PPC vs Organic CTR

[Cornel_Ilea]

Hello,

I found two studies that seem to contradict themselves about PPC vs Organic CTR:
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2200730/Organic-vs.-Paid-Search-Results-Organic-Wins-94-of-Time
http://brandongaille.com/google-organic-click-through-rate-statistics/ Which one is true?

Thank you
Cornel

[Dr-Pete]

I have to second Matt - both and neither are probably right. This is an extremely difficult thing to measure, especially at large scale, and only Google has the numbers. Even purely organic CTR studies (not accounting for paid search) show numbers all over the place. The one consistent aspect is that we typically see a similar shaped curve, with a clear preference for #1 and a pretty steep drop-off.

It also appears that one of these studies is based on US data and the other on UK data. The "War on Free Clicks" was a WordStream study, if I recall, so their PPC data is generally pretty solid. It also reflects things like paid shopping results and uses a query set that's a bit more commercial. So, it's probably solid, but it reflects a specific niche.

With the diversity of new SERPs, I think it's vitally important to know your own industry landscape. Organic SERPs now have answer boxes, Knowledge Graph, carousels, expanded site-links, in-depth articles, and many features that can radically alter CTR. There's no "average" answer - it's critical to know the space you operate in.

Ultimately, there are two ways to get a sense of CTR data for yourself. Google Webmaster Tools has some clues - I don't completely trust their data, but it's a good starting point. The other option is simply to run some small-scale PPC campaigns and measure yourself. I've done some PPC work in the past in competitive niches, and I'll be blunt - it's all theory until you get out there and try it. CTR also differs radically across ads, based on copy, brand strength, etc.

[WorldText]

I think it's equally probable both are right!

There are SO many variables that making a clear case one way or the other is unlikely.  For example techies are unlikely to ever click ads - and for many even see them as they'd have AdBlock installed.  At the other extreme there's many non web literate folks (yes, even these days) who, frankly, haven't distinguished between ads and organic:  Top link = top answer.  Even if that link is an ad, or an injected ad due to the malware littering their PC.

In the middle there's a massive group who are aware, see ads and likely choose when / if to click ads.  Different intent will lead to different likelihood of clicking ads in different circumstances.  If searching for a product to buy I think most people will factor in sponsored results, at least at some point - perhaps organic didn't give the desired results, they want the widest range of products or companies to choose from so open every link, etc.

The Nielsen article seems to be talking more about branded search, certainly not money out searches, whilst the Wordstream infographic is talking of high commercial intent searches - ie money out searches.  Unfortunately their sources are a bit small to make out and aren't clickable so I can't look back further.

But given the difference in search intent between the two pieces I'd be comfortable with them both being right!