Google Shopping: The Insider Edition By Katie Ziemkowksi

GOOGLE SHOPPING THE INSIDER EDITION KATIE ZIEMKOWKSI, SUPERVISOR SHOPPING & AFFILIATE PROGRAMS

#SMX #14B @kcammilleri

2

§  Consumer Co-‐Op Est. 1938 REI


3

WELCOME!


4

§  Review most common assump:ons. §  Reveal reality and ac:ons taken.

GOALS FOR TODAY


5

§  Program Impact §  Local Inventory Ads §  Search Term Analysis §  Campaign Structure §  Shopping Channel Mix

TOPICS

PROGRAM IMPACT


7

§  Does NOT provide Incremental Revenue or Traffic. §  “Stealing” traffic from Text Ads.

ASSUMPTION


8

§  Traffic and Revenue are Incremental ›  Match Market Test ›  Paused 13 Markets

§  Null hypothesis rejected ›  95% confidence

REALITY Revenue Impacts

Forecast Actual

PotenLal Revenue Loss:

Null Hypothesis: Program Traffic/Sales Not Incremental.


9

§  Con:nue Program Investment

ACTION

YTD Sales YTD Traffic

#SMX #14B @kcammilleri 10

LOCAL LISTING ADS


11

§  List it and they will come.

ASSUMPTION


12

§  Numerous challenges: Tracking, Bidding, Feed Management. §  Difficult to Measure TRUE impact ›  Minimal Q4 Impact

REALITY

AddiLonal Tracking Requirements


13

§  Online Research is part of the buying cycle.

HARD REALITY

9 in 10 in-‐store shoppers look for informa:on related to their purchase before they visit a store

32% of in-‐store shoppers say they were prompted to visit a retailer a\er checking product availability online or loca:ng a nearby retailer carrying the product

Research Background: Google/Ipsos MediaCT/Sterling Brands, Digital Impact on In-Store Shopping, March-May 2014. Survey conducted among 6,000 smartphone users aged 18-54 who have influence in the purchase decision making process of Retail, CPG or Tech products and have used the Internet to look for shopping-related information.


14

§  Mul:-‐Channel Approach ›  Local CTR +70bps

§  Improve Offline Aaribu:on §  Local Match Market Test

ACTION

15

SEARCH TERM ANALYSIS


16

§  Not well op:mized for specific product searches.

ASSUMPTION


17

§  Majority of traffic is more general, less specific. REALITY

0.09%

0.22%

0.54%

1.35%

3.57%

9.59%

21.69%

35.00%

24.28%

3.56%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

% of Traffic

Word Co

unt

Traffic by Word Count

Majority have 2-‐4 words per query.


18

§  Improve Landing Page Experience §  Reduce Bounce, Increase Conversion

ACTION

No RecommendaLons or Related Items

Total Product Page Entries +32% YOY


19

EXAMPLE Google Shopping Direct

CAMPAIGN STRUCTURE


21

§  Not well structured for op:mal targe:ng.

ASSUMPTION “A more controlled negaLve keyword strategy could be applied to focus

searches for specific brands to the right group of products.”


22

§  Several Thousand Product Groups §  Granular level bid structure

REALITY

Campaign

First Node

“Camp & Hike”

Ad Group

Second Node

“Tents”

Product Group

Subcat-‐brand-‐ID

“REI Camp Tents”


23

§  Missing Targe:ng Opportuni:es

HARD REALITY

Tracker Accessory


24

§  Implement brand/sub-‐category focused structure. §  Ex: Ghost Mountain Bike Campaign ›  “Mountain Bike”

ACTION

25

CHANNEL MIX


ASSUMPTION §  Need to Diversify Shopping Channel Mix


27

§  Compared to Google Shopping, CSEs are not as profitable.

REALITY

Cost Per Conversion

ROAS


28

§  Consolidate to Profitable Channels

ACTION


29

§  Embrace "Social Shopping”

ACTION


30

§  Test and learn to understand incremental impact. §  Loca:on research is part of the buying cycle. §  Know and adapt to your customers search behavior. §  Structure campaign for op:mal targe&ng, bidding, & repor:ng.

§  Look for new opportuni:es to diversify shopping program.

KEY TAKEAWAYS


31

THANK YOU!

Google Shopping: The Insider Edition By Katie Ziemkowksi

Retail

Transcript of Google Shopping: The Insider Edition By Katie Ziemkowksi