here’s a graph I’ve just stumbled upon.
“Users who clicked on search ads who were also exposed to display were 56% more likely to purchase from Alltel than those only exposed to search, illustrating a significant synergy between the two.”
It kinda makes sense, but I’m not convinced.
Suppose my search only campaign generates 1000 clicks, out of which 10% convert/buy online.
Now suppose my banner + search campaign also generates 1000 search clicks, out of which 10% convert/buy online.
Supposing all other variables are equal, we’ll assume both campaigns were equally efficient
Now I didn’t place my banners anywhere on the internet, I strategically placed them on relevant sites, targeting people ready to buy, trying to convince them to buy my brand instead of the competition.
These consumers, already well engaged in the conversion funnel, converted 15.6% of the time after clicking on one of our search ads. In other words “Users who clicked on search ads who were also exposed to display were 56% more likely to purchase than those only exposed to search”
That is true. They were ready to buy even before seeing my banner.
“illustrating a significant synergy between the two”
That is false.
I mentioned earlier that the efficacy of the campaign was equal. There was no synergy. The fact that my search clicks conversions were better after a banner exposure tells me that I did a good job at targeting my banners toward relevant users about to convert. Period.
See the difference?
It’s not “Display increased Search efficacy”
It’s “Search conversion % validates the precision of banner targeting”