Does Yelp Own More Local Search Market Share Than SuperPages.com?
In Local Business Marketing, Local Search Insights | 8 comments | permalink
Maybe. According to Google Trends, Yelp gets more unique daily visitors than SuperPages & Dex combined:
Yellowpages is right behind Yelp and if AT&T Interactive were to act on Greg Sterling’s insight, they could create quite a powerhouse.
Citysearch and SuperPages are neck and neck. Is the Google Trends data accurate? This data doesn’t measure flush with the recent TMPDM/comScore study of Local Search Market Share. Is it apples and oranges? Do TMP and their study bias IYP’s? Here’s a look:
TMPDM/comScore Study, Local Search Market Share (2009)
In the TMPDM study SuperPages is identified as the Superpages.com Network, which includes the following search alliances:
- WhitePages Network
- SearchBug.com
- Lycos
- Bigfoot.com
- b2bYellowpages.com
All of the local searches emanating from these web properties land on Superpages.com, Yellowpages.SuperPages.com, or Clicks.SuperPages.com.
Say we toss out the “Daily Unique Visitors” filter displayed in the Google Trends screenshot above and just focus on visits. Here are the numbers from Compete.com:
Yelp yields approximately twice the traffic. The case can be made that more of Yelp’s visits are socially oriented than SuperPages.com (social interaction is sticky and sticky builds brands).
Still, how does TMPDM/comScore determine that in June of 2009 the Superpages.com Network had 7.5 X the local search share of Yelp?
I am likely missing some vital data here so I encourage others in the know to share their insights.
***UPDATED***
Rather than create another post, I also want to chime in on the quality of results and search experience (yes, my ADD is kicking in). Here are screenshots of Yelp & SuperPages results for the search “oil change Scottsdale, AZ:”
Yelp provides actual oil change locations in Scottsdale, AZ, starting with the first result. SuperPages doesn’t. The first eight results in SuperPages feature three automotive brands (the Sears listing repeated) and four search arbitrage sites (very negative user experience). None of them feature a Scottsdale location, nor are the associated websites targeted for location.
In addition, the map displayed in Yelp features Scottsdale results. The map in SuperPages features the entire Phoenix metro and does not make for an optimal user experience based upon the search criteria.
Finally, when you get down to the first result in SuperPages that actually displays a location, it isn’t Scottsdale. It is a Phoenix location–another negative user experience.
email this | tag this | digg this | trackback | comment RSS feed
You said it yourself, ‘Yelp is more socially oriented.’ Yelp visitors may be checking reviews of others while Superpages users are search driven. IYPs are similar to the paper phone books in that users search for information. It makes sense that Superpages has a higher “Search” share, while it may have fewer unique visitors based on info you’ve found.
Superpages is working to become “stickier”, but as long as end users continue searching it is still a necessary place for businesses to be listed.
Thanks for commenting, Bob. I do believe the ratio of actual local searches to total visits is higher for IYP’s compared to more interactive directories like Yelp and Citysearch.
What I would like to understand, is how the TMP study determines that SuperPages had 7.5 X the local search share while garnering half the visits of Yelp.
You raise a question to the comparability of the TMPDM/comScore Local Search study to data from Google Trends in your above post. As you suggest, these reports really are apples and oranges. The TMPDM/comScore study focuses on the local business search activity on the sites included, while the Google Trends and Compete data displays total visitation trends. Furthermore, comScore IYP/Local Search measurement excludes non-business search activity on the sites, such as people, map, car, and video searches. While these other facets to local directory sites are extremely useful and clearly garner significant traffic to the sites, the TMPDM/comScore study hones in on local business searching exclusively. Within the online local search universe, the study is not biased towards IYPs, as it highlights the recent trend towards Local Portal search (web search with local intent) versus IYP search – showing Local Portal search increasing from 40% to 51% year-over-year.
I would be happy to provide you with more information about the 2009 study and the methodology used if you are interested.
Monica,
Thank you for taking the time to comment and elaborating on some of the measurement details involved in the study. I am interested in the methodology used to determine local business search volume to bolster my comprehension.
What factors do you believe have catalyzed the recent trend towards Local Portal search (versus IYP search) increasing from 40% to 51% year-over-year?
I raise the point about IYP bias based upon TMP’s legacy as “the world’s largest yellow pages advertising agency,” and I understand your organization’s relationships with yellow page publishers and advertisers run far and wide. In addition, Greg Sterling recently cited various surveys which portend to establish conflicting data about the most trusted sources of advertising (I know print yellow pages were not referenced in the other surveys). I do believe the perception of trusted advertisers may swing erratically among various demo’s and depending upon how survey questions are posed.
It was Gloribel’s article that inspired me to append this post underscoring who I trust for local business search results (online) between Yelp and one of the IYP’s, SuperPages.
In the end I am searching for the most profitable local online advertising solutions for my clients and audience.
[…] Yelp was founded in 2004 and surpassed the IYP’s in traffic earlier this year. […]
Hi Tom -
I think the local portals growth in marketshare (41 to 51% increase) has to do in large part to the changes Google has been making to how some of these local results appear in the SERPs. We saw a pretty significant increase when Google expanded the “one-box” area from 3 listings to 10 (which is now 7). Now with our recent study the surge seems to be attributed to Google’s ability to now show local results for general searches which seem to have local intent. No geo-modifier is necessary to see these local maps results now which in the past (just a year ago) this was necessary.
Regarding the trust factor of advertising, our study did not measure this. Gloribel’s article was referencing the Forrester study. I do agree with you though that you really can’t compare a lot of these as their methodologies and base audiences measured varied pretty dramatically.
Monica,
I agree with your points. While I believe the local online marketing/advertising space is quite fragmented, Google is no doubt the driver of change and innovation. Wide adoption of “online” by SMB’s is gaining tremendous momentum. The more turn-key and targeted the solution, the easier it is for SMB’s to participate.
[…] Aaron makes an important point regarding Google’s lack of ethics–how Google is abusing their universal search results to spam searchers with YouTube results. He goes on to make the case that Google could repeat this type of behavior with additional acquisitions such as Yelp, stating: “…as soon as Google gets a market dominant position, you can bet on them locking it down to enhance ad revenues. The secret search relevancy algorithms, AdWords ad quality score, using AdWords rebates to push Google Checkout, always-on search personalization (even when logged out), mystery meat payout rates to AdSense publishing partners, universal search algorithms that allow them to arbitrarily promote their own websites, YouTube cloaking, etc etc etc” […]