Organic versus paid listings...not so simple

Much has been written recently about the superiority of organic listings versus paid. This is based on data that shows that 80% of the clicks on a search results page are organic. And that organic clicks produce 1.5 times the conversion rate as paid clicks. On the surface it would clearly say that your advertising money would be far more productive spent against organic search than paid search. But, why is it that 80% of search dollars are still spent against paid search? Is it that this is stupid money, or is something else going on here?

Here's my take...

They both are right but generally for my money, I'd usually opt for paid search, especially if the program is time sensitive like a sale or where speed-to-market is critical like a launch. Even in other cases, with paid search I know I can accurately measure my ROI. And I can use trial and error to build a strong bank of key words and combinations that work.

With organic search, it could take months to build a position of visibility that you can achieve in minutes with paid listings.

With organic listings, you are battling for first page position and not always winning. Search engines are constantly changing their algorithms to prevent "gaming" the system and make certain they are producing quality results. With paid listings, you are on a level playing field and can choose when and where you want to spend your money.

In other words, paid gives you more control, predictability and lower risk. And if there's one thing an advertiser cherishes, its lower risk. Thus 80% of spending is in paid.

This is not to say you shouldn't invest in organic. But the smart way is to make sure your site is optimized to give you the best chance of getting a high listing...but don't bet the farm on it.