Top natural search position AND PPC ?

**dgoodchild** · 21-04-08

This may be a daft question.

If you are #1 on the natural Google search results for a keyword, I can still understand using PPC if it's a product - you have twice as much page presence for the user to click on.

However, if that keyword is your company name, which is #1 on the natural Google search results, (and noone else is bidding on it) why also use PPC ? Surely anyone searching for your company name needs no help in clicking the correct link and you may have just spent Adwords cash you don't need to.

**gadget** · 21-04-08

I can understand your dilema. Remember that AdWords can be set to 'content' too which would display your advert on lots of other sites in addition to the main Google site. Also, there's no guarantee that you're number one natural position will stay that way.

One more thing, you're Google advert can be set to 'certain messages' and doesn't have to be set to your home page. It may go straight to a special offers page, for example.

**tbp** · 21-04-08

Thats true, but a suprising number of people seem to use the adwords results over the natural listings, so having both covered can definately help you.

It may be that someone could do a search for the company name, and you appear first. You would expect the searcher to click on the link, but it could be that an ad bidding on your brand name, or using broad matching, catches their eye and they click that instead. In that case, you may not get them back to the search to go to your company.

I think that although obviously its going to cost a bit, I would have both a result at number 1 and on PPC, just to make sure all your bases are covered.

**dgoodchild** · 21-04-08

Thanks for the replies. That makes sense to an extent I guess.

While I'm on the subject of search results - here's another query.

On the standard google.co.uk page with the UK box ticked one of my sites appears way down at #94 for the main keyword. However, on iGoogle with the UK box ticked, I'm hovering between #9 and #11. The site is only a week old so I'm not overly upset either way, but is this normal ?

**tbp** · 21-04-08

There are a couple of explanations for this:

1) The latest ranking for the site hasn't propagated round all the servers yet. This is happening a lot recently, and people here have been getting wildly varying results depending on which server they hit (which is largely assigned at random). It can take a week or more sometimes for your "final" position to filter through to all the different google servers and stabilize.

2) igoogle is display personalised results, which they are experimenting with. This can show sites based on recent searches, so if you have been checking out search terms or rival sites, or even hitting your own site a lot, then it can push your site higher up the list.

**dgoodchild** · 22-04-08

Thank you. Very useful info.

**gadget** · 22-04-08

Also, G sometimes helps new sites by adding them to the first few pages for results before dropping them on to page 10+ for a few weeks. Thereafter it just depends on all the other G rules .. and wims!

**MrCatz** · 22-04-08

Originally Posted by gadget

Also, G sometimes helps new sites by adding them to the first few pages for results before dropping them on to page 10+ for a few weeks. Thereafter it just depends on all the other G rules .. and wims!

This is very true as Google tends to give an initial boost to newer sites in the SERP's until it gets filtered (sandboxed).

However, if the site in question is an established site already and occupying the top spot for a good keyword - then using adwords for that keyword is a waste of money.

**tbp** · 22-04-08

to newer sites in the SERP's until it gets filtered (sandboxed).

Theres a lot of debate about this, but opinion seems to be trending towards there not being a sandbox as such, and its just Googles way of dealing with new sites.

In the last 6 months i`ve had several sites that have gone in at the top and stayed there, or gone in at the top and move down just a few positions and then rise back to the top. If there was a sandbox as such, it should be fairly consistent with all sites falling.

If your site does fall, by doing further SEO optimisation you can get it to rise again very quickly, in a couple of weeks rather than the 6 months of so that people who are dead set on the fact there is a sandbox seem to think.

The situation is a confusing one, and I don't think theres any dead set right or wrongs as Google changes all the time. It was the case that sites did at one stage fall back and stay there for many months with seemingly nothing you could do, but recently this has definately changed. People tend to hang on to their opinion though and stay fixed on it, rather than adjusting it as Google changes.

**takahashii** · 22-04-08

My new site came straight in at 12th and has now disappeared, I hope it gets back in there soon.

As for the propagation of the Google servers (as you know tbp) i've been fluctuating between 3rd and 12th for the last week now I wish it settle down so I knew where I stood

**findlite** · 26-04-08

Originally Posted by MrCatz

However, if the site in question is an established site already and occupying the top spot for a good keyword - then using adwords for that keyword is a waste of money.

I disagree with that. I think that you use all the tools in your box (Adwords, Organic, Mapping) to appear everywhere on page one especially is its a keyword which doesny get searched a massive amount. Every search counts!

**drivetowin** · 26-04-08

There is good evidence to show that if you are in the natural search results at No1 and at the No1 Adwords position you will get 20-30% more traffic than if you are only at no1 in the natural search with no adwords presence.

Interestingly though, some of this extra traffic is extra clicks on your natural listing - it is almost as though some people get reassurance from the fact you are in both positions.