Like a lot of marketers, I really appreciate & get value from Merkle's quarterly reports (e.g. their latest https://www.merkleinc.com/thought-leadership/digital-marketing-report …).
However, I think it's irresponsible to cite this data without explaining methodology and built-in biases. /1
Whenever, for example, I make charts like this, I include source and some methodology, then link to more info & detail (e.g. https://sparktoro.com/blog/how-much-of-googles-search-traffic-is-left-for-anyone-but-themselves/ …). Merkle themselves do this well. But many who cite & write about this data aren't. That's unwise & misleading; here's why... /2
SEJournal is far from the only culprit, but their headline yesterday is a good example of this problem: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-is-delivering-less-organic-search-traffic-than-last-year/318109/ … It reads: "Google is Delivering Less Organic Search Traffic Than Last Year." That's probably not true.
What's actually happening?
- Google's mobile search app (among others) is sending a ton of "dark "traffic"
- Desktop traffic is flat (w/ slight decline in organic click rate)
- Mobile browser search is also plateauing
- Merkle's clients are losing a little more than the avg site
Methodology is crucial, b/c:
- Merkle shows data from their clients' websites (granted, they have a lot of big sites)
- Jumpshot shows data from their panel's devices (granted, that's 100M+)
- StatCounter shows data from sites they're installed on
Each have known (& unknown) bias
You can follow @randfish.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.