Keyword Research Tools Give Accurate Traffic Volume? I Don’t think so…
Keyword research is one of those things that most of us hate to do but know we have to in order to get traffic to our site. I have seen a lot of internet marketing blogs that recommend to run wordtracker and/or google adwords external to do keyword research. It is recommended so often that many believe these tools to be accurate. The first part of this post is nothing more than a preliminary SEO session I recently made with a client. The final part gives two “tips” on how to verify keyword volume….use them as you want….
This happens to nearly everyone who has been doing internet marketing for any amount of time….
- You are researching keywords looking for a possible “in” into a market.
- You just happen to run across a keyword that is getting a decent volume of traffic that doesn’t look to have much competition.
- You jump, banking that the keyword research done is accurate enough.
- You throw resources such as time and sometimes money into your site.
- Your site makes it to the top 10 and then….NOTHING. No traffic.
Ironically, sometimes the keyword data is so screwed that what looked to be a decent keyword with a large volume of traffic (1,000+ per month) only gets 1-5 visits a day…even if it is ranked #1.
Why You Shouldn’t Trust Google, Wordtracker or Any Other Keyword Research Tool for traffic data
It only takes you to get burned once or twice to get burned. Then you start looking for other avenues to verify the source.
This was the case a week ago when I was doing preliminary SEO research for a company that I am working with. The company made Trust Accounting Software, had the trust and authority of google, but over the past few months had made no sales and (according to them) had made very few leads either. I decided to dig deep into their data to find out why. Were they getting any meritable traffic?
My first stop was Compete.com
I use compete.com as a way to quickly check on the traffic for a site. This only works in vertical markets though and you only get U.S. traffic. Still, it is a quick way to check for traffic for the site and what keywords are getting to the site.
The traffic for the site in question wasn’t great from a broad perspective but was targeted. Notice how they literally dropped off the face of the map, traffic wise, last month after having nearly 1,000 visits for 3 consecutive months before.
The 2 main keyword driving this traffic?…
- Estate Tax Software
- Trust Accounting Software
From experience, I could guesstimate that the traffic was coming more or less from pay per click ads or some form of advertising other than organic listings because of the roller coaster dips and rises in the results. I would need to verify it…..
Doing a quick google search for the above keywords, I found that the company didn’t rank for estate tax software in the first 10 pages but did rank for trust accounting software (#3). What this told me is that either they were recently bumped for estate tax software or they were, once again getting their traffic via adwords.
I would go to the next step….
Next Stop: Google Adwords External
The results of doing a keyword search show that trust accounting software should be a fairly lucrative proposition. If you look at average CPC, $11.63 demonstrates that this keyword is most likely a “buy” keyword… And given the fact that this company was/is ranking #3 for this term, it couldn’t account for the precipitous dropoff in traffic.
Time to do a little more digging…
I head back to compete.com and this time, check out the traffic for the #1 websites for both keywords to see if there is a descrepency in traffic volume….What I am most interested in seeing is the traffic results for trust accounting software, since the company in question IS ranking for that keyword.
So, now you tell me…..
If Google is saying that Trust Accounting Software is getting approximately 1,000 search queries a month (or 33 visits a day) but the #1 ranking website for that keyword is NOT getting enough results to even be a suitable metric, who is right?
Did you Know?
Awhile back, AOL metric data was leaked which gave an approximation as to how much a search query was worth in regards to traffic volume. Here is what they came up with:
- #1 Ranking website took 40.1% of the search query traffic…..
- #2 Ranking website took 11.9% of the search traffic…
- #3 Ranking website took 8.5% of the traffic
- #4 website took 6.1% of the traffic share…
- #5 ranked website took 4.9%
- All the other websites (and advertisers) took the rest….28.5%
The reality that nearly all DIY marketing websites have to deal with is the inaccuracy of the supposed “keyword research tools” that are given out by the entities who have a vested interest in padding the stats.
In other words, just as in the case above, although Google claims that approximately 1,000 people searched for accounting trust software, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true.
NOT knowing will cost you time and effort…
Now imagine for a second….you are hunting for an “in” into the banking niche….you run into this keyword, see that not only does it have a bit of traffic going to it, but that also the average CPC is $10.00+ (which isn’t a good assessment for average cost per click on the content network…but that is another story for another time…).
You build your website….you spend the time building the links….you reach the top 20….then the top 10…..then after a little more work, you manage to snag #1…then NO TRAFFIC….
That is the conundrum that the average internet marketer faces when they place their stock in 1-2 keyword research tools.
So…now what? If the research tools are skewed, how can you determine accurate traffic volume???
Look, I am not saying to abandon hope for keyword research tools. What I am saying is that digging out the nuggets out of your research data and finding the keywords that will most likely convert is easy if you do it the right way.
And my client, who spent a good chunk of time and effort trying to rank for this keyword is now going to have to tear apart his initial strategy and formulate something better…after all, he figured if he could rank for this keyword, that gets NO traffic despite what Google claims, that he could suspend or lower his PPC campaign (on a side note, for those of you wondering why he wouldn’t know this already, he didn’t keep data to measure what worked and what didn’t work…)
Just for the Heck of it, Let’s Take a look at what wordtracker says….
Zikes….Now that is a bit more sobering.
Google Claims 1,000 queries per month….and Wordtracker gives an average of one search a day….and the search isn’t even an exact query string.
It is partially why I typically attack large markets with competition….I know that they have traffic and it is all a matter of having the patience while you are doing the things to make you rank.
2 Sure-fire Tactics to get More Accurate Results the Next Time You Do Keyword Research…
Saying that keyword research tools are bunk is one thing. But if the tools that are supposed to give internet marketing strategies leverage are inaccurate, what would you do? Here are two tactics that I use….
The first one will cost ya though…..
Tactic #1-Mock Pay-Per-Click Campaigns Designed to Determine Traffic Volume…
Don’t laugh. I can feel the groaning coming through the computer right now. After all, most of you reading this haven’t considered doing a PPC campaign because you don’t want to spend the money on it.
If Time is indeed Money….how much is your time worth? Would 2 months of optimization and link building be worth a couple hundred bucks and a 1-2 week test? I don’t know….for me, my time is worth WAY MORE than a couple hundred buck….plus if I can get indisputably data out of the deal in regards to my market, why the heck not??
The reality is that most businesses can get the most bang for their buck without spending an inordinant amount of time building content and performing search engine marketing strategies. As internet marketing goes, there is simply not a better way to accurately determine real search volume….period….
How to work this internet marketing tactic….
- Build a landing page. If you intend on selling something, have a “buy” button on the page. The “buy” button will go to a under construction page, an opt-in form to collect data. The important thing here isn’t your page though…it is a good way to study how people will react to your page and will help you determine if the keyword is worth the time to rank it organically.
- Set up a PPC campaign. Have it run for at least a week for variance reasons. Make the ad unappealing if you want, if you are just testing for volume. Make it appealing if you are also testing for conversion as well.
- Make sure that the ad stays on the first page during the test.
- Depending on what your ultimate goal is, you can probably expect a .05-.10% CTR (from my personal data). More importantly though, google will tell you the total ad impressions per day……and the ad impressions is the total search query volume for the keyword. It doesn’t get much more accurate than that.
What I like about this tactic is if you play it right, you can verify traffic AND conversion ratio, which can help you modify and build strategies around how to implement and attack the keyword.
Of course, the keyword volume may not be what you thought it would be. In this case, you have saved yourself valuable time and resources and can concentrate on a different keyword.
Tactic #2 Finally…How to Use Wikipedia for something that is actually useful…
This is for those of you who don’t want to spend the $100-300 or simply don’t have it, here is another tactic I use. For me, this is a great way to quickly determine traffic volume that is fairly accurate.
Just like in my last post, the ezine article case study, I will use any data that may help verify my keyword research that another site can give me.
Using Wikipedia to determine Traffic Volume
For this, we will implement a free tool that will help us determine search volume for keywords in which wikipedia is in the top 3 results. You can check this tool out here….Wikipedia keyword volume tool
Just to illustrate how powerful this is, let’s find a keyword in which wikipedia is #1 at….let’s use internet marketing…
Google claims that this search term got searched for 843,000 last month. Using the leaked AOL data from a few years ago that estimates a #1 ranking gets roughly 40.1% of the search volume, we can see that the actual traffic volume is off by over 15,000 300,000 searches for the month. Ouch…
This search tool can help you get a better indication of actual search volume without using tactic #1 and spending a bunch of money testing. And because Wikipedia currently ranks in the top 3 for hundreds (if not thousands) of keywords, this can be an easy way to justify traffic volume when comparing them to other traffic research tools.
Final Thoughts
Getting accurate keyword research results is a mixed bag of trial or error. If there is one thing that I hope someone will get from this post is to not put all of your keyword research into one basket. You should be using a variety of sites and marketing strategies to verify that the keyword that you are about to invest a ton of time into will produce the results, traffic wise that you are hoping for.
What methods do you use to do your keyword research?
Next article- Bruce Clay and his statement “Rankings are dead”…my thoughts…
19 Responses to “Keyword Research Tools Give Accurate Traffic Volume? I Don’t think so…”
Comments
Read below or add a comment...
Leo, what math are you using in this statement? I just may be sleepy but I don't see the point here… Google claims that this search term got searched for 843,000 last month. Using the leaked AOL data from a few years ago that estimates a #1 ranking gets roughly 40.1% of the search volume, we can see that the actual traffic volume is off by nearly 15,000 searches.
I think you're right on the mark here Leo. In my opinion Wordtracker provides the most accurate info about keywords period. The fact you can check daily numbers is a great way to narrow in on your target.
I have not used Compete but have been considering running some PPC there.
But I agree, you should always get as much information from as many sources as possible and then err on the side of caution. Be conservative with your estimates and run the low side and hope to be proven wrong. More traffic will be a good surprise.
Any PPC campaign you might run will always show discrepancies with Googles' Keyword tool. However, what I find really interesting is the breakout from AOL for organic search. It is probably the same for sponsored search as well. Position 3, 4, and 5 always convert better than 1 or 2.
Your point is well taken with regard to testing with PPC Ads and as far as I'm concerned, if you really want to make any money at all, running an ad with any PPC program, especially Yahoo and Google, to test the water is essential. It takes money to make money. Always has, always will. Only in very few instances can you fluke into the lottery win.
Watching who is ALWAYS advertising in your niche will also give you a solid indication of the profitability of keywords you are trying to rank for. If an advertiser is always there, unless they are stupid, they are making some money.
Great Blog, Always enjoyable and informative.
Jim
You are right…my data is a bit off to say the least. (I work at home with a 15 month old who sometimes breaks into my stream of conscience)
Well, according to Google, it is estimated that internet marketing gets queried 823,000 times a month last month (actually, google estimates that the average is 1 million times).
Wikipedia just happens to be sitting on top (at least in my datacenter). If you believe that on average the #1 rankings gets roughly 40.1% of the traffic, that would be 330,000 (give or take a few thousand) that should go to wikipedia.
Wikipedia's data shows a bleaker viewpoint of the search query data. Even if Wikipedia had a strong showing and February suddenly went from a 28 day month to a 31 day month, chances are they would be lucky to reach 25,000 searches for this keyword this month. That is less than 10% of what google's average claims….
Also, throw in the fact that at least 10% of wikipedia traffic comes from internal links and that would lower the data even more.
My point is that what is claimed and what is actual is a wider chasm than most people think. Just because you think that a keyword should be bringing an approximate amount doesn't necessarily mean that it will.
Of course, 500-1,000 click throughs off of one keyword is nothing to sneeze at. But from an analytical point of view, it just goes to show that you can't put much stock into one single keyword research tool. You have to verify it through a wider net of research tools.
Originally, I was going to introduce keyword spy into the mix (for using PPC ad campaigns as metrics for profitable keywords) but this post was starting to get bloated with information.
Hi Jim, you have some nice points here. I almost always do a quick run over at keyword spy to check on PPC data. I originally was doing this for clients but have since started mining some pretty good data, keyword wise as well.
You are absolutely on target about PPC. A lot of marketers who are trying to save money would rather chance it, put the time and effort into a site and then hope that it hits. Personally, this approach will have you with a ton of sites that aren't profitable. Of course, you could always use these sites for other things but then again, you are pouring more time than it would really be worth over the long haul (for instance, converting unprofitable sites into link farms.)
Thank you for sharing such a great Internet Marketing Techniques and Theories for us.
hi Leo,
Another great post. I'd never heard of compete.com. It's cool. That said, I checked a website I have and then looked at what it said the main keywords going to the site were. They had little in common with what my site's AWstats have been saying… Any thoughts on this or have you checked it?
I also like the wiki suggestion. I didn't know about that either. VERY COOL.
~ Steve, the trade show guru
PS. I've commented here before but your comment form doesn't remember my info. Almost all other blogs do, and it's more work to type in all my info every time (it doesn't show as a drop down either). Just thought I'd let you know. Looks like comment luv isn't working either. I think you had that. Hate to sound like a complainer or the bearer of bad news. just thought you'd want to know.
Thanks Steve. As far as the keywords and the discrepancies in your personal stats…compete is only US traffic so if you are getting international visitors, it probably won't show. Besides, I am not saying that compete';s stats are perfect either. It is just another way to try to verify the numbers that you get with other keyword tools.
It is important to realize that most of these stat counters have not-so-pure motives to give out this information. Obviously in the case of Google, they will naturally want to beef up the stats to lure in adwords folks and get them bidding on keywords. Plus, the best most tools can do is give a broad estimation of potential traffic….good for advertisers but not so good for SEO marketers who have to invest time and energy into ranking well.
I am going to look into the problems with comment luv (which shows as active by the way in my admin panel). This blog, for the moment at least, is just a hobby of mine. Believe it or not, I do it to not only retain and log information of my current projects (theories…things that work…things that don't work) but also because I find it to be a great release after spending hours day after day doing the mundane "other" stuff. What the heck?….it is fun to me.
Trying to fix plug-ins and other tech-y stuff…>>>>not so fun<<<< That said, I am going to look into it.
hi Leo,
Thanks for your reply! I didn't mean to trash compete.com. I think it's cool. I'm just not sure it's accurate. At least for keywords, the difference I saw was huge, and can't be explained by the country thing. I also wonder how they would get this data in the first place. Just food for though. I've read lots of people question google's numbers, and I think your idea for comparing them a good one. I don't think any of them are completely accurate, and from what you say, just how accurate or inaccurate google is is a very good question. Steve, Mr. Trade Show ~ PS. I still have to type in my name, email address, and url each time. It would be great info got saved.
@Leo, you are absolutely right about the ridiculous volume numbers projected by these tools. Google tool for sure is more projecting the advertisers' interest. And you know what, I have an AdWords account and I cross checked the search volume projected by the external keyword tool and the internal AdWords lookup tool. For a particular keyword of mine the external one showed 12K searches where as the internal one showed 23K searches
What say?
As for the compete.com discussions, I hear that compete.com premium (paid) account is good. Any thoughts?
Hi Ajith,
It is funny how different those numbers can be across the board, right? As far as the premium compete.com account, I am not sure if it is all that and a box of chocolates. I do know this though…there is not one research tool that will give you a bonafide 100% accurate look-sie. That said, I doubt I would become a premium member. (I do use their credit system though to mine keywords)
hi Leo,
I just read another blog post about compete.com and thought it was too good to not link to here, though you can be the final judge of that.
As I said above, I think compete.com is real cool. But I question if the keywords part is accurate. Anyway, another blogger wrote a post about compete.com reporting her number one keyword is jesus, which appears no where on her blog or in her own stats.
http://www.all-about-content.com/2008/11/jesus-on...
~ Steve, Mr. Trade Show
PS. Man, I wish the comment form below would remember my info!
Hey Steve, Thanks for the link. In regards to phantom keywords, I had something similar happen to me a while back. I was ranking for an XXX rated long tail keyword that was actually getting me traffic on a particular site. I wasn't sure what this was about. It wasn't on my page or any part of my site. However, it was showing up in google's webmaster tools and was driving roughly 20 visits a day, which at the time, was about a fourth of my traffic. I should state that the theme didn't have anything to do with pornography. What was the deal?
I started doing a little research and realized that one of my commentators had a link that was going to a page that wasn't porn but strongly hinted at it. Anyway, I deleted the comment and the keyword vanished. Pretty weird right? My hunch is that somehow keywords can come via neighborhoods that we link to, sometime erroneously. That is just a theory though. I can't figure out any other way to explain it.
Once again, I am not stating the compete is accurate but could be used as a means to verify traffic.
In regards to automatically saving your information in the comment box and link luv, it appears that a couple of my plug-ins may not be playing nicely with each other. I am going to try to figure that one out next week when I have a moment.
im not using anything that is my problem. i guess i have to choose one of your methods or probably try all of them. thanks and this is really a good post.
Do you ever approach keyword research from the standpoint of finding a product first and then seeing if you can find good keywords to dominate and send traffic to the offer?
No…I always look at the market and the competition (what they are offering) first. I try to get in the mind of the searcher. Why are they searching for this? What else would they buy? (possible vertical markets). Once I think I have a bead on the intent of the searcher and only then, do I start to match them up with a product.
Of course, there are tons of ways to do this and you just need to find the way that works best for you…
Hi, Leo,
I think that you neglected one important fact. Those tools measure search volumes, not the actual clicks. The truth is that only approximately 50% of all searches result in any clicks and traffic (that´s from some Nielsen study, I can´t remember anything more).
If google says that the term was searched 800k times a month that actually means that these 800k searches resulted in 400k clicks out of which wikipedia got its 40% (or less) which is 160k.
I also suppose that using a search term “internet marketing” is simply wrong idea. If you were an internet marketer (I know you are:-)) even a newbie would you click the Wikipedia´s result (though being the first in Google SERP)? You know that it only gives you some general blurb on this topic. And those people who search for “internet marketing” most probably are willing to learn how to market something on the internet, which they know Wikipedia is not going to teach them.
My opinion is that people are getting used to wikipedia to that extent that they tend to ignore its 1st SERP position results in many topics. Maybe the CTR of wikipedia´s page (first in results) is much lower than 40% due to this saturation.
Oh, yes, btw – great content you have here…
could any of the data be underestimated?
I’ve stumbled upon an ezine out for almost 3 years and it has gotten 75k+ views, with no backlinks recorded by yahoo or google.
the thing is, it ranks #10 now.
I wonder if this niche is more competitive than I thought (it’s a primary keyword, but still…)
or did the article climb up the ranks a few times.
How would you go about finding out the exact patterns of a page for it’s rankings, or is that too analytical for keyword accuracy?
I forgot to mention, the article is 300 words. I don’t know if there is any potential for long tails but….no backlinks, only 300 words and…. I’m speechless.
According to the Big G, this phrase should only get 12000… and that’s not an even exact search.
Give me a few..I will respond to this in a sec