Wistia vs. YouTube
-
Hello, Mozzers! Sorry if I've missed a thread on this, but I didn't find anything after searching for a while...
I've used Wistia for years - LOVE the service and the company! Had great luck getting Rich Snippets, ranked well... until the recent Google change. Now all of my Wistia thumbnails have disappeared (though my rankings have stayed strong, thank goodness!) M question is, does it make sense to now embed YouTube videos on our site, and to create a video sitemap with those pages, with the hope that Google will rank the page better than it otherwise would have, knowing that there is valuable (video) content on the page? This is new videos, I'm not thinking of replacing my Wistia videos at this time.
I'll probably need to clarify as I see your responses, since this is a tricky set of interrelated decisions. Thanks for any thoughts that anyone may have!
~ Scott
-
Seems like Google is leaning toward favoring YouTube content with the removal of Rich Snippets. If you can get the same SEO benefit using a video site map and embedding YouTube videos instead, why not have your website visitors increase your YouTube video view counts and possibly add subscribers while you're at it.
-
Makes total sense! I hoped that having a page that ranks well already due to solid content, might get a slight lift by having a relevant video on it as well. Thanks again for your help!
-
Having rich media types (i.e. images, video, interactive elements) does appear to correlate slightly with higher rankings, but at best it's going to be a minor ranking signal at best. I don't think having video on a page is necessarily a good signal that a page has value, since there isn't a barrier to entry to embed YouTube videos and there are a lot of very low quality sites out there that just exist to scrape and embed YouTube videos.
In short, no I wouldn't suggest moving to YouTube on the basis of SEO generally - though obviously it's hard for me to offer any more specific advice without further context.
Start by working out A) if your content will be valuable to an audience who find it through YouTube search/recommended videos B) What your main goals are for each of your videos.
Cheers,
Phil.
-
Phil - wow, I'm honored to have a direct response from you! I've been impressed by what I've heard / read from you over the years!
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that simply sticking a YouTube video on a page would cause it to rank higher (as Google owns YouTube), but that having video content on a page can be a signal that the page has more value, than a page without video content at all. That would be true, right? (This assumes, of course, that the video content aligns with the text of the page, and is perceived to add value to the user experience - always comes first, I realize!!)
The main question in my mind is this: in the past, I used Wistia videos in order to get Rich Snippets, which seemed to get better click-throughs from the SERP than non-rich-snippet entries. I couldn't use YouTube to get Rich Snippets, since they weren't self-hosted. Now that I'm not getting Rich Snippets at all, I'm trying to decide whether to start using YouTube instead.
Thanks so much for your help - I look forward to reading your blog post tomorrow! ~ Scott
-
Hey Scott,
So I'm actually going to go one better here to try to respond to this question adequately and am going to write a blog post which will be published on the Moz blog tomorrow at this URL - http://moz.com/blog/video-seo-post-rich-snippets
Hopefully this post will shed some light on the choices you're facing and the decisions you should make. However, I did want to just quickly cover off one misunderstanding with this issue.
Embedding YouTube videos won't make your own pages rank higher compared with ranking videos from other providers. Just because Google owns YouTube doesn't mean ranking benefit is given to sites which embed YouTube videos (do you know how many terrible scraper sites are out there?!) in just the same way sites are not given preference for using Google AdSense on their site as opposed to other advertising platforms (in fact - Panda was designed to penalise those sites which are there just to generate ad revenue without provide value).
The decision about whether to move from Wistia should not be based on whether you will rank higher or not, since neither option will fundamentally make a difference. It may end up being wise, in your instance, to start using YouTube - but only if you can see benefit to having an audience watch the videos on YouTube.com and subsequently not visit your site.
Determine what the best user experience will be - and you'll probably end up with the right strategic answer.
Cheers,
Phil.
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
-
SEO - Vimeo vs. YouTube
Hi Does anyone have any good blogs or stats on which video hosting platform is better for SEO? I'm guessing YouTube as it's owned by Google - but I'd love some stats to support this for an internal debate. Thanks Becky
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey0 -
PPC vs Organic CTR
Hello, I found two studies that seem to contradict themselves about PPC vs Organic CTR:
Algorithm Updates | | Cornel_Ilea
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
Cornel0 -
Local Listings vs. Spreading Too Thin
Hello SEO Community, I'm trying to find the right balance between adapting to Googles move towards local listings and not spreading out my site too thin. We provide our services nationally and currently have local city listings (i.e. http://www.cleanedison.com/courses/city/IL-Chicago) but these do not show up in the SERPs for individual products + city (i.e. Building Analyst Chicago) So I could make individual pages for each product in each city, but that would exponentially increase the number of URLs on the site and probably inundate me with duplicate content. Is there a better way I could take advantage of local listings without creating all the duplicate content and other problems that would arise with individual URLs? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | CleanEdisonInc0 -
Www vs nonwww domain
Since about 5 years out site was launched as "www.example.com" but last June 2012, we relaunched new design but somehow went without www subdmain - "http://example.com". We didn't check that time but now find duplicate pages and very confused what next. Please answer: Do search engines penalize for the change of domain name? www.example.com vs example.com? How can go back (or, should we really?) to www.example.com? I did redirect .htaccess rewrite from nonwww to www - but now our site is launched as without www. Confused so Please advise ASAP. Thanks a Million
Algorithm Updates | | GreenBirdMedia0 -
Choosing domain name - ccTLD vs Vanity URL
I have to choose between a country specific domain name that is long and difficult to remember, vs or a .me domain which is short and contains the exact keywords I'm optimising for. The challenge is that I'm only targeting local search traffic for the service I am advertising. Does a country specific domain name have any benefits in terms of weighting when I'm only interested in traffic from that country?
Algorithm Updates | | flashie0 -
Bing Vs Google SERP
I realize the major search engines use different criteria but I don't see how - for the same home page keyword - my site could rank #3 on page 1 for a Bing search and be off the charts (Page 15+)? on Google. Has Google gone so far off the charts with their new Penguins and Pandas so as to be in a different universe? Seems Google is now extremely over-weighting big sites like Wikipedia, WebMD, eHow, etc. and in doing so vastly reducing the diversity of results shown. I am commonly seeing different pages of the same website appear multiple times in the first 2-3 pages of Google results. What's the point?
Algorithm Updates | | veezer0 -
Plural vs non-plural domain name
I'm sure this question has been answered and asked a 1,000 different ways but what would be the best domain name to use in the long term (2 years +)? The plural versions (examples.com) which has a decent domain authority and is ranking 1st in Google search results yet has less search volume or the singular version (example.com) that has no current SEO value for the search term that we'd like to target however the singular version of the keyword has a much higher search volume? so basically will it be better to have the exact match that has more volume or the plural form that has better rankings after 2 years of doing SEO for each domain? My guess is that using (examples.com) with the better domain authority and tightening the grip on its dominance in Google will still be more effective than having the exact match domain with more search volume for that keyword while performing the same amount of SEO even after two years. Any suggestions?
Algorithm Updates | | ydop0 -
Organic ranking vs Local ranking
After reading this blog entry from Dr Pete on Mirametrix, my question would be:
Algorithm Updates | | echo1
What's more important for a local company, being in the 7 pack or in the top 10 organic results? Which one attracts more clicks? Is the optimization for local ranking just became more important than the traditional SEO?0