What Does Brand-Aware Search Really Measure? | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 14 cover art

What Does Brand-Aware Search Really Measure? | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 14

What Does Brand-Aware Search Really Measure? | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 14

Listen for free

View show details
Most B2B marketers have heard that share of search tracks share of market. Far fewer have asked where that idea came from, or whether it survives contact with a B2B market. It was drawn from a handful of B2C examples, and it only holds when products, prices and routes to purchase are close to uniform — which, as Dale W. Harrison puts it, is the difference between a tub of yogurt and a multimillion-dollar ERP system.In Episode 14, Dale W. Harrison and Liam Moroney ask what brand-aware search actually measures. They cover the conditions under which share of search does reflect market share, the price spreads, basket sizes, free trials and indirect sales that break it in B2B, why Buffer can hold nearly half the search volume in its category and about 1% of the revenue, how Sprout Social grew while its branded search fell, and why the metric is far more useful as a measure of category demand.Timestamps0:33 Back for another episode — Dale and Liam reunite0:47 This week's topic: what does brand-aware search actually measure?1:08 Liam's starting point: years of branded search data1:53 How a few B2C examples became a universal rule2:25 A tub of yogurt versus a multimillion-dollar ERP system3:01 You can't outsource your thinking — to research or to AI3:45 The original claim: share of search reflects share of market4:50 Share of search as a stand-in for share of voice5:29 Brands do not grow: market share barely moves6:30 When a leader stumbles: the password management example7:53 It's actually measuring a lot of other useful things8:24 Slides: when share of search does track market share8:54 Product parity, price parity and how things are sold10:37 The supermarket with an unwatched back door11:41 No door-to-door detergent salesmen12:24 Price discrepancy: $20 versus $200,00013:15 Volume: one search, a thousand licenses14:16 Microsoft Office, Exxon and 100,000-fold basket sizes15:10 Drinks, houses and boxes of Tide: why B2C variance is small16:31 Ehrenberg's own caution about uniform basket size17:01 Light and heavy buyers in B2B search data17:46 Free trials: noise that inflates search volume18:35 Penetration is not revenue20:43 Partners, procurement and cross-selling: revenue that never searches21:42 Liam's in-house story: the vendor that sold itself in22:29 Ideal conditions versus the typical B2B picture23:35 Real data: the social media management category23:59 Buffer versus Sprout Social: volume versus value25:54 Nearly half the search volume, about 1% of the revenue27:16 Sprout Social: branded search down, revenue up28:17 Two stories: the company picture and the category demand picture29:03 Growth from bigger contracts, not more customers31:08 Detergent for families with 12 kids32:37 Penetration and market share are two different things33:06 HubSpot's users versus Salesforce's money33:43 “Our revenue's never been better”34:37 Hightouch and the declining CDP category35:51 Defining penetration: the Tide example36:55 HubSpot: 50% greater penetration, a fraction of the revenue38:00 The Fortune 1000: 85% versus 0.4%39:34 Where a brand's revenue actually comes from41:28 Audience question: can you segment around the variances?42:14 Branded search as a measure of demand43:37 Fax machines and Ricoh: share up, category collapsing46:02 Category demand: missing from B2B conversations46:22 The bowtie and trying to outrun a lack of new business47:50 The 95:5 rule and stationary markets48:33 Why laundry detergent grows at about 2% a year50:26 Dynamic tech categories: fax machines and CRM51:45 Conditional win probability and the odds a lead is in market52:37 Why a hot category makes you look like a genius53:01 Televisions and the 8K flop54:14 When good enough is good enough54:59 Marketing automation and mechanical lead scoring55:16 The lessons: active demand and category health56:25 B2B demo software and a 99:1 market57:11 NFTs and the crypto bros58:04 Wrapping upKey Topics Discussed- Where the idea that share of search reflects share of market came from, and why it doesn't generalize to B2B- The conditions that make the proxy work: product parity, price parity and a single way to buy- Price discrepancy, seat-based volume and 100,000-fold differences in basket size- Free trials, partner ecosystems, procurement and installed bases: revenue that never shows up in search- Buffer versus Sprout Social: share of search against share of revenue- Two stories in one decline: company growth versus category demand- Penetration is not revenue: HubSpot versus Salesforce- Branded search as a gauge of category health, and what it means for the 95:5 rule- Why growing and shrinking categories make marketers look like geniuses or failuresNotable Quotes“Nobody wants 100% of a market of which there are no customers.” — Liam Moroney“Market penetration is not the same thing as revenue, certainly not in B2B.” — Dale W. Harrison“HubSpot have lots and lots and lots of users, and Salesforce have lots and lots and lots of money....
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet