The preparation
How do visitors choose a result after a search on Google Search?
This question is the subject of many studies and has been occupying more and more people in recent years.
The results of two such studies that analyzed millions of searches and billions of results converge on the fact that the 1st position in the results receives about ⅓ of the clicks that occur.
The 2nd position will receive slightly fewer.
And the further down a result appears in the list, the more its performance decreases in terms of conversion rate or Conversion Through Rate (CTR, meaning how many of the visitors who saw the results ultimately chose that specific one with a click).
Also, results that are not on the first page have minimal chances of being selected.
In the first study from Backlinko.com in 2019 (fig. 2.1), where 5 million searches were analyzed, the 1st result is 10 times more likely to be selected compared to the 10th result.
Also, positions 7–10 practically have similar chances of selection.
Meanwhile, each higher rank—especially positions 1–7—yields about 30% higher chances of being selected.
Figure 2.1: CTR and ranking position in Google results - Backlinko.
From the same study, it appears that after the 10th result—where by default (by default, 2022) the page changes from the 1st to the 2nd—the rates are very low and roughly the same for all results (fig. 2.2).
Figure 2.2: CTR and ranking position in Google results - Backlinko.
Roughly the same findings also emerge from a second study by Sistrix.com in 2020, which included 80 million searches and billions of results (fig. 2.3).
The key difference with this study is that it analyzed exclusively data from searches on smartphone mobile devices, where the small screen has limited useful space for information.
This study also confirms the pattern according to which the higher a result is in the rankings, the more likely a user is to select it.
The higher a result is in the rankings, the more likely a user is to select it.
Figure 2.3: CTR and ranking position in Google results - Sistrix.
It is therefore not surprising that those hoping for a click via Google Search results want to “climb” to the 1st position in the rankings.
But how correct is that today?
You don’t need the No.1 spot
Personally, it seems that today it’s not necessary at all, and that the 1st position isn’t needed for two main reasons:
- Internet use via mobile devices is changing rapidly—now the majority of websites receive more visits from smartphones than from desktops & laptops.
Older studies on conversion rates (CTR) usually concerned desktop devices (computers, laptops), where screens and information, as well as the environment and conditions, were entirely different from those of mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, smartwatches). - The content of Google’s results pages is also changing rapidly; results now include images, videos, FAQs, content graphs, local businesses, maps, etc.
All these compete for attention and clicks and siphon traffic away from organic results (i.e., the unpaid results in the main list).
Beyond these—or rather because of them—studies have shown that nearly ⅔ of searches on Google Search end with no click (zero-click searches).
This may be partly because some queries are not well-formed and need revising, and partly because Google’s results page already offers the answers users may be seeking.
Figure 2.4: Zero-click searches 2020 - Sparktoro.com
Zero-click searches are now more common than the rest.
Zero-click searches may mean that the answer is already on the results page, and in this way Google can make money, since it sells ads on the same results page.
Thus, it gains an advantage because the other pages listed in the results receive no traffic.
This can prove particularly problematic, as much of the content shown on Google’s results page may belong to publishers or creators who might thereby lose considerable revenue.
Google is placing more and more content on its results pages.
Indeed, in a recent event, “Search On 2021,” it described this direction as Walled Gardens, a term meaning a closed ecosystem in which all functions are controlled by the ecosystem’s administrator.
That is, Google itself!
A nice historical example of what “Walled Garden” means comes from telephony, where in the 1970s only telephone devices manufactured by network providers could be connected to the networks.
In America, the telephone company Bell Systems owned all the telephone devices used by its customers, and the same occurred in Greece with OTE’s devices.
Therefore, in an environment where zero-click searches are gaining significance due to their volume, and where clicks on organic results are decreasing as a consequence, the 1st position is almost a utopia.
The fact that the conversion rate (CTR) of organic results is decreasing is demonstrated by several new studies and is, in any case, to be expected.
A study of organic results CTR in the United States (2021), for instance, shows that on smartphones, when the “People also ask” section is present (fig. 2.5), the conversion rate of the 1st organic result drops from 50% to 23% (fig. 2.6)!
Figure 2.5: “People also ask” section on Google
Figure 2.6: Organic results CTR vs. organic results with simultaneous presence of the “People also ask” section - Advancedwebranking.com
Similarly, when the “Local results” section is present on smartphones (fig. 2.7), the performance of the 1st organic result drops from 50% to 15% (fig. 2.7)!
Figure 2.7: “Local results (hotels)” section on Google
Figure 2.8: Organic results CTR vs. organic results with simultaneous presence of Local Results - Advancedwebranking.com
Does the 1st position make sense for these queries?
In the above cases, it would be possible for a result to appear either in “People also ask” or in the local results and receive more clicks than the 1st organic result!
This indeed happens in many cases, mainly when it comes to the local results section linked to Google My Business and Google Maps listings: a simple Google My Business listing can overnight surpass organic results and presences built with great effort, time, and money.
Therefore, while the 1st position is quite important, its significance is increasingly diminishing today in favor of other new elements that Google places on its results pages.
Regardless of the above, one must still keep in mind what it takes to win the 1st position for a query.
How does that happen?
In short, and without many technical terms, for a page to become the 1st result it must be better than all other results in terms of content, technical soundness, and user-friendliness, while simultaneously having gained sufficient popularity (e.g., mentions on other pages with links). It also requires hosting on good and fast servers.
Of course, at the same time, several others may already be trying to win the same query: this means that even if one starts creating the best result today, there’s no guarantee the work will be evaluated in a reasonable timeframe. Meanwhile, some other result may manage to become the best first. Even if it reaches the 1st position, there is no guarantee it will remain there for long.
If all this seems easy, be assured it is not at all!
The 1st position requires a lot of effort, energy, potentially money, time, research, etc. Moreover, it usually needs to be accompanied by a broader internet presence so that the notion of “authority” exists for that particular query.
The cost of the 1st position in the results, combined with the fact that its performance is increasingly decreasing, makes the effort more difficult.
Many—perhaps most—stick only to the desire to achieve the 1st result, often without knowing what it costs and what it yields.
Others make efforts in various directions that usually aren’t enough.
While a few go all the way and manage to reach the top positions of search results.
Personally, there was success among those who managed it.
Not just for one query, but for several and in various fields.
Having made this entire journey, investing much energy and time, it can be said with confidence that the 1st position in a query no longer matters as much.
And therefore it is not needed.
Choose your battles
When, at the end of 2015, the decision was made to start a professional website for a small family tourism business (guesthouse) in a popular tourist destination, there was already decent experience as a Front-End Engineer at Skroutz.gr, one of Greece’s best-known websites.
During the years at Skroutz.gr, there was the good fortune to work on Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and to learn alongside some of the best professionals in the field.
Part of the job was to stay continuously informed about developments in Google ranking and about new technologies around those topics.
At that time, there was relative confidence that by focusing on a query or a set of queries and taking the right steps, it would be possible to reach the top: the 1st position in Google’s results.
So, a website was quickly set up targeting the primary keyword, the name of the mountainous destination: “Arachova”.
Back then, it wasn’t considered carefully whether that was a good target, since it was (as usually happens) the obvious, easy answer.
The primary goal was, of course, for visitors planning a trip to Arachova to find the family guesthouse and book their stay there.
Everything possible was done to achieve that goal, which was practically almost impossible: to beat the tourism giants (booking.com, tripadvisor.com, etc.), the official pages of institutions (e.g., the municipality of Arachova), as well as local competitors with many years and strong credibility, plus well-known Greek travel websites.
Things were tried that were sometimes allowed by Google, sometimes not, often skirting close to risking penalties or even removal of the site from the results.
At the same time, content that didn’t exist was created—content that answered users’ questions and offered value; unknown stories about Arachova landmarks were written; photos were taken that are now found on dozens of other pages; content was structured in the best possible way; and the website’s presence was built little by little, earning the trust of visitors and of Google itself.
Eventually, in 2019, after four years of effort, it worked!
The page was 1st for the search term Arachova. Even before Wikipedia!
Figure 2.9: arahova-pansion.gr in the 1st position for the “Arachova” query on Google.
At that time, the following message was written to the Arachova Hotels and Rooms Association, of which there was membership:
“Among giants
Can a small—very small—business take on giants?
It can.
As long as there is patience, persistence, method.
Not many years ago, due to the profession, the process of building a new business’s online presence began in order to help a brother get started.
Along the way there was a lot of work.
But a lot was learned.
Tourism giants—Booking, Tripadvisor, Airbnb, HomeAway—spend enormous sums to attract customers. They will always be there, in the paid results of the rankings.
Despite that, a small business can stand among them—among giants—if it offers value to users.
Giants will never be able to have the knowledge of a local business. Only if they collaborate with it, only if they buy its knowledge.
On the other hand, imagine what many local businesses could achieve if they collaborated.
So, this is what a small business can accomplish, as shown in the photo.
A dwarf among giants.”
Figure 2.10: arahova-pansion.gr in the “Find results in” section on Google.
However, despite the ranking success and the increase in website visitors, it was apparent that interest in accommodation and the number of guests remained relatively stable, though the number was very satisfactory.
This can be easily explained—there’s wonder now how it was missed then: the search term “Arachova” is very general.
It could be searched by someone who wants to come and is organizing the trip, someone looking for accommodation, someone looking for geographical information, someone who has already booked and wants bus or taxi numbers, someone who wants to see the weather, a specific business, information on dining and entertainment options, landmarks, and a host of other things.
Now, with data from Google itself, it can be assured there are at least 1,000 searches containing the term “Arachova”.
Unfortunately, being in that position meant identifying the most important user intents behind that query and—if the top spot was to be maintained—answering them better than anyone else.
The fact was that the site was the 1st result for “Arachova”.
Anything could have been done.
For example, visitors could have been directed to specific businesses; more accommodation businesses could have been included with a booking option; the increased traffic could have been monetized either through ads or by featuring businesses (Arachova guide), etc.
The core idea in the end was to build a booking system similar to Booking.com and convince all local business owners to leave Booking and other booking engines so that everyone would book accommodation in Arachova through the site’s pages.
As it’s known that for every booking on Booking and related sites the customer pays a commission (about 15%), the proposal at the time to business owners was to transition together and allocate an agreed percentage to a fund to carry out local projects to make the destination more competitive.
There was already the top spot—no need for anyone else.
So the idea was communicated.
The result was a complete disaster.
Apart from 2–3 enlightened business owners who found the idea fantastic, the rest didn’t even respond!
This didn’t particularly discourage, but rather was impressive, as it seemed a great lesson about the business world had been learned: it’s not enough to be the best; it’s also necessary to persuade people.
Unfortunately for that plan, there was still deep absorption in the primary job at Skroutz, with very limited time and energy for such grand ambitions.
So, the pace for Arahova Pansion was slowed: there was no reason to support the 1st position for the term “Arachova.”
It was necessary to choose the battles to fight.
Someone else would eventually take that position (as indeed happened), and the focus would remain where it truly made sense for the nature of the business for which the site was initially set up!
Today, arahova-pansion.gr has focused on core queries motivated by accommodation, as shown in the following images.
Also, several basic, accommodation-adjacent queries have been maintained, which may not directly increase bookings at the guesthouse but do maintain a degree of traffic and indirectly contribute to the business’s success.
Figure 2.11: arahova-pansion.gr for the query “chalet arachova prices” on Google.
Figure 2.12: arahova-pansion.gr for the query “chalet arachova for 2 people” on Google.
Figure 2.13: arahova-pansion.gr for the query “chalet livadi arachova” on Google.
Figure 2.14: arahova-pansion.gr for the query “arachova accommodation” on Google.
Figure 2.15: arahova-pansion.gr for the query “cheap rooms arachova” on Google.
The core process that will determine the best set of queries a group of pages should target is called “keyword research.” This will be discussed in detail in a later chapter.
Keyword research is not a simple process.
It requires experience, knowledge of the specific field (e.g., travel, tourism, etc.), and the use of appropriate tools.
But it also requires instinct and deep involvement to combine the need for traffic on one hand and the intents and nature behind searches on the other.
All naturally in combination with the site’s core business goal.
It is believed that neither just a professional developer who builds sites nor a lone professional seeking to build an online presence is sufficient.
Combined knowledge, experience, and collaboration from both sides are needed.
What is certain is that before creating a new online presence, it’s good to have answers regarding the core set of queries to fight for and which, if won, will bring the effort one step closer to success.
Competition
Studying and analyzing the competition in creating or improving an online presence is another very important ingredient for success.
Competitor analysis is a very powerful tool that can help achieve higher rankings, higher traffic, and more conversions.
The magic of competitor analysis is achieved to an even greater degree when opportunities emerge that competitors themselves overlook.
From competitors can arise the composition and structure of the information needed for a new online presence, the space and players in the specific field, and—most importantly—confirmation of the existence of space and interest (market gap), i.e., the opportunity for something new to fit into the market.
Competitor analysis answers specific questions such as:
- Who the real competitors are.
- Which keywords should be targeted.
- Which topics should be covered.
- Where references (links) to the content to be created can be obtained.
- Where there is a gap and how competitors can be beaten.
There are many ways to conduct competitor analysis; however, the basic idea is to discover and analyze what works for the competition (keywords, content, backlink profile) and leverage that knowledge to one’s advantage.
The most basic—and first—step in the process is identifying the competition.
Although it sounds simple, it is very important to identify competitors correctly, who may be large companies or not.
Competitors in the physical world are not necessarily the same as in the digital world.
Small companies or even hobbyist bloggers may occupy the highest positions in Google results even if they have no brick-and-mortar business and do not operate in the field where they excel online.
It has already become clear that online presence and, to a large extent, Google results are, in essence, a matter of marketing and information delivery.
Major accommodation companies—e.g., Booking.com, Airbnb.com, HomeAway.com—though giants, do not own a single room: they simply advertise and facilitate reservations between travelers and hotels/private owners.
As seen earlier (“choose your battles”), experience shows that large companies tend to focus on high-traffic queries and on building brand recognition (so that, for example, if one wants to book a hotel, they go directly to them rather than the hotel itself), thus leaving plenty of space for smaller, more narrowly focused businesses that are, at the same time, more targeted!
There was personal success defeating accommodation giants with specific knowledge and presence in a small area: the big companies will never achieve that to the same degree unless they buy it.
Competitor analysis may include one or all of the following:
- Competitors’ keyword analysis.
- Backlink profile analysis (links from other pages to competitors).
- Keyword gap analysis.
- Top content/pages analysis.
- Technical website analysis (speed, structure, user experience, user interface).
For a basic competitor analysis, a series of Google Searches is enough; however, there are several tools—free or subscription-based—that help make the process a bit more methodical and accurate.
The most well-known and popular among them are ahrefs.com (subscription), semrush.com (subscription), moz.com (subscription), ubersuggest.com (free and subscription), and screamingfrog.com (subscription).
Let’s look at an example.
Suppose we want to do competitor analysis using the free Ubersuggest tool for Arahova Pansion, and begin searching for competitors for the core business activity, which is accommodation in Arachova (fig. 2.16).
Figure 2.16: Competitor analysis in Ubersuggest.
After choosing a core keyword and the country-language for the results, click Search to reach the results page for ideas related to the core query “Arachova accommodation” (fig. 2.17).
In the keywords table, there is a core set of queries with similar intent and a relatively good volume; therefore, the results for these keywords will indicate the main competitors.
Figure 2.17: Competitor analysis in Ubersuggest.
Now each result can be opened, and the Search Results button clicked to display the main players for that specific query (fig. 2.18).
Figure 2.18: Competitor analysis in Ubersuggest.
For the specific query “arachova accommodation,” as shown in the image, the main players in order are Booking.com, Arahova-Pansion.gr, TripAdvisor.com, Onparnassos.gr, etc. Next to each result are details on how much traffic each one receives from the specific query, how many backlinks it has, the domain authority, how many social shares it has, etc.
What should be done here is to visit the results one by one and try to consume the content; see if they answer the question/intent (where to stay if planning a trip to Arachova); analyze the proportion of text and images/videos; try to book accommodation as if truly planning to travel in order to experience the flow; and ultimately evaluate firsthand which is the best result in the list.
In this way, information and functionality that helped can be gathered and then used after being improved as much as possible.
For example, the core content sections can be analyzed; information that seems extremely useful can be found so it can be included on the website; and the links clicked can be recorded.
Knowing the main competitors, it then depends on each person how deep they want to take their research.
By using obviously better—paid—tools, one can gain a very good picture of competitors’ profiles, which technologies they use, identify opportunities, and devise a plan to achieve high rankings for good keywords and become competitive.
However, even simply using Google Search can help find and study the results dominating a query of interest.
Define success
The final step before starting the journey for a new online presence is to determine the measure that constitutes success.
Success should be defined correctly with both qualitative and quantitative elements.
For example, merely achieving the 1st position on Google results for a particular query—say, “Arachova accommodation”—is not enough to be considered successful.
Nor is the increased traffic from that position.
Obviously, this will drive traffic to the specific page at the top of the results, but that is only an intermediate step toward conversion.
A better definition of success in this specific example would be “to achieve at least 100 overnight stays per month through the new page,” or “to reduce third-party—commission-based—bookings (e.g., Booking) by 50% of the total,” or even “to increase the number of bookings by 50 per month.”
Traffic and, subsequently, increased traffic to a page or site must always be accompanied by an increase in conversions; otherwise—usually—it is wasted effort.
Sites for which traffic itself is the product are exceptions to this rule since they sell ads or business promotions through their pages (e.g., news sites).
Traffic, however, almost always constitutes an indicator of online presence and promotion success.
This does not mean that a site with high traffic is necessarily successful as a business.
For traffic forecasting, there are tools that estimate the approximate volume a specific query may have.
The best-known of these is Google Keyword Planner (fig. 2.19), developed by Google’s advertising program to provide an estimate of search volume before launching an ad.
With this tool, and others like it, one can estimate how many people will search for a specific keyword in a month and thus how many will see Google’s results for that query.
Figure 2.19: Estimated search volume - Google Keyword Planner.
This is the upper limit Google estimates one would receive if everyone who searched for that term chose a single result.
Of course, this is far from how many will actually select an organic result even if it ranks high, since many won’t click anywhere on the page; some may choose an ad; others will pick another result in the list; and so on.
Turning a click into a customer depends on a range of factors—e.g., how user-friendly and easy it is to find what is being sought, page speed, structure, etc.—and also varies by vertical (e.g., e-commerce, tourism, real estate, etc.).
Nevertheless, a ballpark baseline for an average conversion rate is around 1%, meaning that out of 100 visitors to a page, only 1 will convert into a customer!
Along the way, counterexamples to this have been encountered—regarding the definition of success—and that’s why emphasis is placed on this point.
Many focus on predictions of what ranking position they could achieve for a keyword, while others proceed to estimate traffic if good positions are achieved.
These in themselves say nothing if they are not accompanied by a metric that reflects the real need of an online presence.
Online presence requires effort, energy, time, and money.
And the final conversion into customers is what will determine the extent to which these investments are returned.
Unfortunately or fortunately, the 1st position on Google results and increased traffic alone cannot return part of the investment, and thus the correct definition of success is crucial for the trajectory of the online presence itself.
Things to keep in mind:
- Achieving the first position in a Google Search result may say absolutely nothing regarding the specific goal at hand.
- Finding the right target keywords (for conversions) and managing to get visitors from them constitutes 50% of success.
- Study competitors carefully. They almost always have extremely useful things to reveal that are not known.
- Before starting a website, find out how many visitors could be gained if it were the best and only result for a query. Is that enough?
Cover image source: Unsplash.com