanize This Big Boy Already – How Lack of Innovation Killed Another Giant
- 969
- The iPod Touch Is This Generation’s Tamagotchi
- Evian baby viral video has much higher ROI than Etrade baby superbowl ad
Popular Posts
- HP Mini 311 Nvidia ION Netbook Hackintosh'ed
- Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks
- What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0
- social media benchmarks
- Samsung 52 inch HDTV $9.99 at BestBuy - purchase receipt below (6:21a eastern time August 12, 2009)
- How to manufacture a viral video sensation and make viral profits - Post 2 of 2
- The JKWeddingDance video was real; the viral effect was MANUFACTURED - Post 1 of 2
- Evian baby viral video has much higher ROI than Etrade baby superbowl ad
- The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing(tm) - Digital String Theory
- Net Promoter Score (NPS) - A Metrics "Sacred Cow" That Should be Slaughtered?
Recent Articles by Dr. Augustine Fou
- The ROI for Social Media Is Zero - ClickZ
- What's Wrong With the Net Promoter Score - ClickZ
- The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing No Longer Apply, Part 2 ...
- How to Do Social Marketing in Heavily Regulated Industries ...
- The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing No Longer Apply - ClickZ
- ClickZ - News and expert advice for the digital marketer ...
- 11 Most Popular Experts' Columns of 2009 on ClickZ - ClickZ ...
- December 27, 2009 - January 2, 2010 - ClickZ - News and ...
Pages
Archives
- March 2010 (8)
- February 2010 (21)
- January 2010 (12)
- December 2009 (4)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (14)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (19)
- July 2009 (34)
- June 2009 (11)
- May 2009 (4)
- April 2009 (6)
- March 2009 (13)
- February 2009 (32)
- January 2009 (25)
- December 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (1)
- November 2007 (1)
