SUBSCRIBE
DazzlinDonna’s take on SEO news, tips and theories.
SEO vs SMO - Traffic Quality Put To The Test
The following post is a guest post. SEO Scoop endeavors to showcase and highlight guest bloggers, in the hopes of giving up and coming bloggers and SEOs a chance to shine. Please take some time to appreciate their efforts by visiting their sites, or by networking with them.
SEO Scoop does not necessarily agree with or condone any tactics mentioned by guest posters.
By: James Duthie
Pop quiz – If you could choose between 1,000 social media visitors and 1,000 search engine visitors for your blog or business, which would you choose? It’s a no-brainer right? Everybody knows that search engine traffic is of a far higher quality! Aaron Wall, Matt McGee & Matt Bailey are just a few industry experts to openly question the value of social media traffic. After all… while it has the potential to attract huge numbers of new visitors, engagement and conversion are traditionally poor. Matt Bailey’s research in particular helped to put some numbers and substance behind the assumption that social media generates lower quality traffic. But aside from Matt’s research, I haven’t seen a lot of other tangible examples with real data to verify the belief the search engine traffic is king. So I decided to put the traffic quality assumption to the test myself, and find out how social media traffic compares to organic search traffic.
In order to do so, I put two blogs up against each other. One blog generates most of its readers via search engines, and the other generates most of its traffic via social media:
- Marketing Easy – SEO centric
- Online Marketing Banter – Social media centric
The methodology behind the test isn’t perfect, as neither site generates all of its traffic from the single source. However, as the figures reveal below, the proportion is significant enough to allow meaningful comparisons:
- Marketing Easy – 81% of traffic driven via search engines
- Online Marketing Banter – 80% of traffic driven via social media
In order to evaluate traffic quality, 4 key user engagement metrics were compared for each site:
- Returning visitors
- Average page views
- Time on site
- Bounce rate
Proportion of returning visitors:
The returning visitor rate is an indicator of reader loyalty. Social media is notorious for attracting drive-by visitors who read a single article and never return. If this assumption is true, the proportion of returning visitors should be lower for Online Marketing Banter. Let’s see if that holds true:
- Marketing Easy Returning Visitor Rate – 19%
- Online Marketing Banter Returning Visitor Rate – 15%
Of course, attributing reader loyalty solely to the traffic source would be a foolish assumption to make. There are a range of other variables that influence reader loyalty, most notably:
- The quality of content
- The relationships the author has established with their audience
- The age of the blog. Marketing Easy is has been around a lot longer than Online Marketing Banter, and has had more time to establish loyal readers.
Nevertheless, Marketing Easy takes out Round 1.
Average page views:
Social media consumers have a reputation for being a fickle and unengaged bunch, rarely exploring the sites they visit. If this assumption is correct, the average number of page views for Marketing Easy should be higher.
- Marketing Easy Average Page Views – 2.99
- Online Marketing Banter Average Page Views – 1.3
Now we’re cooking with gas! Marketing Easy readers visit over twice as many pages as Banter readers, indicating they’re far more engaged with the site. The fact that the average Banter reader views just over 1 page per visit provides substance to the belief that social media visitors rarely click beyond the initial article.
Marketing Easy takes out Round 2 as well.
Time on site:
Time on site is another metric used to measure reader engagement. Page views have been criticised as an accurate gauge of user engagement following the emergence of Ajax, which allows pages to be updated without requiring visitors to view a secondary page. And while this technology is rarely used within blogs, measuring the average time on site will provide a more holistic view of reader engagement.
- Marketing Easy Average Time on Site – 1m 48s (1.8 mins)
- Online Marketing Banter Average Time on Site – 1m 18s (1.3 mins)
Strike another blow to social media. Marketing Easy’s readers spend 30 seconds longer on the site than Banter’s readers. The consistency between this metric and average page views provides persuasive evidence that search engine users are far more engaged than social media consumers.
Marketing Easy makes it 3-0.
Bounce Rate:
Bounce rate is the final metric to be reviewed, and typically provides insight into site relevance. Bounce rate measures the proportion of visitors that left the site after viewing just one page. A high bounce rate indicates that the user didn’t find what they were looking for. Or in the context of this research, it’s another metric to test the theory that social media consumers are more prone to the one page visit.
- Marketing Easy Bounce Rate – 83%
- Online Marketing Banter Bounce Rate – 84%
This is an interesting finding. Marketing Easy’s bounce rate is just 1% lower than Banter’s (don’t be fooled by the scale of the graph). The parity in bounce rate is somewhat difficult to understand, especially given the clear superiority of Marketing Easy in page views. My best guess at explaining this finding is that people searching for SEO (Marketing Easy is an SEO blog) are probably interested in SEO consultancy services, which aren’t advertised directly on Marketing Easy.
The narrow advantage in bounce rate allows Marketing Easy to take Round 4.
The verdict
A clean sweep of loyalty and engagement metrics certainly provides evidence to support the theory that search engines generate superior quality traffic. In 3 of the 4 metrics, the search engine supported blog generated a clear lead over the social media supported blog. And while other factors undoubtedly influence each engagement metric, the fact that Marketing Easy led all 4 categories removes some of the doubt relating to external influences.
So what are the implications of the research for site owners? Should social media initiatives be abandoned pronto? Obviously not. Social media has its place as a genuine traffic generating tactic. But people using social media should be aware of its limitations. If you’re looking to sell products or ads, social media may not be the best promotional tactic due to lower engagement levels. However, if you’re looking to generate a lot of traffic quickly, social media may be perfect.
Of course, at the end of the day there’s no need to choose between search engines and social media. Each have their pros and cons. Good marketers will recognize this and will utilize both to reap the most out of each medium.
Author Bio
James Duthie is an Australian digital marketing expert. He writes on all things social media, blogging, SEO & digital marketing at his blog - Online Marketing Banter. Subscribe to hear more of his ramblings here.
Thanks
A special thanks must go out to Lucio Ribeiro of Marketing Easy for his generosity in supplying his site data for this research. Without him the analysis would not have been possible.
For just a $5 tip, you can advertise your site or affiliate link on SEO Scoop. Find out how.
If you are the first to "discover" any of my posts in StumbleUpon, one of the following categories would probably be the most appropriate to place it into. You don't have to choose one of these, of course, but based on what I usually write about, there's a good chance any of my posts will fall into one of these categories.
Business * Computers * Computer Graphics * Computer Hardware * Computer Security * Databases * Ecommerce * Internet * Internet Tools * Linux/Unix * Marketing * Search * Self Improvement * Web development * Weblogs(Blogs) * Windows * Writing
34 Responses to “SEO vs SMO - Traffic Quality Put To The Test”
Trackbacks
- Guest post on SEO Scoop | Online Marketing Banter
- Traffic Quality Put To The Test - SEO vs SMO
- SEO Moz gave me 5 stars! | Online Marketing Banter
- Are you willing to question the value of social media traffic? | Optimize Your Web
- An Engaging Collection Of Links - This Month In SEO - 7/08 | TheVanBlog | Van SEO Design
- 10 Reasons Why Sphinn Makes Me Hate SEO (This headline is one of them) | UnclePeppers.com
June 30th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Man, that bounce rate graph is very misleading. It really needs to be fixed!
Pierre
June 30th, 2008 at 6:49 am
No, no and no.
What are the absolute numbers in terms of SE and social media traffic? Percentages don’t mean much in ROI, really.
Lastly, what about the amount of links?
Marketing Easy has half the amount of Banter, even tho it’s older.
And the case is in actually *getting* return from social traffic, not just from the numbers, as you suggest.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Your post inspired me to write one in reply: http://www.1goodreason.com/blo.....c-quality/
My premise is that comparing SEO & SMO today is like early horse vs. car races. Horse always won, up to a point.
I’d love to know your thoughts.
Thanks for the inspiration,
Chris
June 30th, 2008 at 8:45 am
I do agree with you buddy - There is no substitute of Search Engine traffic.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:58 am
You mention on your blog not liking Twitter. I learned of this post thru @DazzlinDonna’s tweet, a paradox.
Many using search engines are in research or shopping mode, so SEs do bring more targeted visitors/buyers.
Many in SM do tend to have ADD, yet relationships get built. WOM is powerful, and I would rather buy from someone I “knew” vs. a site that was more of a “stranger.” Since many people find a site by typing URL in the search bar, how do we measure the latency effect of social media’s influence on search engines?
June 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Interesting article. It would be more interesting to test the premise with non seo topics.
Dave
June 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
@ Pierre - I agree the graph is very misleading. Unfortunately, Excel refused to graph it any other way, given the percentages are so close together.
@ Yura - The numbers for both sites are in the thousands so they are statistically significant enough to use percentages. Not sure what tool you’re using to measure links, but Marketing Easy has more according to Google.
@ Chris - I agree with the sentiment of your article. It is a little unfair to compare the two given that SEO has been around for over a decade whereas SMO is a fairly recent phenomenon (with emerging tactics). However, I wouldn’t be certain social media will win the battle in the end (horse v car). It all comes down to user intent, and I believe search engine users will always have a higher purchase intent than social media users. Hence, it’s my belief search engines will always perform better than social media.
@ Ian - as mentioned above I agree. Search engine users are more inclined to be in seek & purchase mode. Which is why rankings are so important.
@ Dana - I am slowly converting across to micro-blogging… slowly
Your point regarding relationship building is poignant for SM. It’s the biggest strength and probably the best way to generate repeat traffic via SM. Most of my loyal readers are contacts I’ve made via SM.
@ Earl - It would indeed be interesting to extend the test further to analyse search engines against email, affiliates and other online traffic generating tactics.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I totally agree with the numbers!
June 30th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Hi James,
Oh man, didn’t know you had such great post here.
Don’t want to go details, you know my opinion about comparing SEO and SMO, in a nutshell each of them have the importance for given situation, also think is quite difficult to measure up and be fair.
Good post, good input and interesting outcome (as usually coming from you).
BTW @Yura I believe your measure has taken in consideration imbound links fro home page that will mislead you, remember each page in SEO has a different value than your unique homepage.
Cheers
Lucio
June 30th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Interesting. I’d like to see two websites compared 5 years out- or the banter site in 5 years. I suspect that, especially in the search space, the links generated by SM will mean more down the line… but I keep hearing this over and over- that SEO traffic is more valuable… is SM traffic good for nothing? What’s it good for?
July 1st, 2008 at 2:07 am
I think of social media traffic as window shoppers and RSS-like users. Some people blip on by and don’t come back. Some will use a social media tool instead of a feed reader.
I’d love to see a comparison of RSS users and social media users.
IMHO it’s all apples and oranges, and they’re both good.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:48 am
Thanks For sharing such a great article.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:22 am
James,
I think that David Berkowitz said it best in the responses to my blog post; you can’t compare the two, the are the same species.
Thanks,
Chris
July 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I’ve had considerably more readers/subscribers come through via people I’ve “met” then any other source, like search.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
@ Mikhael - The numbers don’t lie. It’s just the interpretations you make on those that is up for debate
@ Lucio - Thanks again for sharing your data. It did make for an interesting comparison. Looks like you win for now, but I’m chasing…
@ Brian - It’s not a perfect methodology. Maybe we can return in another year to see how results have changed. I certainly don’t think SM is worthless. I owe much of my traffic to SM, and it has helped me build relationships, links and subscribers. So in no way am I dissing it. We’re all aware of its limitations. If you work within those limitations it’s still possible to achieve good results (with a little patience).
@ Elizabeth - It is a little apples/oranges like. But ultimately we all need to make decisions on how to promote our blog. In a perfect world we would do both actively as they are indeed both worthwhile activities for a blog. But sometimes we have to make choices, which is why I tried to draw comparisons between the two.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 am
The comparison that is more appealing to me personally is this:
http://www.marketingexperiment.....mized.html
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 am
Almost forgot.
Even that study, claiming a higher ROI, did not show actual,real *return* on investment. They simply compared traffic as you did.
What I’d expect from either researchers is to count long term ROI of social media, by the appearance of which social media will be old school
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
The fact that you took the time to put put together an empirical analysis of SEO v SMO is commendable. Interpretation of the data typically comes from the bias of the person doing the analysis, in this case you and each commentor.
I’ve tried to do some analysis on this subject a few times, and have never really come up with an obvious answer in either direction.
I personally view SEO as providing kind of a baseline level of traffic; and SMO as providing temporal shocks to traffic where one hopes to retain a portion of that traffic as an add-on to baseline SEO traffic. As such, I think one can’t rely on either as the end-all be-all.
Great job!
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Neat analysis. But i think that people are misusing the power of smo. people are using social media as a spamming tool. what do u think?
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
@ Yura - Naturally, Marketing Experiments’ research is more scientific as they are a professional web site with dedicated resources. I am but a humble (part-time) blogger. I welcome you to extend your expertise into the research so that you can provide the perfect methodology.
@ ThreeStone - Indeed, I am biased on the matter. But I’m not devaluing social media in any way, as I use it on a daily basis. Your analogy of the regular (SEO) vs shock (SM) traffic is nice. I think I’ll use that in the future
@ Rushabh - Absolutely. People abuse social media every day. That’s why SEO’s have such a bad reputation within Digg, Stumble & other social media communities. It’s up to us ethical marketers to try to salvage our rep.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:19 am
No where do you talk about the different kinds of social media; instead you talk about them across the board. Sites like Digg and StumbleUpon are liable to get a lot of poor quality traffic. However, del.icio.us and FriendFeed (I came here from the latter) are more liable to get high quality traffic. For del.icio.us, people tend to only put the highest quality information on their page. For FriendFeed, they may come and read an article to join the discussion on FriendFeed itself. You can see here where it has been shared and I have clicked through… maybe the discussion will happen:
http://friendfeed.com/e/40b277.....ngaged-as/
July 21st, 2008 at 1:12 am
hi, Duthie u ve well-organized this research of yours! it is nice to see a grand topic addressed so extensively. i want to ask your permission if i can publish it with your name in a local Telecom & IT magazine… i am waiting for youe reply.
this is a magazine which publishes from Karachi and distributed natrionwide. your article will fecilitate the readers… waiting for your reply, Bye.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
@Batool - I am ok with you reproducing the article, but it’s probably best that we discuss it privately.
You can contact me on jamesduthie2005[@]gmail[dot]com
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
What an interesting comparison between the two. Clearly, SEO is going to bring more relevant traffic to a site. The bounce rate shows how irrelevant content can hurt a site…the bounce rate graph is so misleading compared to the others!
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Relevancy is vital. That should be a mantra we all repeat.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I question your graphs! They are deceiving if you don’t read the article (haha) but this is a really good post. I love all traffic, I just work harder for the organic traffic.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Interesting reading indeed, but Social Media and SEO go together hand in hand… good SM projects naturally attract a healthy volume of quality links, all of which is handy for PageTrust, surely?
Also, statistics aside, there is branding value in having both top search positions and a high profile on social media sites.
August 9th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Very interesting article.
I’m also not surprised by the findings as traffic driven by search engines, is likely to produce visitors more inclined to be in a “search and purchase” mode.
My own opinion is that traffic driven solely by social media is more important for business/brand awareness and raising profile, as I am currently finding out by my own research in this area.
Although I was intrigued to see that results for returning visitors as I would have estimated it to have been higher for the web site driven by search engines.