To Click or Not to Click

With the huge leaps and bounds in mobile web usage in 2011, we have begun to really see the value of phone numbers within Google Adwords. With some new products announced last year too (Bid to Call comes to mind) Google are now giving us more choice and flexibility with phone numbers in our ads. So how can this help you sell more online?

Up until recently, if you put a phone number in your Adwords ad copy, it would be treated like any other piece of text. Google recently announced that they will be making phone numbers in ad text clickable so they are embedded – if you have a call extension as well, it won’t show if there is a number in your ad text. Call extensions have been around for a while, and if you are already using them, then this changeover won’t affect your ads at all. It also free’s up your ad copy for more text, which is a good thing.

Google announced the “Bid to Call” functionality earlier in 2011. This allows users to have a Google forwarding phone number displayed in their ad text (mobile ads only) which allows searchers to click the ad, and call the advertiser. Users can choose to set a CPP (Cost per Phonecall) instead of (or as well as) the usual CPC (Cost per Click) – so if calls are more valuable to you as an advertiser, then you can choose to bid on the basis of getting a call instead of a click. Google can also provide phone numbers for you to use in these ads, to allow you to easily track calls from your mobile ad campaigns. For the front end user, the number displayed is unique each time and is toll-free. Currently this is only available in the UK and US regions.

Sounds good? We thought so too, but a coincidental test on a client campaign made us think twice. A client of ours generally used a LoCall (1890) number for their Adwords mobile ads (Click to Call) up until we suggested that they try testing a landline number instead. When we compared the test month against the previous month (that is, low cost phone number against the landline) we were astonished at the difference in the call rates. The month with the LoCall (1890) number in the ad copy achieved a 5% call rate on the ads, but the ads with the landline number in the ad copy achieved an amazing 92% call rate. So, 92% of those who saw the ad, called the advertiser from that ad.

That was an eye opener for us. It seems to indicate that unusual numbers, like 1800/1850/1890 numbers really can act as a deterrent in some cases. We suggest this could be down to users not being sure what they are going to be charged if they do call. If a user has a specific mobile price plan in place, they may not be sure if the call will be included – or if they will be charged extra for calling. This confusion may put the user off altogether.

If we apply this logic to the new Bid to Call ads, we wonder if this might also act to put “users off” in the same way the low cost number did. The phone numbers in the Bid to Call ads are toll free, but we wonder if price is actually the issue? Perhaps having a real, bricks and mortar landline feels more reliable and therefore, encourages more people to call? We see this issue to a lesser extent when clients use mobile numbers in ad text – the more naturally cautious users are far less likely to call these numbers. Will we see the same issue with the Bid to Call ads?

We think mobile advertising will be huge in 2012, so how about testing some of this theory out in the meantime? If you are thinking about it – then why not give us a call and discuss how we can help your mobile ad strategy.