Subscribe: RKGBlog
http://feeds.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
ads  advertisers  brand  click  cpc  desktop  digital  google  new  organic  page  paid  product  report  spend  tablet 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: RKGBlog

RKGBlog



RKG is a digital marketing agency providing data-driven solutions to online marketing challenges.



 



Leveraging New SERP Features to Win in SEO

20 Jun 2017 11:42:20

In this day and age, it seems like the search results change every day. With new tests and SERP features rolling out regularly, it can be hard to keep up! In this session presented at Virtual C3, Melody Petulla walks through some of the most notable new SERP features and what they can do for your website.

Topics include:

  1. What's new in the SERP Today
  2. AMP – What exactly AMP is, how you can leverage it, and what sorts of results it can drive
  3. Featured Snippets – Different types of featured snippets, how to capture them, and how they can impact the bottom line
  4. Rich Results – The evolution of rich results, different types, and potential CTR improvements
(image)



Assessing the Impact of Google’s May Ad Rank Changes

12 Jun 2017 10:00:00

In early May, reports surfaced that Google made changes to both how it calculates the minimum ad ranks required for an advertiser to show on the first page and top of page results, as well as how individual advertiser’s ad ranks are calculated. Both updates hinged on adjustments made based on query meaning, though the confirmed details are sufficiently vague that it’s difficult to assess exactly what types of queries will be impacted and in what way. Given Google’s timeline that these updates would roll out over the course of May, here we take a look a look at how some key metrics are trending now that the changes should be fully implemented. Brand Minimum Bid Estimates Down, Non-Brand Minimums Up Google’s first page and top of page minimum bid estimates often shift when Google makes adjustments to the ad auction. Indeed we do see movement for these metrics, as brand estimates are trending lower and non-brand estimates higher for the period following the early May update compared to previous estimates. Brand CPC Trending Down, Non-Brand Holding Steady In turn, brand cost-per-click (CPC) Y/Y change has been trending lower since early May, and it appears that advertisers have some reason to cheer Google’s update at this point. On the non-brand side, Y/Y CPC declines have gotten slightly smaller since the update, though it appears that could be part of a trend that’s been going on over the first few months of 2017. In the case of non-brand keywords, if these updates were to increase the cost of traffic for some keywords, advertisers would be forced to cut spend in at least some areas of their account in order to maintain the same return on ad spend as prior to the change. Thus, it’s not clear that CPC would necessarily go up as a result of these changes. By comparison, brand keywords typically aren’t held to strict return on ad spend goals in the same way non-brand keywords are, since brand terms typically convert at very high rates and part of the goal of these ads is brand protection. However, if advertisers were being forced to reduce non-brand bids in order to keep CPCs in check as a result of these updates, we would expect some sort of impact to traffic as some keywords fell off the top of the page or off the first page entirely. Looking at Y/Y click growth for the median Merkle advertiser, we find that non-brand text ad click growth actually accelerated for both desktop and phones in May relative to earlier in 2017. Declines in tablet traffic did get more severe in May, but tablets accounted for just 10% of paid search clicks in Q1. Phone and desktop traffic is thus much more important for brands, and we haven’t seen any signs of a negative impact to ad clicks on either of these two device types. This is in contrast to what happened to click growth in 2014, when non-brand first page minimum bid estimates skyrocketed beginning in Q3. In turn, click growth stalled out over the back half of 2014 and first two quarters of 2015, until Google changes to increase the number and size of ads on phones in Q3 2015 increased traffic. Obviously first page bid estimates have increased much more modestly following this latest update compared to 2014. That, combined with the fact that first page minimum bids don’t actually affect all auctions since in many cases competitor bids determine the cost per click of non-brand keywords, is likely why the overall impact to performance is relatively minor at this point. By comparison, brand CPC is typically more heavily reliant on top of page minimums and less a result of competition in most cases. Thus, the shifts in brand minimum bids likely have a more direct result on a greater share of auctions than is the case with non-brand. No Shifts in Quality Score While the details of the update that have emerged so far don’t mention anything about quality score being calculated differently, I was curious to see if there would be any shifts on that front as a result of Google’s intention to weight bids more heavily than q[...]



Google Quietly Shutters AdWords Targeting for Airports and Universities

6 Jun 2017 12:23:55

In April, Google quietly removed the ability for advertisers to add new Places of Interest location targets for airports and universities, and in May completely eliminated these targets from AdWords. We’ve confirmed this timeline with representatives from Google, which did not issue a public announcement of the change, despite the location target type help page continuing to include information or airport and university targeting.

It’s unclear why Google eliminated these targeting options, but it’s possible that there simply weren’t enough advertisers using them. While there are certainly use cases for targeting campaigns to universities and airports, the use of these targets was very low among Merkle advertisers in general.

That said, it’s still possible to target users in close proximity to airports and universities using other Google targeting options.

Hat tip to Merkle Associate Director Egle Mazonaite for discovering the sunset.

Workaround for Targeting Airports and Universities

Update: Advertisers can still search for universities and airports one by one in the UI, or add them via bulk upload. The process just isn't as simple as it once was with Places of Interest.

(image)

Additionally, Google still allows for radius targeting. This allows brands to target areas within a radius as small as one kilometer around landmarks, addresses and coordinates.

(image)

By plugging in the address of an airport or building in the center of a university, advertisers can then select an appropriate radius around these addresses to attempt to capture individuals searching from airports and universities. Here I’ve plugged in the address of Charlottesville, Virginia’s airport with a radius of five kilometers selected.

(image)

And here’s an example using the address of the Rotunda, a historic building at the University of Virginia, in order to target individuals close to the school.

(image)

Conclusion

It’s interesting that Google would bother eliminating a targeting option, particularly without any public announcement to advertisers. However, it’s not a big deal for most advertisers as these geographic targets were rarely used for the most part, a fact that likely played into Google’s decision to do away with them quietly.

Still, for those brands that want to target ads to college-goers and airport travelers, there are still workarounds to get at such audiences. These should more or less achieve the same goals as university and airport specific targets.

(image)



Are Your AdWords Campaigns Taking Advantage of Separate Desktop and Tablet Bids?

30 May 2017 9:30:12

Google began rolling out a huge update to its device bidding in Q3 2016, as advertisers became allowed to set separate desktop and tablet bids for the first time since the migration to Enhanced Campaigns in 2013. While tablet performance for most advertisers wasn’t as good as desktop even when Enhanced Campaigns launched, the gap between tablet and desktop performance grew over the years, and Google’s argument that these two device types should be lumped together for their similarities steadily lost credibility. As such, the 2016 update was cheered by most marketers, who had long bemoaned the lack of control afforded in the Enhanced Campaigns set up. But are brands really taking advantage of this new control like they should? Here we’ll show how separate desktop and tablet bids have impacted Merkle data, as well as share evidence of what we believe might show that a lot of advertisers aren’t quite flexing these new bidding options like they should be. Moving Tablet Cost-Per-Click in Line with Revenue-Per-Click The big reason we wanted greater control over tablet is that the revenue-per-click (RPC) of tablet devices was steadily getting worse and worse relative to desktop, down to about 35% lower in Q2 2016. Without bidding controls, however, advertisers were forced to bid the same for tablets as desktop, resulting in only 5% lower cost-per-click (CPC) in Q2 2016. Looking at how relative cost-per-click (CPC) and revenue-per-click (RPC) have moved since Google’s Q3 update, tablet return on ad spend is now nearly identical to desktop. Not only has relative CPC declined with advertisers making bidding adjustments, relative RPC also increased as the worst performing keywords on tablet have been bid down out of the results. This significantly affected overall trends, sending desktop spend up with an increase in CPC and RPC and tablet spend down with declines in traffic and CPC. While we predicted that desktop CPC would go up as advertisers shook off tablet performance from bid calculations, what’s been a bit more surprising is how big the improvement in desktop click growth has been. After desktop paid search traffic declined 10% Y/Y in Q2 2016, click growth has since rebounded and sat at positive six percent growth in Q1 2017. If all advertisers were bidding up on desktop in unison with the new bidding controls, it seems that desktop traffic gains shouldn’t be this big as everyone would just end up paying slightly more and not moving in terms of average position. But what if all advertisers aren’t bidding desktop up with the new controls? Merkle Desktop Average Position on the Rise For the median advertiser at Merkle, average position moved up the page significantly beginning in Q4 2016 (remember, negative change in average position indicates movement up the page). While the jump in average position in early 2016 can be attributed to the removal of right rail text ads at the same time, the additional movement which began in Q4 aligns with our observed increase in desktop click growth. This suggests that our ads are pushing past other ads on the page as we bid up desktop using the new controls. Thus, we think that other advertisers out there might not be bidding up desktop as aggressively as the value of the traffic might warrant. As such, it’s possible that Merkle advertisers are benefiting from early adoption and implementation of separate desktop and tablet controls. Most bidding systems, including Merkle’s own proprietary bidding, required significant changes in order to fully take advantage of the new bidding controls, thus the small delay between Google rolling out the changes in Q3 and our own data reflecting the new capabilities in Q4. It’s probably safe to assume that all brands will eventually catch up in taking advantage of the changes, but for now there appears to be an early-mover advantage. Conclusion In short, the uncoupling of desktop and tablet has helped Merkle better allocate spe[...]



Google Addresses One of the Flaws in Its Paid & Organic Report, Others Remain

23 May 2017 10:01:16

Google announced yesterday that its paid and organic report can now be downloaded by device, a marked upgrade in allowing marketers to analyze ad and organic link performance by query more granularly. Both paid and organic ranking and peformance can vary by device type, making this segmentation crucial for understanding both channels’ performance as well as assessing results of tests such as brand ad holdouts. However, the report is still limited in a couple of critical ways in that it does not include data from Google Shopping campaigns and the data still cannot be segmented by geographic region. Here’s why those two points matter. Google Shopping Ads Are a Huge Source of Traffic for Retailers and Crucial to Understanding Ad Visibility Google Product Listing Ads (PLA) accounted for 52% of all retailer Google paid search clicks in Q1 2017 and 75% of all non-brand clicks, according to Merkle’s Q1 Digital Marketing Report. As such, leaving these ad units out of the paid and organic report greatly limits how much insight advertisers can draw from it. For example, having a PLA unit as well as a text ad and organic link for a particular search might impact expected performance compared to when just a text ad and organic link are present. At present, the report would deem these two situations as identical. Obviously moving forward, retailers would greatly appreciate an update to include Google Shopping in the paid and organic report. Global Organic Data Inhibits Valuable Analysis The other major limitation of the paid and organic report that has yet to be addressed is the lack of geographic segmentation. This is important for a couple of reasons. One is that even if a brand were completely global and relevant in every country that uses Google search, its competitive position is likely different for different regions. Aggregate global trends might hide valuable regional insights, and advertisers currently have no ability to account for this. Another big reason this is an issue is that paid search data is obviously limited to the regions targeted in AdWords, while organic performance represents the entire world. That means that while the ‘ad only’ and ‘both’ categories of query performance are limited to regions targeted by AdWords, the ‘organic only' performance is mixed between regions targeted in AdWords and any other regions which accounted for organic impressions. This isn’t an issue if AdWords campaigns target the entire world equally with ads, but that would be an incredibly rare if not non-existent scenario. At a basic level, this makes it nearly impossible to make comparisons of aggregate click-through-rate when an organic link is present by itself versus when an ad is shown alongside an organic link, since the global data makes for an apples-to-oranges scenario. This can be accounted for in holdout testing when ad impression share for a query is at or near 100%, but it’s a headache and marketers are out of luck for any query without near-100% ad impression share. Conclusion This is the first major update to the paid and organic report since its release in terms of real additional functionality, and represents a strong step forward in making the report more nimble for advertisers to actually use in analysis. Unfortunately, there are still a couple of other areas that need to be patched up in order to make the paid and organic report all it could be. If you’re reading this, Google, inclusion of Google Shopping ad performance and geographic segmentation are next on our wish list for this evolving report. [...]



Latest Google Ad Rank Changes Driving Up Minimum Bids for Non-Brand Keywords – Brand Minimums Down

19 May 2017 8:50:52

Google recently announced that, beginning in early May, two changes are being rolled out to Ad Rank: Minimum Ad Ranks to appear on the first page or at the top of the page can be calculated based on the meaning of the query. Depending on query meaning, bids may be weighted more heavily in determining Ad Rank. The first change appears to be focused on better incorporating the context of a query into determining the required Ad Rank, and thus bid needed,to receive an ad impressions at the top of the page or on the first page of results. The second point indicates that ad quality factors such as expected click-through rate might be weighed less heavily in determining an advertiser’s Ad Rank depending on query meaning. Google has said that these changes are expected to roll out through the end of May. However, taking a look at top-of-page and first-page bid minimums as well as CPC trends, it’s clear that the effects of this change are already starting to take form. Non-Brand Minimum Bid Estimates Up, Brand Down For the median Merkle Google searchadvertiser, non-brand first-page minimum bid estimates began increasing at the same time that brand first page minimums began decreasing in early May.  While first-page minimum bids can fluctuate greatly for any given keyword, viewed across an entire program they are generally a good indicator of when significant changes are occurring in the Google auction, either announced or unannounced. We find similar trends with regards to top-of-page minimum bid estimates, with brand keyword minimums going down and non-brand minimums going up. With these changes, we might expect a corresponding increase in CPC for non-brand keywords and a decrease for brand terms. However, we find just half of that is true. CPC Trending Down for Brand and Non-Brand Keywords Since the trends in first-page and top-of-page minimums began taking hold, brand CPC has declined more significantly Y/Y than what was observed between March and May. With the vast majority of brand clicks occurring at the top of the page, top-of-page minimum bids are much more important than first-page minimums in determining CPC for most advertisers. While Ad Rank thresholds are increasing for non-brand keywords, CPC has not gone up, and Y/Y change has recently been relatively low within the range of what we’ve seen since the beginning of March. With so few days since the change, it’s totally possible that the effects of these updates aren’t fully accounted for in these figures. However, there are two points to make on this front. For non-brand keywords, most advertisers are shooting for specific return on ad spend goal of some type. This means that if the cost of traffic were to go up as a result of these changes without driving any more value for advertisers, some share of keyword bids would have to necessarily come down in order to maintain the same return on investment observed prior to the update. As such, aggregate non-brand CPC wouldn’t necessarily go up with the increases in Ad Rank thresholds that we’ve seen. Brand keywords are often not held to strict return on ad spend goals. This is usually because these terms convert at a very strong rate, and brands also want to have an ad present in order to get as much brand traffic as possible and control messaging. As such, advertisers are more likely to eat any increases in CPC for brand terms, to a point. Google can still cross the line, as evidenced by steep increases in Google brand CPC in Q2 2015 resulting in advertisers taking active measures to mitigate the impact on spend. Additionally, Google’s move to update both how Ad Rank thresholds and Ad Rank for specific queries are calculated makes it difficult to formulate expectations for how these updates will impact performance. That said, announcing that bids will be more heavily weighted in some auctions sure sounds like a change that will put upward press[...]



Nonprofits Investing in Digital Channel Experience Growth

17 May 2017 12:19:22

As more organizations are turning their fundraising focus to digital channels and media, one of the questions I hear frequently is, “How much of our budget should we allocate to digital versus our more traditional offline channels? And what return can we expect from that investment?” To help nonprofit marketers answer those questions, Merkle conducted a digital benchmark survey with 79 nonprofit organizations, each with $10 million or more in annual revenue, to assess their commitment to online fundraising and explore related trends.  This post includes some of the most poignant findings from that study, as described in the Digital Roundup: 2017 Online Fundraising Benchmark Report. According to the report, the average organization dedicated about 16.2 percent of its overall budget to online fundraising efforts. This investment resulted in about 15 percent of their total direct response revenue. In recent years, other industry benchmark studies have reported online revenue making up about 5-10 percent of overall revenue. So for nonprofit organizations, online investment steadily produces more revenue as their constituent base increasingly responds to email and web-based interactions. For most of these organizations, online marketing efforts include email, mobile, and digital advertising. Email continues to be a cornerstone, with the average nonprofit generating about $3.0 million in annual gross revenue from an average list of about 389,000 subscribers. For digital advertising, most organizations are utilizing about 15% of their total media spend to fund their own unique mix of paid search, display, paid social, and video advertising. Organizations investing new funds or reallocating budget from other channels into digital advertising are seeing a cost per dollar raised (CPDR) of about $0.36 for acquisition and renewal. Most groups are focusing spend on top of the funnel (awareness and consideration), with the mid and lower funnel spend a secondary priority. To learn more about nonprofit trends and results of investing online in email, mobile, digital advertising, channel integration and more, view our on-demand webinar, Embracing the Next Generation of Fundraising or view the Benchmark Report. [...]



What to Know About Facebook's 2017 Ad Updates

16 May 2017 10:39:02

Facebook continues to see explosive growth in its advertising business, as the Merkle Digital Marketing Report showed 71% Y/Y Facebook ad spend increase and eMarketer projected that the platform will account for nearly 40 percent of U.S. display ad revenue in 2017. But with rising competition from platforms like Snapchat, the rollout of new tactics to advertisers is crucial to continued growth. Let’s take a look at some of the new advertising options available in Facebook so far in 2017. Expanding the Reach of Dynamic Product Ads In January, Facebook launched a beta program giving advertisers the ability to target Dynamic Product Ads (DPAs) to broader audiences than just the users who have viewed the products in a brand’s catalog. Advertisers now have the option to use Facebook targeting options such as interests and demographics to seek out potential new customers based on intent demonstrated on Facebook and around the web. A retailer selling shoes, for example, would be able to serve DPAs to users who have looked at Facebook pages or other websites related to shoes. Those ads would display products from the retailer’s product feed to match the user’s demonstrated intent. Then, once that user visits the retailer’s site or app, they would become eligible for retargeting based on the products they browsed on the site. This beta also allows brands to use CRM data to both re-engage existing customers not included in retargeting audiences and build prospecting models that will expand reach on Facebook in a smart, targeted way. A Merkle retail client using DPAs to retarget product viewers has used this beta to additionally re-engage a purchaser list and target a lookalike model with great success over the last several months. The purchaser list converts at a 46 percent higher rate than product retargeting audiences, while the lookalike ad groups have seen outstanding engagement, with a click-through rate 36 percent higher than retargeting audiences and 92 percent higher than the average CTR across Facebook and Instagram, according to eMarketer. The ability to target new users with dynamic ads also eases the burden on creative teams, with a brand’s product catalog serving as the creative engine. Rather than needing to develop unique ads for each product in a catalog, the relative simplicity of dynamic ads makes the process of acquiring new customers a more turn-key solution. The beta is currently closed to new advertisers, but we’re keeping our fingers crossed that it will re-surface later this year. New Collection Ad Format In the meantime, advertisers who want to promote products from a catalog have a new option available to them: the Collection ad format. The new format is not dynamic, but it pairs a “hero” image or video with related products (chosen by the advertiser) to help drive product discovery on mobile. Four products from a product set will display below the main creative, but when a user clicks on the ad, they will be able to browse the extended product set without leaving Facebook—from there, they can click through to your site or app and purchase. Even once the broader audience program is released to more advertisers, Collection ads should be a strong component of advertisers’ social plans; they bring together the best parts of both video ads (engaging creative that tells a story) and DPAs (keeping the focus on the products). But in the meantime, they offer the added benefit of being one of the best ways for brands to promote their products to new users. Ad Breaks Coming to Facebook videos At the end of February, Facebook announced the expansion of ad breaks to its on-demand and live video offerings. After long banning pre-roll ads and restricting video ads to standalone units, these ad breaks represent a clear attempt to compete with video advertising rivals Snapchat and YouTube. Pa[...]



Merkle Q1 2017 Digital Marketing Report Released

25 Apr 2017 10:04:07

Today we are pleased to announce the release of the Q1 2017 Merkle Digital Marketing Report for download. The DMR is a long-standing barometer of key digital marketing channels that includes in-depth stats and analyses on paid search, SEO, display advertising, paid social, and more. In this edition of the report, we explore the rise of Google Local Inventory Ads for brick-and-mortar retailers and nclude updates on the performance of recent changes such as Google Expanded Text Ads and the growing presence of ad on Google Maps. Download the Q1 2017 Digital Marketing Report today. In addition to the report, we’ll be hosting a webinar on Wednesday, April 26th at 12:00pm ET to discuss the major storylines included in the report and to field listener questions. This event will be recorded and those unable to attend can sign up to receive a copy at the end of the week by registering for the webinar. Here are a few brief descriptions of some of the data included in the report. Paid Search Google spend growth accelerated from Q4 to Q1, as Google made several updates which have allowed advertisers to invest more in paid search overall. One such update was the decoupling of desktop and tablet bids in mid-2016, which has allowed brands to bid less for tablet traffic and more for desktop traffic, in line with the value derived from each. As such, desktop spend increased while tablet spend decreased Y/Y. Google Shopping (also known as Product Listing Ads - PLAs) spend grew the fastest of any search engine ad format. In addition to the growth of traditional PLAs, Google’s Local Inventory Ads are also becoming a larger part of Google Shopping spend for brick-and-mortar retailers. Organic Search & Social While overall organic visit growth declined Y/Y, Q1 marked the smallest such decline in the past five quarters. Visits decreased significantly on desktop and tablet devices, but mobile organic site visits were up 15%. Social media still accounts for only a small share of all website visits, but traffic share continues to steadily increase. In Q1, social media networks accounted for 3.8% of all mobile site visits, stronger than the share of overall visits. Display, Paid Social, and Video Advertising The strong mobile share of social media visits is also clear looking at Facebook’s mobile device spend share, as phones and tablets combined to account for 76% of all Facebook spend in Q1. This far outpaces the share of paid search spend from mobile devices. Paid social is steadily growing in importance, and the gap between advertisers' investment in social platforms vs traditional display advertising shrunk significantly Y/Y. Comparison Shopping Engines Amazon eliminated its Product Ads format in late-2015, but advertisers are increasingly taking advantage of other advertising opportunities on Amazon such as Sponsored Products ads. In Q1, Sponsored Products spend declined similarly to Google Shopping spend Q/Q. Among traditional CSEs, the eBay Commerce Network accounts for the vast majority of advertiser spend. However, Connexity is more competitive for some product categories. For more information on these and other trends across digital marketing channels, download the Q1 2017 Merkle Digital Marketing Report and sign up for our webinar on Wednesday, April 26th at 12:00pm ET. [...]



Why Google Shopping Yields Smaller Orders, and Why That Might Be Okay

10 Apr 2017 10:40:57

This article appears in the Merkle Dossier 8.1, which includes actionable insights on paid search, SEO, loyalty services, co-op marketing, and more. Download Dossier 8.1 here. Online retailers should know well by now the importance of Google Shopping, also known as Product Listing Ads (PLAs), in paid search. As of Q4 2016, these image-based ad units accounted for 48 percent of all Google paid search traffic for retailers, according to the Merkle Digital Marketing Report. With text ads and PLAs now accounting for roughly equal shares of their total Google search ad traffic, many retailers look to compare metrics between these two formats to find opportunities for optimizations. One key difference that advertisers have consistently seen over the years is that the average order value (AOV) tends to be smaller for PLAs. Here we’ll examine the potential causes for such a difference, and explain why it might not make sense for advertisers to try to force higher AOVs from their PLAs. Google Shopping AOV Lower than Text Ads across Device Types Comparing AOV for PLAs vs text ads by device type for January 2017, PLA average order value was 12 percent lower than that of text ads on desktop and tablets and 17 percent lower on phones. These differences can also be much larger, as about 20 percent of the advertisers studied find PLA average order value more than 30 percent below that of text ads for any given device type. Only about 15 percent of advertisers had a higher AOV for Google Shopping than text ads for any given device type. Importantly, AOV is lower for PLAs because of differences in both the average number of items purchased per order and the average price of the items purchased. Do Product Listing Ad Clickers Buy Fewer Items? While PLAs have steadily expanded to show for a wide range of queries, including very general searches for broad product categories such as “men’s shoes,” PLAs are still more likely to show for queries that indicate the intent to purchase a specific product (for example, “Nike free 5.0 men’s”). For these specific searches, the query indicates that the searcher is looking for a single item, and logically it makes sense that searchers are likely to click on a PLA that displays an image of the precise product they’re looking for. This is to say that searchers looking for a specific product might be more likely to be presented with and then click on a PLA unit, while searchers conducting more general inquiries might be more likely to be presented with and end up clicking on a text ad. Very specific searches in turn probably yield smaller shopping carts than more general searches, since these queries show the intent to find a single product rather than to browse through multiple products. Looking at basket size for PLAs versus text ads in January 2017, this theory appears to hold up as the median PLA advertiser (Merkle clients) found that PLA-driven orders had fewer total items per conversion than text ads for every device type. The difference in the number of items per order is greatest on phones, which also produce the largest gap in AOV overall. However, the difference in AOV is greater for desktop and phone than the difference in the number of items purchased. So this data doesn’t quite tell the whole story. Do Product Listing Ad Orders Include Cheaper Products? Looking at the median price per item purchased of PLA orders versus text ad orders, we find that items in PLA orders are slightly cheaper across every device type. Product price is clearly displayed in each PLA unit, and searchers can deliberately choose to click on the cheapest possible option from among the products listed. Text ads, on the other hand, are not required to include price in ad copy, and very few searches return text ads that all have price clearl[...]