I spent some time this morning responding to an email on this topic, so I thought I’d post it here too as a reference.

There are three studies that I know of that have attempted to answer or predict the CTR of organic results. Each has a different methodology and sample data, but the results are similar.

First up, this one is based on the AOL data that was leaked a couple years ago. Someone plugged all the click data into a formula and got these results. Note, that this is AOL data, and it’s widely believed that those searchers behave differently than more savvy Google or Yahoo users: AOL Clickthrough Study Data

Second, this study was done by Cornell University using eye and click tracking equipment. It’s probably the most experimentally sound, but of course the people also knew they were in an experiment and were given specific search terms like “shopping” that might not be relevant to their state of mind. Cornell Organic Click-through Study

Finally, there is a third study done by me in my former life as a corporate SEO, which pre-dates the first two studies I mentioned. This one used keyword volume estimates and # of visits from a given keyword in a given ranking to a specific website. Because the dataset was smaller, I extrapolated the results to a logarithmic function which I have since forgotten. But the spreadsheet still contains the ranks.

The beauty of these results is twofold: 1. I think it better represents the B2B searcher and, 2. because it’s a function you can extrapolate the CTR on any given ranking (although since I don’t remember the formula, this sheet only goes back to result #200, but if you’re ranking past 20 you shouldn’t care about CTR anyway). Here’s a sample of my results, and you can download the full spreadsheet here:

Rank CTR
1 42.30%
2 11.92%
3 8.44%
4 6.03%
5 4.86%
6 3.99%
7 3.37%
8 2.98%
9 2.83%
10 2.97%

I just finished reading Michael Lewis’ book The Blind Side. It is a deep look at the game of football from a strategic, tactical, political and sociological perspective, told within the biography of a high-school player from Memphis named Michael Oher. The title of the book, and much of its exposition, is derived from a shift in football strategy that took place in the 80’s and 90’s.

To summarize this shift: quarterbacks did not often throw the ball until Joe Montana came along (with help from his coach, Bill Walsh). When a right-handed quarterback drops back to throw the ball he typically turns so that his right-shoulder is back, causing his field of vision to be biased to the right. This creates a “blind side” on his left, from where he can’t see defensive players coming to tackle him. This blind side was originally exploited by the NY Giants, and specifically by Lawrence Taylor, who made use of this blind spot to train-wreck quarterbacks in the middle of their throw. This play is not only dangerous from a strategic perspective, but it is likely to be physically harmful for the quarterback (ask Joe Montana).

For several years, this type of play went unchecked, until Bill Walsh began reinventing the position of left-tackle. In order to stop very fast, very strong linebackers from taking advantage of the left side, teams everywhere began looking for a very rare type of human: someone who is extremely large and powerful, with very long arms, but who can also move their hands and feet extremely quickly. This combination is so rare, that players who make good left tackles are typically the second-most highly paid member of the team, behind the quarterback. This is because a successful left-tackle is actually an insurance policy for a team’s quarterback, and quarterbacks who can complete passes win games.

So what does this have to do with SEO?

Once I was about 3/4 through the book I started to draw some parallels between the Left Tackle and the SEO. Think about it this way:

Originally, no one used the internet for marketing (passing game) very much as there were better ways to find customers. Along came this new breed of programmer, the web designer (passing quarterback), who depends heavily on the support of his team (the company’s resources and IT people) but who also builds spectacularly effective and cheap marketing campaigns (a successful passing game). The proliferation of this strategy introduces a new evolution: Google (Lawrence Taylor) which decreases the value of a website that doesn’t play by its rules (time available to throw the ball and complete a pass).

The next evolution is the creation of a new position, the SEO (left tackle). The range of skills needed (the specific size and weight) and the mental-quickness required to grasp, and invent, new tactics (the dexterity of hands and feet) means that successful recruits for this position are hard to find. The SEO (left tackle) is tasked not only with protecting the website investment (quarterback and passing game) from de-indexing (sacking), but also with promoting lead acquisition on the website (time available for the QB to complete a pass).

Often people in the industry wonder why a good SEO is paid as much as the web designer when all the marketing analysts and secondary programmers make less, in the same way that the NFL began to wonder why this one offensive lineman was making as much as the QB. In both cases, the SEO/Left Tackle has the unique ability not only to protect the value of a website by maintaining its good standing with Google (and the others) but also by increasing the site’s ability to obtain new customers.

Perhaps one of the most important parallels is drawn from Lewis asserting that when the Left Tackle has done his job, the play goes off smoothly and the quarterback is celebrated for his passing ability. Similarly, when a well-optimized website becomes a success, the crowd only sees a spectacular website, not the marketing behind it.

I won’t comment on designers and quarterbacks both being described as primadonnas and attention hogs, you can draw your own conclusions on that one.

For a couple months now I’ve seen it coming: the need to hire someone to take over some of what I’m doing, so that I can do more. I think the one thing that shocks most people who’ve never run their own business is that you don’t get paid for all the time you work. What do I mean?

Think about working in a corporate environment (I started my business life as a Corporate SEO). If someone calls to talk about a contract, you send it to your sales team. If you need copies made, you can drop them off with the Admin Assistant. When you receive an invoice, you forward it over to Accounting. If your computer goes down, you call IT and go out for coffee. And, at many companies these days, your pay is direct-deposited so you don’t even have to go to the bank.

All of those services fly out the window when you go out on your own. You are your own IT, Admin, Accounting, HR and Management teams. All of that in addition to the fact that you need to get your work done every day. But you can’t exactly send a client an invoice with “5 hours - Fixed my computer” on it, can you? And that is why people who have only worked for companies are shocked to find out I may only do 20 hours of “work” per week. Except that those 20 hours of work took 40 hours of supporting effort. Even getting paid requires me to drive to the bank to deposit checks a couple times a week.

So, a few months ago when I stood with a total of 9 clients and could see my work-hours quickly outgrowing my ability to be more efficient, I began to work on the next challenge: what do I hire out? Assuming I could only afford one employee at the current volume, do I hire an Admin Assistant to take calls, make copies, and help organize meetings? Should I hire a sales person to manage my current contracts and help me find new ones? Should I attempt to find another SEO/PPC expert to take on client work (and if so, how can I be sure I can trust them to uphold the level of quality I demand for my clients?)? Or should I bring on an intern and hope that the amount of smaller-tasks I can hand off to them will outweigh the training time?

I am notoriously demanding when it comes to resumes. I often say that the minute I find the first typo I toss the resume, which is not far from the truth. I expect that one-page of writing shouldn’t be difficult to produce, and that you should have it so polished by the time you’re ready to send it out that I won’t find a thing wrong with it (from a technical perspective anyway). When I receive a five-page resume, or one written in the third person (another story for another time) I have to wonder what some people are thinking. So what’s the best way to get a job with Untouchable Marketing? Don’t send a resume.

As it turns out, the old adages about networking are correct, and knowing people is often greater than knowing anything else. I am going to try out an intern-esque position on a contract basis for the next 15 weeks or so to see if the outsourcing of tasks outweighs the training time. The candidate is actually family of a good friend/business partner who’s situation is well-suited to working from home. He’s qualified and never had to submit a resume.

How will I judge the outcome as a success? Like everything I else I look at numbers. I will feel the experiment is worthwhile if the dollars I pay are returned 2x in either hard dollars, or client approval (as measured by frequency of emails and number of referrals). If the experiment doesn’t meet this goal, then at least I was able to help out a friend and find out that I need to look for a partner or an assistant next.