Thursday, January 1, 2009

Analysis: Who Clicks Ads More: Google Search or Digg Users?

Chitika did an analysis sometime ago pitting Digg traffic vs. Google traffic and the objective was, who clicks more ads, visitors from Digg or from Google. As I would have expected based on the Digg community over all, Chitika found, Google traffic click ads 3 times more than Digg. The reason is obvious as well. Google traffic are seekers who have specific goals to accomplish day to day. Digg traffic are hardcore readers generally interested in breaking news, odd stories and the latest in tech.

Since Google is by far the most used of search engines and their focus is organizing information for users to find, it stands to reason users coming from Google would arrive on a site seeking information based on keyword queries in hopes of accomplishing a task of some kind. Advertising therefore does not generally offend them as it would Digg users because they see it as an extension of search instead of an annoyance.

In other words Google users search in a task oriented fashion. Their objective is to find what they need and get the job done.It doesn't imply they are uneducated or do not read. They simply place what needs to be done before other activities.

It comes down to what type of traffic best fits the demographics of your blog. Is it the users who have work to do and need to accomplish a variety of tasks using search engines to help them to accomplish their objectives as efficiently as possible or, is it the Digg community who are basically tech minded, social and communal? You can read the results at Chitika.

You can use this type of analysis to compare on a broader scale to include any social media or networking ideal against search engine (organic) traffic. The demographic needs of your site based on the content and mission goals you've set is the basis for what type of traffic is a better match for what your blog offers and optimize accordingly.

Source : 52signals.blogspot.com

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Sphere: Related Content

0 comments: