Is a New Visits ratio of 39% a really bad thing?
-
I do a lot of work for a large estate agency based almost solely in London. They get a considerable amount of traffc and all other stats, on the whole, are always positive. The only thing that is decreasing regularly is the percentage of new traffic.
My understanding of user behaviour for this market is that no one in their right mind would make an enquiry or arrange a booking without a) looking at the property at least twice themeselves (once to before the enquiry and once before a viewing) and b) more than likely show a partner. Plus the site is well laid out and useful so I believe users are favouring our site over the comparison sites.
So questions:
-
Should I be panicing
-
What is the most efficent way of increasing new visits?
Things to note:
The HTML titles throughout the site are a bit of a mess - key word rich but too long and inconsistent. Could this be a contributing factor to the CTR?
Also in the past month we appeared in over 4k different queries but our non branded impressions are down 22%. Could more concise, less keyword stuffed HTML titles help this? Do I need to look at the page titles to ensure that they contain the exact phrases that are in decline?
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
-
-
Many thanks! I have tried with custom segments in the past but got confused and gave up. In doing this it has helped me clarify how I evaluate the data.
My keyword ranking have dropped and it is the perfect incentive to give them a kick up the behind to right some new content! I will also talk to them about a link building budget as currently their investment is far too low for a site of this size.
Thanks again for your help very much appreciated.
-
I don't think a decreasing new visits ratio is a bad thing. One might be able to spin it as a good thing.
Are you viewing this traffic as a whole? Because if so, it may not be an accurate representation. From the sounds of it, this is a big brand that you're working for. As such, a lot of your traffic is likely to come through branded terms. A decreasing new visits ratio for branded terms is not a bad thing - if anything, an increase in traffic and returning visitors would show that the brand is being trusted. In the real estate industry, this could mean that people are liking the listings on your site and are revisiting on a regular basis.
First thing I would do would be to set up some custom segments in Analytics (if this is what you're using, apologies if not). They're quite simple to do. I would set up 3 segments for organic search: brand, non-brand and not provided.
In your dashboard, click advanced segments and then the new custom segment button. Starting with brand, start with a "Include: Keyword" variable and type in your brand name. I'd add a couple of "OR" variables too, such as mispellings of the brand or nicknames/short names it has. Then insert an "AND" statement and select "medium", typing in organic in the field. You now have a segment of organic traffic purely for brand keywords.
For non-brand, do exactly the same, except for instead of "including" the brand keywords, you "exclude" them. I'd also exclude [not provided], add that as an "OR" variable.
For not provided itself, it's very simple - you just need one "Include:keyword" variable, at which point you type in [not provided].
With these 3 segments, you'll be able to see the new visitor rate of each one. I think this would give a more accurate representation of things. As mentioned earlier, I don't think a decreasing new visitor rate for brand traffic is a bad thing at all. For your non-brand keywords, a decreasing rate may suggest a decrease in your SEO visbility for some keywords. Sounds like you might be suspecting this to be the case. However, again, if traffic was still increasing I wouldn't be too worried. But a decreasing new visitor rate for non-brand search is perhaps more of a worry than brand search, so it's important to segment the traffic (in my opinion).
I think title tags do have a decent part in contributing click through rate, as does the meta description. I think it would be wise to clean these up and optimise them if you think they could be improved. Having said that, if impressions are down by 22%, it's probably your visibility that's affected, not the CTR.
Have you been monitoring your keyword rankings. Watching rankings every day can make you go a bit crazy, but it's a great indication of what your SEO visibility would be, which in turn is one of the best ways of getting new visits to your site. You're always going to rank #1 for your brand, so capturing new visits for people searching for london estate agents and similar search terms is what you can influence most. Optimising titles and meta descriptions is a good start, as well as increasing the rankings for some of the terms that offer the most impressions and are related to the business. Off-page factors are equally a big part in increasing this visibility. Not sure what your marketing/link-building strategy is at the moment, but I'd look to do more of that to increase your rankings in tandem with the on-page factors.
Hope this helps!
-
I don't think 39% is a big issue especially in an industry where repeat views are necessary.
One of our websites sells cheap portable ramps and has a high percentage of new visitors, due to the fact that there is no reason to come back (they either buy or don't buy).
Another of our sites sells expensive vintage furniture and has a very low percentage of new visitors. There is far more time spent on the buying process, there are also many visits from interior designers who always come back.
I always think that it is dangerous to look at percentages (especially on low traffic figures). For example if you increase the amount of your new visitors the amount of repeat viewers should also increase therefore your 39% may well stay the same (despite the obvious traffic improvement). Look to increase traffic not percentages.
PPC is a good way to get people to your site. You can advertise on words that people don't currently type in to get to your site, this could cut down on repeat viewers clicking on your adverts.
As to why your rankings have dropped can't comment until you post the site!
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Is it bad from an SEO perspective that cached AMP pages are hosted on domains other than the original publisher's?
Hello Moz, I am thinking about starting to utilize AMP for some of my website. I've been researching this AMP situation for the better part of a year and I am still unclear on a few things. What I am primarily concerned with in terms of AMP and SEO is whether or not the original publisher gets credit for the traffic to a cached AMP page that is hosted elsewhere. I can see the possible issues with this from an SEO perspective and I am pretty sure I have read about how SEOs are unhappy about this particular aspect of AMP in other places. On the AMP project FAQ page you can find this, but there is very little explanation: "Do publishers receive credit for the traffic from a measurement perspective?
Algorithm Updates | | Brian_Dowd
Yes, an AMP file is the same as the rest of your site – this space is the publisher’s canvas." So, let's say you have an AMP page on your website example.com:
example.com/amp_document.html And a cached copy is served with a URL format similar to this: https://google.com/amp/example.com/amp_document.html Then how does the original publisher get the credit for the traffic? Is it because there is a canonical tag from the AMP version to the original HTML version? Also, while I am at it, how does an AMP page actually get into Google's AMP Cache (or any other cache)? Does Google crawl the original HTML page, find the AMP version and then just decide to cache it from there? Are there any other issues with this that I should be aware of? Thanks0 -
New Domain, Subdomain or Subfolder
Hi All, I am working with a bank that would like to rank as many parts of the company site as possible for the company name. This includes the home page, a page on careers and a page on company reviews. The question is, it is better to structure the careers and reviews content on a subfolder, subdomain or new domain. Using subfolders to retain equity of the root domain site.americanbank.comamernicanbank.com/careersamericanbank.com/reviews or (use subdomains - you lose some of the main domain equity and it is counter to the Moz research) americanbank.comcareers.americanbank.comreviews.americanbank.com or set up new domains to overcome Google bias not to rank the same root domain in the top 7 to 10 results multiple times when displaying results for a company name. americanbank.comhttp://americanbankcareers.comhttp://americanbankreviews.com Thanks for your perspective.
Algorithm Updates | | BetterAnalytics0 -
New feature in seo results with icon?
I have never seen it before in the search: an icon in the title. Do you guys know how to get this icon in the title? See here: http://snag.gy/e7BiI.jpg e7BiI.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | Emilija1 -
Need List of new high pr free local USA based directories list.
Need List of new high pr free local USA based directories list. Anyone can help ?
Algorithm Updates | | mnkpso0 -
Shared Hosting - Bad for SEO? (exp. Godaddy)
There were a lot of questions and data on this a few years back and nothing terribly recent so i wanted to get the discussion going again and see if any new data has been published. Is hosting your website on a shared host like Godaddy or Network Solutions going to hurt your rankings because their holds a chance that you could be on the same IP as spammy websites? My gut feeling is no primarily because almost 90% of the worldwide web is on shared hosting but i do not have a lot of data to back it up. Id love to hear some feedback. Cheers - Kyle
Algorithm Updates | | kchandler0 -
Are xml sitemaps a thing of the past?
We had an internal debate about the importance of having a sitemap.xml on your website. Basically, there is Google documentation that indicates a sitemap.xml is due diligence: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156184 And other authoritative forums, blogposts, etc. which indicate that sitemap creation and maintenance is a waste of your time, e.g. http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/4803/the-sitemap-paradox/ A bigger question is: Are there cases in which not having a sitemap.xml actually became detrimental or risky? Thanks in advance!
Algorithm Updates | | HZseo0 -
Dramatic drop after rapid rise for new site
just launched a new site edenprairieexperts.com. The site jumped to the first page on yahoo and bing within a couple of days then fell off a cliff and isnt in the top 10 pages. Any reason for this? seems really strange for me. The only think I can think of is I got some really poor quality back links from someone screwing with me. If someone could take a glance at the site or give me some general direction I would appreciate it.
Algorithm Updates | | jjwelu0 -
New visitors by search engines nowadays in USA and Germany
Hello, anyone have current data, how many new visitors in average drive nowadays search engines? My source of Peter Kent´s book SEO for Dummies from 2006, says around about 50% in the USA. I guess nowadays the percentage is much less, because of the social media? Have anyone data to split this in organic and paid search driven visits also? Do you know also how many new visitors in average drive nowadays social media like Facebook, Twitter & Co ? Thanks,
Algorithm Updates | | Braumueller0