<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>BIA/Kelsey - Local Media Watch &#187; cost per call</title>
	<atom:link href="http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com/index.php/tag/cost-per-call/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com</link>
	<description>LOCAL MEDIA WATCH. The Nexus of All Things Local</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2015 19:41:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.39</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Study Finds Cost Per Call Favors YP</title>
		<link>http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com/index.php/2012/08/03/study-finds-cost-per-call-favors-yp/</link>
		<comments>http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com/index.php/2012/08/03/study-finds-cost-per-call-favors-yp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:13:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Laughlin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online/Interactive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yellow Pages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost per call]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YP.com]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.kelseygroup.com/?p=22765</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A study commissioned by YP Holdings (formerly AT&#38;T interactive and AT&#38;T Ad Solutions) has concluded that phone calls generated from listings distributed on YP.com and its Local Ad Network outperformed those sourced from Google Ad Words, as measured by cost&#8230;</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com/index.php/2012/08/03/study-finds-cost-per-call-favors-yp/">Study Finds Cost Per Call Favors YP</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com">BIA/Kelsey - Local Media Watch</a>.</p>
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.yellowpages.com/?re=yp" target="_blank"><img class="alignnone" src="https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4Uj0mPtbEwaHE9tcdrYPhMzbsdt_UK7RbIrJWF7BfciSOPMNo" alt="" width="189" height="171" /></a></p>
<p>A study commissioned by YP Holdings (<a href="http://blog.kelseygroup.com/index.php/2012/05/25/yp-sees-freedom-to-grow-under-cerberus-ownership/" target="_blank">formerly AT&amp;T interactive and AT&amp;T Ad Solutions</a>) has concluded that phone calls generated from listings distributed on YP.com and its Local Ad Network outperformed those sourced from Google Ad Words, as measured by cost per call.</p>
<p>The study contends that cost per call on ads served by YP ranged from $8 to $162, while Ad Words cost per call ranged from $17 to $256.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.altmanvilandrie.com/local-ad-study" target="_blank">The study</a> was conducted by <a href="http://www.altmanvilandrie.com/home" target="_blank">Altman Vilandrie &amp; Company</a>, which describes itself on its website as a consulting firm specializing in telecom, media, technology and energy, with offices in Boston, New York and San Francisco.</p>
<p>The study&#8217;s methodology involved recruiting 62 businesses across 20 categories, covering 18 U.S. cities in nine states. The businesses were given a budget of up to $1,000 to spend on Ad Words and a platinum plus listing on YP. All 62 participants were required to have an Ad Words account, and 48 already did before the study.</p>
<p>The study established proxy websites for each advertiser, one for YP and the other for Ad Words, each with a unique call tracking number. The calls were tracked for a month, with some rules around call validity (e.g., no telemarketing calls, repeat calls and so on).</p>
<p>According to the results of the study, 43 participants (77 percent) reported less expensive calls from YP, while 13 (33 percent) found Ad Words less expensive.</p>
<p>While the study contends that cost per call is lower and in a more predictable range on YP, it also acknowledges that a lower cost per call is not an argument for advertising exclusively on YP.</p>
<p>&#8220;Advertisers must also consider call volume needs,&#8221; the study concludes. &#8220;It may not be possible for an advertiser to meet its goals by placing ads solely with YP.&#8221;</p>
<p>We reached out to Google to ask for its reaction to the study. The company declined to comment, citing its policy of not commenting directly on third party research. However, a Google representative did direct us to coverage of its roll out of <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/google-s-ad-rank-consider-phone-calls-not-just-clicks-136053" target="_blank">bid per call</a>. One impact of this move is that calls as well as clicks will factor into ad rankings, which is critical for advertisers that prefer calls to clicks as a lead source.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-22787" title="CharrtYP0803" src="http://blog.kelseygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/CharrtYP0803.JPG" alt="CharrtYP0803" width="355" height="373" /></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com/index.php/2012/08/03/study-finds-cost-per-call-favors-yp/">Study Finds Cost Per Call Favors YP</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com">BIA/Kelsey - Local Media Watch</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com/index.php/2012/08/03/study-finds-cost-per-call-favors-yp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
