Google CTR StudyHow User Intent
Impacts Google

Click-Through Ratesa publication ofTable of Contents
Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Previous CTR Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Defining Our Terminolgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
Data Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Data Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
Google Desktop CTR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Current CTR v. Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8User Type Focus — Desktop v. Mobile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9User Intent — Branded v. Unbranded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Informational Intent — Coupon Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Informational Intent — Question Focus  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Navigational Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Search Intent Focus — Head v. Long Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

About the Author

Factors Influencing CTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

Andrew Martineau

Internal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Andrew Martineau is an
Organic Search Director
at Catalyst, who develops
search strategies for large
CPG brands. In addition to hisclient work, Andrew played
an integral part in developing
enterprise level reporting
dashboards.

External Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Andrew comes to Catalyst with industry experience
working with Fortune 100 brands, Small-Midsize Businesses,
and microsites. From a marketing background with astrong passion for data analytics, Andrew strives to delivercreative solutions to grow a brand’s online presence using
data to drive strategic decisions.

About Catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

The Value of a CTR Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Business Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Key Takeaways  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

A special thanks to Steve Hall, Pete Quinlan, Jey Pandian,and Ashley Booth for their contributions to this study.
2

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >Overview“Many people think about rankings andthen stop right there. And that’s not theright way to think about things. You wantto think about rankings and then you
want to think about maximizing your Click
Through.
It doesn’t really matter how often you show
up. It matters how often you get clicked-on,
and then how often you take those clickedon visits and convert those to whatever you
really want; sales, purchases, subscriptions,whatever it is you’re trying to optimize for.”—Matt Cutts: Head of Google’s Webspam Team

This means that click-through rate (CTR), while very
important, is just one piece of the puzzle to driving businessresults through search engine marketing. Converting
website visits into sales or actions should be priority number
one. Search interest, rankings, and click-through rates fuelwebsite visits, which in turn present an opportunity for morewebsite conversions.

These shifts in Google’s ever-changing UI, along withevolving user intent (e.g., informational, navigational,transactional intent), have caused user click distributions
to stray from the traditional F-shape pattern. This study will:

Google began with a very simplistic search result page –ten blue links. Its minimalistic design presented a smoothuser experience that tended to guide its users’ eyes
in a standard F-shape pattern that we might expect,
given that we read left-to-right and top-to-bottom.
Often, this layout resulted in the first few organic searchlistings winning a very high percentage of a page’s click
distribution.

**Determine how CTR behavior is impacted by user**Provide a CTR analysis across the top 10 Google
organic search results**Gauge how organic CTRs have changed over time
search intent, query types, and user device**Provide the search community with new data andanalysis on a complex metric

All findings and analysis presented in this document relate
only to the sample brands included in the data set.

In contrast, today a Google search result page is much
more cluttered as Google tries to better predict the typeof content that a user might be seeking. The page now
contains many stimuli (e.g., Google Product Listing Ads,
Local Listings, images, videos, news, Google Knowledge
Graph, and much more) that may meet the searcher’sneed, and as such, influence their action.

search3

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

click

Share This >Previous CTR Studies
There have been several click-through rate studies
released in the past. So how is Catalyst’s study different?
First, the Catalyst CTR study is unique from prior studies.
Our research:**Is more current. Google is constantly tweaking its SERP**In the Catalyst study, we define CTR as thepercentage of impressions that resulted in a click for a
website (via Google Webmaster Tools).

**In Slingshot SEO’s study, CTR is defined as “thepercentage of users who click on a given domain
after entering a search query. CTR is calculated as
total visits (via Google Analytics) divided by total
searches (via Google AdWords Keyword Tool) for agiven keyword over a stable period”.

UI, which can impact average CTRs.

**Contains more data, which can lead to moreaccurate representations of the true population.

**Contains query categorization that further segments
user behavior by search intent and its impact on
average CTRs.

Secondly, we have learned a great deal from otherindustry experts and are always looking for ways tomeaningfully contribute back to the broader SEO
community.
Below, we compare our study to notable past CTR studies
by Slingshot SEO and Optify, which were part of theinspiration for creating ours:**Optify defines CTR as “the percentage of users thatclicked on each position, given that a user clicks on a
top 20 organic ranking”.

**It is very important to note that Optify’s calculation(and the famously leaked AOL 2006 study) is based
solely on the top 20 organic positions, whose sum CTR
equals 100%.

**Catalyst’s and Slingshot SEO’s definitions of CTR arecomparable, as they both take into account the factthat not all search queries result in an organic click.

Catalyst

Slingshot SEO1

Optify2# Unique Keywords:

17,500324

200-1,000# Websites :

59

200

250

Timeframe:

Oct’12 – Jun’13

Jan’11 – July’11

Dec’10

4

1Slingshot SEO: Google vs Bing CTR Study

2

Optify: How the New Face of SERPs Has Altered the CTR Curve Study
Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >Defining Our Terminolgy
Google Search Engine Results Page (SERP):

Unbranded Query:

A listing of results
returned by the
Google searchengine in response
to a user’s search
query. Google
SERPs can containseveral different“segments.”
The screenshot
highlights a typical
SERP containing
organic and paid
results.

A keyword that does not relate to a brand. The user has
no particular brand in mind when searching. Example:“hockey stick.”

Coupon Query:
A keyword whose user search intent is typicallytransaction-based. In our study, keywords were taggedthat contain terms such as “coupon,” “promotion,” “freesample.” Example: “breakfast cereal coupons.”

Question Query:

Organic Search Results:
A portion of the SERP that contains only “natural” listing
results. These results are listed by Google‘s ranking
algorithm and are not influenced by monetary bids (i.e.,
Paid Search Results).

A keyword whose user search intent is typicallyinformational. In our study, keywords were tagged that
contain terms such as “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,”“why,” “how.” Example: “can you wear contacts while
sleeping.”

Query Length:
Classification of search queries that contain one word, twowords, three words, or four+ words.

Impressions:Navigational Query:

The number of times pages from a website appeared insearch results. These numbers can be rounded and may
not be exact search volume counts.3

Users often use search engines to navigate to a specificwebsite as opposed to entering the URL directly into thebrowser bar. With this in mind, keywords were tagged that
contain web address intent, such as “www.”, “.com”, etc.
Also included were exact match brand name queries(e.g., “boston red sox”).

Clicks:The number of times a user clicked a website’s listing insearch results for a particular query. These numbers can berounded and may not be exact visit counts.3

Google Webmaster Tools:

The percentage of impressions that resulted in a click for a
website.3

This free tool provided by Google allows direct access todetailed reports about your website within the Google
search engine. These reports include search visibility,
traffic, indexation, technical errors, and more.

Average Position:

Data Visualization Tool:

The average top position of a website on the search
results page for that query. To calculate average position,
Google takes into account the top ranking URL from thewebsite for a particular query. For example, if Jane’s query
returns your site as the #1 and #2 result, and David’s query
returns your site in positions #2 and #7, your average top
position would be 1.5.3

A business intelligence tool that enables data discovery,
visualization, collaboration, predictive analysis, and more.

CTR (click-through rate):

Above the Fold:
The portion of the SERP that is visible to a user without
scrolling. Typically, the first four organic search results areabove the fold.

Branded Query:
A keyword that directly relates to a brand’s equity. Thiscan include keywords such as brand names, productnames, and slogans. Example: “Boston Bruins.”

3

5

As defined by Google

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >Methodology
Data Set

Process

All data was collected via each brand’s respective
Google Webmaster Tools account, which was thenprocessed and analyzed using a powerful datavisualization tool.

Our process for the study was as follows:

Catalyst analyzed close to 17,500 unique search queries(with an average ranking between 1–10, and a minimumof 50 search impressions per month) across 59 uniquebrands over 9 months (Oct 2012 – Jun 2013).
All websites included in this study are Consumer Packaged
Goods (CPG) brands. As such, the associated CTRs, andhypothesized user behaviors reflect only those brands
and users.

1.

Download Google Webmaster Tools search query
data each month for each brand

2.

Aggregate data into a centralized database3.

Exclude queries with an average position greaterthan 10.00

4.

Exclude queries with less than 50 impressions per
month

5.

Tag and categorize keywords by predetermined
criteria

6.

Create graphs and key visualization with data analysis
software for analysis and takeaways*This screenshot does not reflect the entire set of keywords
included in this study, just keywords ranking in whole number
positions (e.g., 1.00 ; 2.00). Notice that each whole number
position contains greater than 500 unique keywords —a large set of data.

In order to leverage this data set to make strategic
business decisions, Catalyst made the following
assumptions:**All data sourced from Google Webmaster Tools is
accurate**The sample data contained in this study accurately

represents the average CTR and user behavior for thetrue population of Google’s search user base

6

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >Data Results

Google Desktop CTR
Ranking on the first page is great for achieving visibility; however, your website must rank above the fold tobegin seeing substantial traffic gains for a given search query.

The top 4 positions, or typical rankings“above the fold” for most desktop users,
receive 83% of first page organic clicks.

18.00

17.16

16.00

Aver ag e CT R

To help manage expectations, businessowners need to understand that even if you
have the first organic ranking, your website
will almost certainly never receive traffic
from every one of those users/searchers.
On average, the top organic SERP listing gets
visits from ~17% of those searches.

This data also reveals that 48% of searches
result in a page one organic click. So whatis the other 52% doing? Two things, the user
either clicks on a Paid Search listing, or they
“abandon” the search, which we define as:

14.00
12.00
10.00
7.64

6.00

5.31

4.00

1.04
1.63

0.00
1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1.09
7.0

9.0

Aver ag e Position**2nd Page Organic SERP – the user navigates to other
SERPs**Leave Search Engine – the user exits the Google
search engine

AVERAGE POSITIONAVERAGE CTR

1.00

17.16

2.00

9.94

3.00

7.64

4.00

5.31

5.00

3.50

6.00

1.63

7.00

1.09

8.00

1.04

9.00

0.44

10.00

0.51
Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

1.00

2.00

3.00

Aver ag e Position

displayed results, the user gets the answer
they were interested in without having to click

0.51
0.44

8.0

*Desktop CTR data set for this chart is comprisedof 16,312 unique keywords.

**Instant Satisfaction – based on the

7

3.50

2.00

**Query Refinement – based on thedisplayed results, the user alters theirsearch

9.94

8.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Share This >10.0

Current CTR v. Previous Studies
Compared to 2011, organic CTRs in 2013 have seen minor fluctuations for all positions, with mid-range rankings(positions 3, 4, and 5) showing slightly higher CTRs.

POSITION

CHANGE

16.00

1

-1.04

2

-0.11

3

0.42

12.00

4

0.50

10.00

5

0.41

6

-1.15

Aver ag e CT R

18.00

14.00

8.00

7

-0.79

6.00

8

-0.71

4.00

9

-1.08

10

-0.53

2.00
0.00

key:

1.0

2.0

2011 SLINGSHOT SEO

3.0

4.0
2013 CATALYST

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Aver ag e Position

10.0*Catalyst CTR data set for this chart is comprised of 16,312 unique keywords.

Click-through rates have not dramatically shifted since
Slingshot’s 2011 study. Total CTR dropped for first pageorganic results by 4%. In 2013, the average CTR dropped
for all positions except mid-range rankings (positions 3, 4,
and 5).
While seemingly minor, these downward shifts could be a
result of the continually evolving Google UI. As alternative
result types (Product Listing Ads, Knowledge Graph,video, image, etc.) continue to proliferate through the
SERP, users’ eyes tend to stray further from the historical “Fshape” pattern, impacting the CTR by ranking position.
It is interesting that positions 3-5 in our study showed
higher average CTRs than the Slingshot study. A possible
explanation for this shift is that users could be more awareof Paid Search listings in the top of a results page, so theyquickly scan down a few listings to “bypass” these results.

8

AVERAGE POSITIONSLINGSHOTCATALYST

1.00

18.20

↓ 17.16

2.00

10.05

↓ 9.943.00

7.22

7.64 ↑

4.00

4.81

5.31 ↑

5.00

3.09

3.50 ↑

6.00

2.78↓ 1.637.00

1.88↓ 1.098.00

1.75↓ 1.049.00

1.52↓ 0.44

10.00

1.04

↓ 0.51

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >User Type Focus — Desktop v. Mobile
Mobile average CTR distribution skews higher toward position 1. This is likely due to the smaller screen size andlimited viewable results prior to scrolling, combined with the “need” for quick answers.
Device Type: DESKTOP

18.00

MOBILE

1.00

16.00

Aver ag e CT R

2.00

14.00
3.00

Aver ag e Position

12.00

10.00

4.00

8.00

5.00

6.00

6.00

4.00
2.00

7.00

0.00

key:

8.00

1.0
DESKTOP

2.0

3.0
MOBILE

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Aver ag e Position

10.0
9.00

10.00

*Desktop CTR data set for this chart is comprised of 16,312 unique keywords. Mobile CTR data contains 9,244 unique keywords.

The average CTR distribution for mobile skews higher
towards the top ranking (position 1) in comparison touser behavior and click distribution on a desktop. One
explanation for this lies within the typical search behaviorof a mobile user. A mobile user is likely to be “on thego” and not browsing, but instead looking for specificinformation as fast as possible. This, combined with thenumber of results on their screen, makes them more apt toclick on the first result they see.
With that in mind, Paid Search ads on mobile devices
should have a big advantage over the desktop in earning
clicks, as they can dominate the listings above the fold ona mobile phone.

9

AVERAGE POSITIONDESKTOPMOBILE

1.00

17.16

16.72

2.00

9.94

9.14

3.00

7.64

7.07

4.00

5.31

3.98

5.00

3.50

2.81

6.00

1.63

1.32

7.00

1.09

0.74

8.00

1.04

0.60

9.00

0.44

0.45

10.00

0.51

0.38

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >User Intent — Branded v. Unbranded
Branded CTRs for top ranking terms are lower than unbranded CTRs, likely due to both user intent and the way
Google presents results.
22.00

Quer y:20.00

BRANDED UNBRANDED

1.00

Aver ag e CT R

18.00
2.00

16.00
14.00

3.00

Aver ag e Position

12.00

10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

1.0

key:

4.00

BRANDED

2.0

3.0

UNBRANDED

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Aver ag e Position

9.0

10.0

9.00

10.00

*Branded CTR data set for this chart is comprised of 9,469 unique keywords. Unbranded CTR data contains 6,843 unique keywords.

Users who search unbranded queries are often higher inthe purchasing funnel: looking for information, without
a specific answer or action in mind. As a result, they are
more likely to click on the first result, particularly when it
comes from a strong brand that they trust.
It is worth considering the strength of the Consumer
Packaged Goods (CPG) brands within this study – assuch, when these brands appear in the results for those
unbranded searches, they are likely very highly relevantto the generic search term. (The CPG brands included inthis study are well recognized by consumers, largely due
to their large marketing budgets and the age of theirbrand equity, and are often closely associated with theunbranded products and themes for which they haveearned top organic rankings.)

AVERAGE POSITION

BRANDEDUNBRANDED

1.00

16.84

20.50

2.00

8.79

13.33

3.00

6.01

10.14

4.00

4.08

6.51

5.00

2.44

4.26

6.00

0.94

2.00

7.00

0.68

1.30

8.00

0.65

1.18

9.00

0.29

0.49

10.00

0.19

0.59

Also, CTRs for unbranded queries may be higher than
expected due to Google Product Listing Ads and Paid
Search ads encroaching on valuable SERP real estate.
Notice in our example, above the fold the user ispresented with just one organic result for this unbranded
search10Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >Informational Intent — Coupon Focus“Couponers” are much more likely to click the first result; the user just wants to quickly find a deal.

*Coupon CTR data set for this chart iscomprised of 1,427 unique keywords.
Non-coupon data contains 14,885
unique keywords.

Quer y:26.00

COUPONNON-COUPON

1.00

24.00
22.00
20.00

2.00

18.00

3.00

16.00
14.00
12.00

Aver ag e Position

Aver ag e CT R

Searches with a couponing
focus produced the second
highest average CTR across allof the categories that Catalyst
researched. This indicates how
users searching for coupons anddiscounts are very likely to click thefirst result when a well-known brandoccupies that position.

10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

2.00
0.00

key:

8.00

1.0

2.0

COUPON

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Aver ag e Position

NON-COUPON

9.00

10.00

AVERAGE POSITIONCOUPONNON-COUPONAVERAGE POSITIONCOUPONNON-COUPON

1.00

23.99

16.03

6.00

1.40

1.64

2.00

13.16

9.69

7.00

1.71

1.06

3.00

10.59

7.43

8.00

0.48

1.08

4.00

7.02

5.20

9.00

0.00

0.46

5.00

4.03

3.47

10.00

0.19

0.52

Informational Intent — Question Focus
CTR is much higher when a user has searched with a question.

organic CTRs.

Quer y: NOT QUESTIONQUESTION

1.00

30.00
2.00

25.00
3.00

20.00

Aver ag e Position

It is likely also true that questionbased informational queries result inless Paid Search ads being served
to a user, resulting in more organic
listings above the fold and higher

35.00

Aver ag e CT R

Searches containing a question
produce the highest average CTR
across all of the categories that
Catalyst researched. Much like
“couponers”, these users want
their query answered quickly, andassuming that they trust the sourceof the first result, feel that they needlook no further.

4.00

15.00

5.00

10.00

key:

6.00

5.00

7.00

0.00

8.00

1.0

2.0

NOT QUESTION

3.0

4.0

QUESTION

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

9.00

Aver ag e Position

10.00*Question CTR data set for this chart is comprised of 1,521 unique keywords. Non-question
data contains 14,791 unique keywords.
AVERAGE RANGING11NOT QUESTIONQUESTIONAVERAGE RANGINGNOT QUESTIONQUESTION

1.60

1.83

1.00

16.93

25.80

6.00

2.00

9.70

13.18

7.00

1.09

1.12

3.00

7.51

8.56

8.00

1.09

0.75

4.00

5.22

5.85

9.00

0.39

0.72

5.00

3.13

5.47

10.00

0.53

0.40

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >Navigational Intent
Navigational intent drives high CTR with significant drop offs between ranking 1 and 2. Users know exactly what
they want.
Navig ational Intent:

22.00
20.00
18.00

Aver ag e CT R

NAVIGATIONALNON-NAVIGATIONAL

1.00

2.00

16.00
3.00

Aver ag e Position

14.00
12.00

4.00

10.00

5.00

8.00
6.00

6.00

4.00

7.00

2.00
0.00

key:

8.00

1.0

2.0

NAVIGATIONAL

3.0

4.0

NOT NAVIGATIONAL

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Aver ag e Position

10.0

9.00

10.00

*Navigational CTR data set for this chart is comprised of 431 unique keywords. Non-navigational data contains
15,881 unique keywords.

For searches with navigational intent, notice the big
drop off in Navigational CTR for the first position vs. otherpositions above the fold. This falls in line with what you
might expect, as users are attempting to visit a specificwebsite (which almost always ranks in the first position),and then click it in the SERP.
Users who search for actual websites/urls (e.g., contains“www” or “com”) are basically taking an unnecessarystep, as they could have directly navigated to the web
address using the browser bar. This often happens when auser first opens Google’s homepage, the cursor is alreadyset to type in the search query box, rather than thenavigation bar.

12

AVERAGE POSITIONNAVIGATIONALNOT NAVIGATIONAL

1.00

19.01

17.04

2.00

5.82

10.14

3.00

3.77

7.74

4.00

1.43

5.34

5.00

2.14

3.53

6.00

0.57

1.65

7.00

0.00

1.13

8.00

0.00

1.05

9.00

0.00

0.45

10.00

0.07

0.52

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >Search Query Focus – Query Word CountAs a user’s query length approaches the long tail, the average CTR for page one rankings increases.
Quer y Wor d C ount:

18.00

2 WORD

3 WORD

4 WORD

2.00

16.00
14.00

3.00

12.00
10.00

Aver ag e Position

Aver ag e CT R

1 WORD

1.00

20.00

8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

1.0

key:

1 WORD
3 WORD

2.0
2 WORD
4 WORD

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Aver ag e Position

9.00

10.00

*One word CTR data set for this chart is comprised of 1,024 unique keywords. Two word data contains 4,046 unique keywords.
Three word data contains 4,894 unique keywords. Four+ word data contains 6,348 unique keywords.

One word query data resembles the CTR distributions ofnavigational intent search queries, which could be due tothe user intent of one word queries actually being morenavigational by nature (as the keywords are oftentimes
very broad or a specific brand name). Additionally, theintent of users who search with one word queries may
actually be to refine their search based on their initial
impression of the SERP, so the single word query would
become a multiple word query. Just about 30% of one
word queries result in a first page organic click, with 60% of
those clicks coming from the first position ranking.
If the user does not find what they are looking for within
the first result, they modify their search to be more specific,
often resulting in the query to contain multiple words.

AVERAGEPOSITION

ONE
WORD

TWO
WORDS

THREE
WORDS

FOUR+
WORDS

1.00

17.68

16.32

16.28

18.76

2.00

4.41

8.30

10.58

12.41

3.00

3.56

6.86

7.93

8.64

4.00

1.50

4.10

5.12

6.38

5.00

1.86

2.64

3.61

4.11

6.00

0.37

1.10

1.60

2.18

7.00

0.00

1.08

1.12

1.36

8.00

0.00

1.13

1.45

0.84

9.00

0.08

0.52

0.36

0.53

10.00

0.44

0.42

0.54

0.62

The click percentage totals represented in this graphsuggest that as a user’s query becomes more refined they
are more likely to click on a first page organic result (~56%
for four+ words v. ~30% for one word queries). Furthermore,
click distributions across the top ten results begin to spread
more evenly down the fold. Meaning, when a consumer’s
search becomes more refined/specific, they likely spend
more time scanning the SERP looking for the best possible
listing to match their intent. This is where great calls toactions and eye-catching page titles/meta descriptions
can really make or break your CTR.

13

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >Factors Influencing
CTR
As expected, the data set contains a high level of variability across each keyword’s unique CTR.

100

Aver ag e CT R

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

A brand’s actual click through rate by position may differ
significantly, due to several highly influential CTR factors,
including user’s search intent, personalized search results,
brand awareness, etc. We have outlined many of theimportant factors that can impact CTR, as follows.

5

5.5

6

6.5

Aver ag e Position

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

Internal Control
The following factors that can impact CTR are within abrand’s control:**SERP Position – Generally, top rankings will be seen
first, as well as viewed more often**Title Tag – Character length, word choice, querymatch, and call to action**Meta Description – Character length, word choice,query match, and call to action

Title**URL – Folder structure, word choice, query match,

Authorship“breadcrumb navigation”

URL**Rich Snippet SERPs – authorship, reviews, etc.
**Brand Awareness / Brand Trust

Description
14

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >10External Control

The Value of a CTR Audit

The following factors that can impact CTR are outside of abrand’s control:

With the factors to the left in mind, a CTR audit could
be performed to highlight opportunities outside of
improving rankings that could increase organic traffic toa website. This type of audit could provide actionable
recommendations to improve the click through rate
for high ranking search queries flagged as needing
improvement.

**User Query Intent Mismatch – When a keyword

returns diversified results that do not align to the user’s
search intent**Paid Search Ads Capturing Visitors – Paid Search/sponsored ads competing for the click

E.g., Paid Search ads moving the organic listings down
the fold. Highly competitive terms will have three pay
per click ads at the top, and often include Google
Product Listing Ads.

**Blended SERPs – The SERP contains blended listings

A CTR audit would allow a brand to compare its data to
industry average CTRs for positions on the first page ofresults. A selection of the highest opportunity or priority
keyphrases along with reasoning for why CTRs may belower than average could then be presented, along withrecommendations for improving the CTR.

E.g., Video thumbnail, author bio thumbnails, image
results, Google Product Listing ads, local listings,
Knowledge Graph**Personalized SERPs – The SERP displayed is often very
tailored to the individual user based on user data,
including web history, social circles, etc.

**Authoritative Competitors in SERP – SERP contains
naturally authoritative sources

E.g., Wikipedia, Amazon, Walmart, MayoClinic,
NYTimes**Non-Ideal SERP Snippet

E.g., Google pulls in page content to populate searchlisting snippet**Search Abandonment
Query Refinement

IT

Instant Satisfaction
2nd Page Organic SERP
Leave Search Engine

TR

C

15

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

D
U
A

Share This >Business Uses
Leveraging click-through rate data enables us to further
understand user behavior on a search result and how it
can differ depending on search intent. These learnings
can play an integral role in defining a company’s digitalstrategy, as well as forecasting website traffic and even
ROI. For instance:

1. Forecasting Website Performance andTraffic
Given a keyword’s monthly search volume, we canpredict the number of visits a website could expect
to receive by each ranking position. This becomesincreasingly valuable when we have conversion rate data
attributed to specific keywords.

2. Identifying Search Keyword Targets
With Google Webmaster Tools’ CTR/search query data
we can easily determine the keywords that are “lowhanging fruit” (keywords that a brand ranks on, but justoutside of achieving high visibility/high organic traffic
typically below the fold on page 1 and on all of pages2-3.). Once targeted and integrated into the brand’s
keyphrase strategy, SEOs can then work to improvetheir Search Engine Results Page (SERP) rankings for thatparticular query.

3. Identifying Underperforming Top Visible
Keywords
By comparing a brand’s specific search query CTR against
the industry average as identified in this report, we canidentify underperforming keyphrases. Next, an SEO canperform an audit to determine if the low CTR is due tofactors within the brand’s control, or if it is caused byexternal factors.

16

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >Key Takeaways

1.

Website conversion rates should be priority number
one. Search interest, rankings, and click through rate
fuel website visits, which in turn present an opportunity
for more website conversions.

10. A brand’s actual click through rate by position may
differ significantly, due to several highly influential
CTR factors, with only a handful that can be directly
influenced by marketers.

2.

Ranking on the first page is great for achieving
visibility; however, your website must rank above thefold to begin seeing substantial traffic gains for a given
search query.

11. SEO teams should perform CTR audits to highlight
opportunities outside of improving rankings that could
increase organic traffic to a website.

3.

On average, 48% of searches result in a first pageorganic click. The rest is dispersed across Paid Searchclicks and Search Abandonment.

4.

In 2013, overall CTR dropped for the first page organic
results by 4% (compared to 2011).

5.

Mobile average CTRs skew higher toward position 1.
This is likely due to the smaller screen size and limited
results showing prior to scrolling, combined with the“need” for quick answers.

6.

Branded CTRs for top ranking terms are lower thanunbranded CTRs. This is likely due to both user intent
and typical Google results when combined with arelevant, well-known brand.

7.

Coupon intent is skewed highly towards the first
position. The user wants to quickly find a deal, andlikely trusts the well-known brand.

8.

CTRs are much higher when a user has searched witha question.

9.

Navigational intent drives high CTR with a big drop off
between positions 1 and 2. Users know exactly what
they want, and Google appears to be delivering them
the right results.

17

12. As a user’s query becomes more refined, they are
more likely to click on a first page organic result (~56%
for four+ words v. ~30% for one word queries).
13. Calls to action and eye-catching page titles/meta
descriptions can make or break your CTR for long tailqueries.

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >About Catalyst
Catalyst, a pioneer in developing strategic digitalmarketing services since 1998, is renowned for searchmarketing excellence in servicing Fortune 1000 brands.
Headquartered in Boston with offices in New York,
Chicago, Seattle, Toronto and Montreal, Catalyst serves
numerous B2B and B2C clients in a variety of industries.
The search engine marketing firm prides itself on being
THE Search Innovator of the industry. Catalyst’s offerings
include: search engine optimization (SEO), paid searchmarketing, Social SEO, content strategy, digital asset
optimization, mobile search, e-retail optimization, local
search optimization, global search, competitive reporting,and more. Catalyst is a wholly owned subsidiary of WPP,
a world leader in marketing communications. For more
information about Catalyst, please visit the company’s
website at CatalystSearchMarketing.com.

Proper attribution requires that this eBook clearly be identified as“Google CTR Study: How User Intent Impacts Google Click-ThroughRates.” Copies/PDF of the book can be downloaded atwww.catalystsearchmarketing.com/pubs/google-ctr-study
Questions regarding this eBook should be directed to Catalyst
Marketing Coordinator, Freddy Dabaghi, at (617) 663-1160 or
farid.dabaghi@catalystsearchmarketing.com.

18

Google CTR Study © 2013, Catalyst Online LLC.

Share This >