Sitelinks 2.0

This week Matt Umbro (@Matt_Umbro) came up with yet another great question set titled “Sitelinks 2.0.” The following is the transcribed Streamcap from the live chat:

Q1: Have ad group level sitelinks changed your thinking about campaign setup? Why or why not?

  • For eCommerce accounts with dozens of pages to choose from, yes. For lead-gen not so much. – Luke Alley (@LukeAlley)
    • Agree If lead gen client has different services–no point in sitelinks for services other than the one searched for. – Theresa Zook (@I_Marketer)
      • Sitelinks do help visibility and CTR though, so I fit them in whenever possible. – Luke Alley
      • Respectfully disagree.Theory: Showing Sitelinks for related services changed perception of searcher before clicking through. Now that we are getting more Sitelink data, looking forward testing theory. – James Svoboda (@Realicity)
  • Not really. I think about sitelinks the same way–just more granularly. (I know, not a word.) – Theresa Zook
  • Yes, to the extent that I won’t need to create separate campaigns just to utilize specific sitelinks. – Matt Umbro (@Matt_Umbro)
  • Campaign Set-up… not really, but Camp. level Sitelinks Yes! Fewer & Different at campaign level now that targeted @ AG Level. – James Svoboda
  • Generally no. Once in awhile we created a separate campaign just for Sitelinks, but it was rare. – Jeremy Brown (@JBGuru)
  • Minimally, though it does (usually) mean I can have a few more LP’s for sitelinks since I don’t have to separate. – Aaron Levy (@bigalittlea)
  • Definetley has as I can focus on drilling down sitelinks around brand adgroup types instead of general sitelinks around brands. – Brian Gaspar
  • Yes, it has definitely added a new factor in how accounts can be optimally structured for client goals. – Gil Hong (@ghong_af)
  • Not yet. Structure is good as-is, but I had defaulted to more generic sitelinks, so now I may just use more targeted ones. – Tally Keller (@tallykeller)
  • We have a Product Brands campaign that due to this feature I can now feature sitelinks around product brand types. – Brian Gaspar (@BGaspar)
    • Yes, but it looks less automated (since PE’s show price and look like they are directly coming from a feed). – Matt Umbro
      • Disagree. You can link to CS, tech support–stuff you can’t link in PE. Rounds out the client’s offerings. – Theresa Zook
      • True, but PE’s look more visually appealing than a sitelink. One must hope the LP they go to is appealing as well. – Brian Gaspar
      • I’ve only seen PEs show when the ad is in position 1 for at least a few months. – Jeremy Brown
        • Clients w/product lines that span different brands–ad links to products, sitelinks to overall brand page? – Theresa Zook
  • For ecomm campaigns ad group level sitelinks almost act as a derivative of the product extension. – Matt Umbro
  • It hasn’t made me rethink structure too much, just the how and when to apply. – Sarah Peduzzi (@sduzy496)
  • Even for lead gen advertisers with few pages to choose, customizing the TEXT of Sitelinks at the ad group level will improve CTR. – Matt Wilkinson (@WilkinsonSEM)
    • Agreed, plus no matter the sitelinks they take up additional search real estate! – Matt Umbro

Q2: What are some tips and tricks you’ve picked up with the new sitelink options?

  • If you have different mobile URLs, make sure you check your sitelinks on mobile (especially if its combined in EC). – Gil Hong
  • Regarding sitelinks in ECs – make sure you setup separate, mobile specific sitelinks or your regular ones will show on mobile. As a side note, I’m not impressed with the new sitelinks reporting, you still have to segment by click to see data per each link. – Matt Umbro
    • Yeah I noticed that. It was showing the same number of clicks for each sitelink by default?? – Eric Bryant (@GnosisArts)
      • Yeah, still have to segment it out. – Matt Umbro
    • Still a work in progress IMO but you can still see it. Probably something @adwords is taking note of in future enhancements. – Brian Gaspar
    • Create mobile-specific sitelinks? – Eric Bryant
      • You now have an option to create links strictly for mobile devices. – Matt Umbro
      • Just saw that feature for mobile enablement as well as bid mods for mobile +/- above regular bids. – Brian Gaspar
  • For lead-gen, if necessary create separate but similar landing pages, 1 per sitelink, each touting a different benefit. – David Szetela (@Szetela)
  • I like the fact that I can schedule individual sitelinks for sales. – Sean Evanko (@sevanko)
  • Schedule sitelinks every hour for ultra-personalized messaging. “Hey, it’s 2pm, click here!” – Matt Wilkinson
  • As another side question, do you believe sitelink scheduling is that important..or even necessary?
    • For certain clients with unique situations definitely. In many cases no. – Luke Alley
    • The Sitelink scheduling feature is neat. Don’t see huge uses for it, but can be helpful for temporary sales, etc. – Jeremy Brown
    • Not really… I feel like a lot of the new scheduling features could’ve been done with API or automated rules. – Gil Hong
    • Sitelink scheduling won’t be needed for all accts but when it’s needed, it will be great. – Theresa Zook
    • The scheduling feature is nice to have, but I’ve never needed to use it before. – Matt Umbro
    • Flowers, groceries, etc. For an aging pop. increasingly relying on delivery, there could be creative uses. – Theresa Zook
    • Probably if you want to do a promo sitelink pointing to a promo specific landing page that ends after a certain date. – Brian Gaspar
      • True, but I’d probably just pause the sitelink myself, but I understand your point. – Matt Umbro
        • Why pause it when you can schedule it to be turned off and save you the steps. – Brian Gaspar
    • Sitelink scheduling isn’t hugely important, but helpful to reinforce sales messaging. – Sean Evanko
    • Could be great for after-hours if certain messages resonate more with at-home mindset vs. work. Another thing to test. – Tally Keller

Q3: Fundamentally, why are sitelinks so important to any PPC campaign?

  • They increase clicks from highly interested searchers. – Theresa Zook
  • Take up space. That’s #1. #2 is additional ad copy. – Jeremy Brown
  • Fundamentally from an advertising space it takes up more real estate and captures more screen than your competitors. – Ira Kates (@IraKates)
  • Serp real estate and user options. – Nicole Mintiens (@Tregesy)
  • Additional visibility and cross selling! – Heather Cooan (@HeatherCooan)
  • Real estate, Real Estate, REAL ESTATE! – Gil Hong
  • Lift in CTR is main reason. Ad copy and links are a far second. – Luke Alley
    • Agreed, sitelinks improve headline CTR greatly, that’s why I don’t always care what the actual links are. – Matt Umbro
  • IMHO, Not fundamentally important or they’d get more clicks themselves, but can incrementally improve campaigns. – James Svoboda
  • They’re also really great for gaining visibility on other domains. I often send to Facebook pages in sitelinks. – Heather Cooan
  • Increase real estate, reduce clicks to purchase, and allow flexibility to increase visibility of products which you want to push. – Dunstan Tough (@Dunstanjtough10)
  • From a consumer service, SL allow the advertiser to serve the consumer better by allowing a self serve landing. – Ira Kates
  • Extra granular options for users’ interests, increased visibility. – Timothy Jensen (@timothyjjensen)
  • Adds more relevance to the ad content. Results in the healine CTR going up when compared to having no sitelink. – Brian Gaspar
  • I get more characters to work with! Also helps direct consumers to deeper links and helps cross-sell. – Tally Keller
    • Yes, but now down to 25 per link. I actually don’t mind…the shorter the sitelink the better IMHO. – Matt Umbro
  • I will say that I’ve seen more clicks on my sitelinks since being able to set at the ad group level. – Matt Umbro
  • Sitelinks are imperative to re-inforce/initiate a message, rather than a direct action. They are v.important. – Dunstan Tough

Q4: With the evolution of sitelinks, do you believe this feature is big enough to share with clients and plan around? Why? In other words, should sitelinks be a feature that we reinforce the importance into clients’ minds?

  • Worth a discussion during strategy & branstorming meetings. – James Svoboda
  • As long as they aren’t expecting conversion reporting from sitelink clicks. – Gil Hong
  • Share incrementally though, start with 1-2 sections, assess impact, & present if positive & recommend full expansion. – Brian Gaspar
  • To a point. Have to keep clients informed that Sitelinks don’t get that many clicks. Many get confused on that. – Jeremy Brown
  • Yes, I share the strategy with clients. And sometimes they give feedback on the links they’d like to see. – Mark Kennedy (@markkennedysem)
  • Yes. Especially on brand terms or in high competition verticals. Increases authority and trust among all the noise. – Heather Cooan
  • I don’t know that its one you have to really change strategy, but def worth sharing (everything is worth sharing!). – Aaron Levy
  • Worth mentioning but don’t stress them–don’t want the clients betting the farm on them. – Theresa Zook
  • They’re important to at least have, but that’s already standard in the set up. – Gil Hong
  • Would stress importance of creating promotional landing pages to use for a sitelink within non-branded campaigns. – Brian Gaspar
  • As the client, I would certainly hope so. I’ve given plenty of direction and feedback around sitelinks. – Tally Keller
  • I do share as a benefit that will be implemented, but not all the nitty-gritty of every single sitelink I set up. – Timothy Jensen
  • Adwords sitelinks measurement is not as easily produced as other links. Client conversations r needed, w/ education on limitations. – John Ellis (@JohnWEllis)

Q5: Do Bing Ads sitelinks provide any incremental value to your Bing campaigns? Or are the results negligible?

  • Haven’t honestly looked at the impact, though I assume my Bing campaigns are better with them. – Gil Hong
  • Same here, spend more time where the traffic is on the G. Definitely use Bing sitelinks where appropriate. – Timothy Jensen
  • Due to the low query share I use these for building authority and trust. This engine already performs well. – Heather Cooan
  • Currently underutilized in Bing. Generally, the same benefits as Google (take up more space, etc.). – Jeremy Brown
  • Results are pretty comparable to AdWords performance wise, but don’t see them showing as often. – Aaron Levy

Q6: Will the fact that offer extensions are now only available for in store use have any impact on your sitelinks? Why or why not?

  • Is there a workaround for online or definitely offline only? – Jeremy Brown
    • Not sure….will still create online offers, but don’t know if they will get flagged or not. – Matt Umbro
  • My biggest issues with offter extensions is that it leads to a Gsite. No chance of conversion tracking (yet) or remarketing. – Gil Hong
  • Less inclined to use them now for the same reasons Gil mentioned
  • No, any offers that were in the offer extension can be used in sitelinks. – Matt Umbro
  • In my case huge, our 3rd party ERP realized an additional $45K in revenue coming from clicking on sitelinks. – Brian Gaspar
  • Yes. I just need to figure out how to get around the “in-store” part of that. – James Svoboda
  • To be honest with you I’ve seen nothing impactful come from the handful of offer extensions I’ve setup. – Brian Gaspar
  • The addl. real-estate for promos was nice, but can still use SLs for that. Offer extensions = great for measuing offline impact. – Matt Wilkinson
  • We’ll see how this goes…but I may use Facebook offers more than Google. I’d like to see the delta in redemption rates. – Heather Cooan
  • Huge negative that it’s a Google-hosted page. Definite no-go for most clients. – Jeremy Brown
  • I never understood why Google only rarely showed the offer extension with the big orange button. – Matt Umbro


More PPCChats

Don’t forget to stay tuned for the next #PPCchat on Tuesday at 12 noon Eastern, 9 am Pacific and 5pm in the UK. Same Chat time, same Chat channel.


Check out the PPCChat Twitter list to see and connect with all current and prior participants.

• Matt Umbro (@Matt_Umbro)
• James Svoboda (@Realicity)
• Paul Kragthorpe (@PaulKragthorpe)
• Aaron Levy (@bigalittlea)
• Brian Gaspar (@BGaspar)
• David Szetela (@Szetela)
• Dunstan Tough (@Dunstanjtough10)
• Gil Hong (@ghong_af)
• Heather Cooan (@HeatherCooan)
• Ira Kates (@IraKates)
• Jeremy Brown (@JBGuru)
• John Ellis (@JohnWEllis)
• Luke Alley (@LukeAlley)
• Mark Kennedy (@markkennedysem)
• Matt Wilkinson (@WilkinsonSEM)
• Nicole Mintiens (@Tregesy)
• Sarah Peduzzi (@sduzy496)
• Sean Evanko (@sevanko)
• Tally Keller (@tallykeller)
• Theresa Zook (@I_Marketer)
• Timothy Jensen (@timothyjjensen)

Pay Per Click PPCChat Streamcaps

This is a guest post by Paul Kragthorpe. He works diligently every week to provide you the best review experience for your PPCChat. Streamcapping done faster than a robot!

Paul KragthorpeWebRankingSEM ManagerTwitterGoogle+.

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: , ,

One Response to Sitelinks 2.0

  1. Great discussion. I think that being able to test sitelinks with enhanced campaigns will be a great feature. You can use this tool to see which page has the best CTR and optimise accordingly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Tweets

I am speaking at SMX East was rated one of the Best PPC Blogs by Boost CTR