• Is Web Design the Next Search Marketing Battleground?
• Worst Example of a Company Twittering?
• There's No Shortcut for Link Building: A Case for Relationship Building
• More Journalism, Less Marketing

The more people come from search engines the lesser advertising costs the company has made.
If then the number of visitors is sufficient, then every dollar less is a dollar gained.

There are several type of sources for your visitors:
- Search engines: natural way: a lot of work as content is required.
- References from website: like directories: you have inserted the link:free or paying or reciprocal many directories thus also a significant amount of work
- Blogs: somehow you convinced a blogger to write about the company or product. How to "sell" your product or service to a blogger
- Forum: you have obtained an advocate who does the marketing for your product o company for free! .
- Advertising: you just pay for the link - simple and easy but costs money

Posted by: Engago Team on June 10, 2008

Well it depends on what you're doing. If you want to be "read" then who cares where they come from. But if you want to make money I think search engines are better because those people are trying to get something done/to buy/answered. Basically, resolution.

If you've got a link visible on a forum or in somebody's blog comments you're kind of creating curiosity. "Hey, what's this guy about?" So if you're very astute at that type of leading you can create a need and then fill it. Congratulations you've become an under arm deodorant or frizzy hair shampoo. Possible to do, but a bigger hurdler to overcome than somebody typing into google "fix my stinky feet" and your site comes up number 1 for "Let me tell you how to get rid of stinky feet."

Posted by: Dave from Welcome Back Rosenthal on June 10, 2008

You're both making good points. It's not what percentage of the traffic you are getting from search, it's what is the total amount and what do you do with it. Yes, traffic good, loneliness bad, but also traffic that buys good, traffic that does not buy, bad. Regardless, the percentage of people that comes from search engines is neither good nor bad--what you care about is how much money you are making and how you can make more.

Posted by: Mike Moran on June 10, 2008

The only thing I'd watch for, Mike, is if the percentage of traffic from search engines - or any one source for that matter - skews too high. For instance, a site I know receives almost 70% of its traffic from search, and almost 80% of that from paid. That's called having too many eggs in one basket. Should customers' media habits change dramatically (say, to natural search or social recommendations, for instance), the site in question risks losing a large source of its traffic. So, the key isn't only whether your site gets sufficient growth from all channels (natural search, paid search, email, typed/bookmarked and referred). It's also whether you have a sustainable balance among those.

Posted by: Tim Peter on June 10, 2008

That makes sense, Tim. And you can make the argument that the percentage tells you to diversify. So maybe that is a good use for this metric.

Posted by: Mike Moran on June 10, 2008

Interesting issue that I have wrestled with when I look at my blog statistics. I like to see the regular people coming from the email links and the RSS feeds but then I worry when the Google searches fade away.

I suppose the metrics have to be overall traffic, signs ups for new visitors wanting to subscribe, the extent to which everyone wants to engage in the conversation ...Just like the way I feel about this site.

I only find it today but i have taken the RSS feed and I'm going through reading the articles and commenting when I feel I have something to say.

Great job

Posted by: Paul Simister on June 12, 2008

Getting to much traffic from search is risk. You never want your traffic to "top heavy". As most know relying on search traffic only is dangerous no matter what your conversion rate is. You should always be looking to lower the % in search traffic in case Google decides to shift your placements one day.

Posted by: Jaan Kanellis on June 13, 2008

Paul said something that resonates with me. I too am not really happy to see all my traffic come from one place. In fact I almost get angry when I see a bunch of traffic come from one source, especially if it's just to one post and they don't explore the rest of the blog.

On the other hand, Jaan, could you please explain these search engine traffic "risks?"
Will my blog explode?
Will my Adsense money stop trickling in?
Will I have to start spelling my name Daave instead of Dave?
Who are these "most" that know about top heavy search engine traffic being "dangerous?" In what sense is it dangerous?

I'm just poking fun-but I THINK what you're saying is that a website should not rely on 100 percent of it's traffic coming from exactly 1 place-Google. But I would argue that "most" people know that is impossible to do anyway. Traffic comes from all over, and if you've got a few bucks you can even determine the exact source if you want via PPC.

So I'm just kidding around-a little-I would like to know who has told you these things and why you believe them.

Posted by: Dave from Welcome Back Rosenthal on June 13, 2008

Dave I dont think it is "impossible" at all to focus your marketing efforts (for traffic) at other niche websites/forums/blogs that can provide you with just as much traffic as Google

Posted by: Jaan Kanellis on June 13, 2008

I think something got lost in translation.

Posted by: Dave from Welcome Back Rosenthal on June 13, 2008