Search engine optimisation or paid placement systems: user preferences.

Neethling, R. & Weideman, M.

Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on WWW Applications. 4-7 September. Johannesburg, South Africa.

Neethling, R. & Weideman, M. 2007. Search engine optimisation or paid placement systems: user preferences. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on WWW Applications. 4-7 September. Johannesburg, South Africa. Online: http://web-visibility.co.za/website-visibility-digital-library-seo/

ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to investigate and report on user preference of natural search results, thus search engine optimisation (SEO), versus pay per click (PPC) results. This will assist online advertisers to identify their optimal search engine marketing (SEM) strategy for their specific target market. Research shows that online advertisers perceive PPC as a more effective SEM strategy than SEO. However, empirical evidence exists that PPC may not be the best SEM strategy for online advertisers. Not all advertisers have the funds to implement a dual SEM strategy and therefore advertisers need to choose between a PPC and SEO campaign. In order for online advertisers to choose the most relevant SEM strategy, it is crucial to understand user perceptions of SEM strategies. A quantitative research design was used to conduct this study, with the purpose to collect and analyze data. A questionnaire was designed and placed on a website for gathering data. The questionnaire focused on how search engine users perceive SEM and their click response towards PPC and SEO respectively. The data was analysed and the results inspected. Results showed that the user perceived relevancy split is roughly 40% - 60% (PPC results to SEO results), regardless of demographic factors. This indicates that websites should invest in both PPC and SEO. Failing to invest in either one could cause a significant loss of traffic. For websites that cannot afford a dual SEM strategy, advertisers should correlate the results of this study with their target market to establish their optimal SEM strategy, or invest in SEO as results showed more users click through on SEO results than on PPC results.
REFERENCES
  1. Alimohammadi, D. 2003. Meta-tag: a means to control the process of Web indexing. Online Information Review, 27(4):238-242.
  2. Anon. 2007a. Internet usage statistics - the big picture. World Internet users and population stats. Available WWW: http://www.Internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (accessed 11 March 2007).
  3. Anon. 2007b. The difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web. Available WWW: http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2002/Web_vs_Internet.asp (accessed 11 March 2007).
  4. Anon. 2006a. Google search. Available WWW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_search (accessed: 11March 2007).
  5. Anon. 2006b. Global online population. Available WWW: http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=stats/web_worldwide (accessed 12 March 2007).
  6. Bennet, R. 1997. Export marketing and the Internet: Experiences of website barriers among UK businesses. International Marketing Review, 14(5):324-344.
  7. Bifet, A., Castillo, C., Chirita, P. & Weber, I. 2005. An analysis of factors used in search engine ranking. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web (AIRWeb), May 2005. Chiba: Japan. Available WWW: http://airweb.cse.lehigh.edu/2005/proceedings.pdf (accessed 10 May 2007).
  8. BTLookSmart. 2001. The great search engine debate. Available WWW: http://www.btlooksmart.com/en/newsrelease-301101.html (accessed 12 March 2007).
  9. Chambers, R. 2005. Search engine strategies: A model to improve website visibility for SMME websites. Unpublished MTech thesis, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town.
  10. Constantinides, E. 2004. Influencing the online consumer’s behaviour: The Web experience. Internet Research, 14(2):111-126.
  11. Curran, K. 2004. Tips for achieving high positioning in the results pages of the major search engines. Information Technology Journal, 3(2):202-205.
  12. Enquiro. 2004. Into the mind of the searcher. Available WWW: http://www.enquiro.com/net- profit/Inside-Searcher's-Mind.asp (accessed 12 March 2007).
  13. Fortunato, S., Boguna, M., Flammini, A. & Menczer, F. 2006. How to make the top ten: approximating PageRank from In-degree. In: Proceedings of the 14th International World Wide Conference, May 2006. Edinburgh: UK. Available WWW: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/cs/pdf/0511/0511016.pdf (accessed 11 March 2007).
  14. Green, D. 2000. The evolution of Web searching. Online Information Review, 24(2):124-137.
  15. George, D. 2005. The ABC of SEO. Morrisville, NC: Lulu Press.
  16. Gulli, A. & Signorini, A. 2005. The indexable Web has more that 11.5 billion pages. In: Poster proceedings of the 14th International World Wide Web Conference, May 2005. Chiba: Japan. Available WWW: http://www2005.org/cdrom/index.htm (accessed 10 May 2007).
  17. Henshaw, R. 2001. What next for Internet journals? Implications of the trend towards paid placement in search engines. First Monday, 6(9). Available WWW: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_9/henshaw/index.html (accessed 12 March 2007).
  18. Hinman, L.M. 2005. Esse est indicato in Google: Ethical and political issues in search engines. International Review of Information Ethics, 3(06/2005):19-25.
  19. Hunt, B. 2005. What, exactly, is search engine spam? Available WWW: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2167961 (accessed 12 March 2007).
  20. iProspect. 2006. Search engine user behaviour study. Available WWW: www.iprospect.com/premiumPDFs/WhitePaper_2006_SearchEngineUserBehaviour.pdf (accessed 12 March 2007).
  21. iProspect. 2004. Search engine user attitudes survey. Available WWW: www.iprospect.com/premiumPDFs/iProspectSurveyComplete.pdf (accessed 12 March 2007). Jansen, B.J. & Molina, P.R. 2006. The effectiveness of the web search engines for retrieving relevant e-commerce links. Information Processing and Management, 42(4):1075-1098.
  22. Jansen, B. J. & Spink, A. 2006. How are we searching the World Wide Web? A comparison of nine search engine transaction logs. Information Processing and Management, 42(1):248- 263. Lloyd-Martin, H. 2004. Delving deep inside the searcher's mind. Available WWW: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3406911 (accessed 12 March 2007).
  23. Lorigo, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Granka, L., & Gay, G. 2006. The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation behaviour using Google. Information processing and Management: An International Journal, 42(4):1123-1131.
  24. Machill, M., Neuberger, C. & Schindler, F. 2003. Transparency on the net: Functions and deficiencies of the Internet search engines. Info, 5(1):52-74.
  25. Mbikiwa, F. 2005. Search engine exclusion policies: Implications on indexing e-commerce websites. Unpublished MTech thesis, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town.
  26. Mbikiwa, F. & Weideman, M. 2006. Implications of search engine spam on the visibility of South African e-commerce websites. South African Journal of Information Management, 8(4). Available WWW: http://www.sajim.co.za (accessed 12 March 2007).
  27. Mccarthy, J. 2006. User navigation behaviour to affect link popularity. Quoted in Search Engine RoundTable. Available WWW: www.seroundtable.com/archives/001901.html (accessed 12 March 2007).
  28. McGann, R. 2004. Google and Overture define click fraud. Available WWW: http://www.clickz.com/showpage.html?page=3453201 (accessed 12 March 2007).
  29. Moxley, D., Blake, T. & Maze, S. 2004. Web search engine advertising practices and their effect on Library Services. Managing Library Finances, 17(2):61-65.
  30. Nachmias, R. & Gilad, A. 2002. Needle in a hyperstack: Searching for information on the World Wide Web. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4):475-486.
  31. SEMPO. 2006. Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization survey of SEM agencies and advertisers. Available WWW: http://www.sempo.org/news/releases/02-08-07 (accessed 12 March 2007).
  32. Sen, R. 2005. Optimal search engine marketing strategy. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 10(1):9-25.
  33. Sherman, C. 2004. Search engine user attitudes. Available WWW: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3357761 (accessed 12 March 2007).
  34. Sorce, P., Perotti, V. & Widrick, S. 2005. Attitude and age difference in online buying. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(2):122-132.
  35. Sullivan, D. 2003. How search engines rank webpages. Available WWW: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2167961 (accessed 10 October 2006).
  36. Sullivan. 2002. Intro to search engines optimization. Available WWW: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2167921 (accessed 11 March 2007).
  37. Thelwall, M. 2001. Commercial website links. Internet Research: Electronic applications and policy, 11(2):114-124.
  38. Weideman, M. 2002. Effective application of metadata in South African HEI websites to enhance visibility to search engines. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual conference on World Wide Web applications, September 2002. Bellville: South Africa. (CD-ROM).
  39. Weideman, M. & Chambers, R. 2006. Improving website visibility and information retrieval of e-commerce ventures: a specification to please the crawlers. In: Proceedings of e-society, July 2006. Dublin:Ireland. (2):285-289.
  40. Weideman, M. & Chambers, R. 2005. Application of best practice towards improving website visibility to search engines: a pilot study. South African Journal of information Management, 7(4). Available WWW: http://www.sajim.co.za (accessed 16 February 2006).
  41. Zhang, J. & Dimitroff, A. 2004. The impact of webpage content characteristics on webpage visibility in search engine results part 1. Information Processing & Management, 41(3):665- 690.
Full text of Conference Proceedings No 0111: Search engine optimisation or paid placement systems: user preferences.

Digital Library with full-text of academic publications on website visibility, usability, search engines, information retrieval

Back to Home page