Case study: ranking a 60k keyword

[davids355]

Another case study which will be a bit of a comparison to the manual link structure case study I am running in another thread.

I have another keyword I want to rank for that has similar competition levels, and a nice load of search traffic.

For this keyword I am using just BHW services so I can see:

1. If I can rank it in top #10
2. how quick it ranks compared to my link structure method.

Keyword is as follows:
60,000 local exact monthly searches
1.1billion search results
24million "keyword" results

Top ten competition:

Current position:
#43 (traffic travis).

The page I'm trying to rank is a subpage and contains a unique and informative article on the subject in question.

I am going to pick several Bhw services to start things off...

 

[ritesh]

Gonna be tough.Looking forward to it.

 

[BlueTurtle]

I'd just like to point out that the number of "results" Google reports has absolutely 0 to do with competition. For starters there's not even that many results, it's only an extrapolation. If you go to the last page you'll see it only actually finds 200-900 or so pages. Even that means absolutely nothing.

The competition of a keyword is determined by the sites on page 1 to 5, most importantly page 1-2.

There isn't any "metric" that can determine competition. The only way to do it is, as a human, to look at the results.

As a human do they look relevant? Keyword in the title etc? Does the description seem to relate strongly to the keyword?

If so then there's pages targeted to those keywords.

It could still be an easy keyword, that in its self doesn't tell us much.

Next I look at the type of results. Are there any authority sites for the broader niche? Are there wikipedia pages, are there emds.

If there are authority sites, wikipedia pages and other major sites highly targeted to the keyword then it's high competition.

If the above are only loosely targeted to the pages then it's medium, and you can beat them with a page that's not as strong, but more relevant.

Next, if all you see is a bunch of emds for the keyword, mini-authority type sites for the broader niche(if you're targeting say best diet for 2012 then you might see something like bestdietreviews.com/best-diet-2012), then it's anything from low to medium competition.

From there you have a look at the domain age and backlink profile for those sites to see what you're up against.

If you see a bunch of youtube videos, squidoo lenses, blogger blogs and general web 2.0 stuff then it's definitely a low competition keyword that you can smash with a good emd and a few backlinks.


I see SO many people talk about how they're going for a "medium comp" with X results, when really you may as well just write a bunch of competition levels on a few bits of paper, pop them in a hat and pick one at random.

Competition analysis is most definitely 100% an art. There's very little science to it, which is why there's no programs that can do anything more than give you a loose indication of the competition of a keyword. When doing keyword research the best thing any keyword analysis tool can do is check for emds, as that's the best indication for how many other people are targeting it.

For that keyword there's a bunch of them with a dmoz listing. That alone tells us there's some strong sites in there. Since some of them have the keyword in the url, title and desc there's at least a handful of them targeted for the keyword, one of which has a dmoz listing.

I can't see you getting anywhere except maybe with the spam gone wild, providing you have an aged domain.

 

[davids355]

Thanks for the info blueturtle
I thought search results and quoted search results gave a rough idea of how many sites were optimized for the keyword.

OK, in the top ten there are:
5 authority sites (Wikipedia, national newspaper 2 regulatory bodys and yahoo).
2 exact match domains
1 plural of exact match domain
2 other sites that I compete with

 

[Getwhatchuwant]

Another one I will be following David!

BTW I think someone else started a thread similar maybe a month ago, however I have not seen it pop up at all.

I know you will keep it going though.

 

[FuryKyle]

That's freaking tough competition man. 700k backlinks?

 

[pokerjk]

Will be tough be most things are doable in life if you know how. Good luck and please post the services you use.

 

[davids355]

I know the competition is tough. It will be interesting to give it a go though
There is another very similar keyword: "addition keyword" I am ranking #9 for that and 6 of the same sites (including the 1 with 700k) are in the top ten with me

 

[davids355]

I know the competition is tough. It will be interesting to give it a go though
There is another very similar keyword: "addition keyword" I am ranking #9 for that and 6 of the same sites (including the 1 with 700k) are in the top ten with me

And that is with no SEO done at all for the page.

 

[Daedorax]

This will be very tough but I will be following it closely!!! Keep us posted often and Good Luck!

 

[DoubleD3]

You can rank for this High Competitive Keyword all you need a High Quality Backlinks along with patience and you will surely Rank in the 1st page of Google..
Best of luck..
Post the services you use..

 

[jon_xx_x]

If you're not ranking, or don't have a chance of ranking #1 or #2, you're wasting your time. I'd really look at the top 3 rankings and see if you have any chance to beat them before wasting time on this.

60,000 exacts is really not as good as it sounds. That's 2,000 searches per day, meaning if you're #1 you'll get about 800-1000 visitors a day, and if you're #2, you'll probably get anywhere from 250-500 visitors a day. Is that really worth it?
I have:
#7 ranking for 650,000+ exact term per month, gets under 1000 visitors a day.
#1 for 150,000+ exact, gets just over 1,000 visitors, should be a lot more.
#2 for 165,000 exact
#3 for a different 165,000 exact
#4 for a 110,000 exact
#5 and #6 for another 165,000 exact

For the time, money and effort to get them there, it's really not worth it. You're better off going for a 8000-10000 exact term, where you know you can get #1. Then move on to similar keywords.

Outside the top 3 (top 2 even) for a 60,000 exact keyword, you'll probably get under 100 visitors a day.

 

[PowerToTHePeople]

If you're not ranking, or don't have a chance of ranking #1 or #2, you're wasting your time. I'd really look at the top 3 rankings and see if you have any chance to beat them before wasting time on this.

60,000 exacts is really not as good as it sounds. That's 2,000 searches per day, meaning if you're #1 you'll get about 800-1000 visitors a day, and if you're #2, you'll probably get anywhere from 250-500 visitors a day. Is that really worth it?
I have:
#7 ranking for 650,000+ exact term per month, gets under 1000 visitors a day.
#1 for 150,000+ exact, gets just over 1,000 visitors, should be a lot more.
#2 for 165,000 exact
#3 for a different 165,000 exact
#4 for a 110,000 exact
#5 and #6 for another 165,000 exact

For the time, money and effort to get them there, it's really not worth it. You're better off going for a 8000-10000 exact term, where you know you can get #1. Then move on to similar keywords.

Outside the top 3 (top 2 even) for a 60,000 exact keyword, you'll probably get under 100 visitors a day.

thats a good point, you have to think in terms of long term investment, also the cost and time of getting there.

 

[Getwhatchuwant]

If you're not ranking, or don't have a chance of ranking #1 or #2, you're wasting your time. I'd really look at the top 3 rankings and see if you have any chance to beat them before wasting time on this.

60,000 exacts is really not as good as it sounds. That's 2,000 searches per day, meaning if you're #1 you'll get about 800-1000 visitors a day, and if you're #2, you'll probably get anywhere from 250-500 visitors a day. Is that really worth it?
I have:
#7 ranking for 650,000+ exact term per month, gets under 1000 visitors a day.
#1 for 150,000+ exact, gets just over 1,000 visitors, should be a lot more.
#2 for 165,000 exact
#3 for a different 165,000 exact
#4 for a 110,000 exact
#5 and #6 for another 165,000 exact

For the time, money and effort to get them there, it's really not worth it. You're better off going for a 8000-10000 exact term, where you know you can get #1. Then move on to similar keywords.

Outside the top 3 (top 2 even) for a 60,000 exact keyword, you'll probably get under 100 visitors a day.

Depends on the words and the method you use to monetize. For instance if you are targeting a business niche and you land on the 1st page and see people paying adwords for the same KW you may be able to convince them that either buying your site or hiring you for SEO would be a good investment.

 

[davids355]

If you're not ranking, or don't have a chance of ranking #1 or #2, you're wasting your time. I'd really look at the top 3 rankings and see if you have any chance to beat them before wasting time on this.

60,000 exacts is really not as good as it sounds. That's 2,000 searches per day, meaning if you're #1 you'll get about 800-1000 visitors a day, and if you're #2, you'll probably get anywhere from 250-500 visitors a day. Is that really worth it?
I have:
#7 ranking for 650,000+ exact term per month, gets under 1000 visitors a day.
#1 for 150,000+ exact, gets just over 1,000 visitors, should be a lot more.
#2 for 165,000 exact
#3 for a different 165,000 exact
#4 for a 110,000 exact
#5 and #6 for another 165,000 exact

For the time, money and effort to get them there, it's really not worth it. You're better off going for a 8000-10000 exact term, where you know you can get #1. Then move on to similar keywords.

Outside the top 3 (top 2 even) for a 60,000 exact keyword, you'll probably get under 100 visitors a day.

Good point, I was thinking about that.
I estimate 100 visitors a day would be worth $300-$400 per month for me in adsense, lots more if I get CPA going - my goal is to get involved in a custom CPA agreement with the biggest Uk retailer in my industry, at the moment we are too small to interest them.

That's partly why I'm going for big keywords.

Having said that I am a noob compared to most here, so it's sort of a learning curve

Didn't even know what keyword research was 6 months ago

 

[mcgoohan6]

If you're not ranking, or don't have a chance of ranking #1 or #2, you're wasting your time. I'd really look at the top 3 rankings and see if you have any chance to beat them before wasting time on this.

60,000 exacts is really not as good as it sounds. That's 2,000 searches per day, meaning if you're #1 you'll get about 800-1000 visitors a day, and if you're #2, you'll probably get anywhere from 250-500 visitors a day. Is that really worth it?
I have:
#7 ranking for 650,000+ exact term per month, gets under 1000 visitors a day.
#1 for 150,000+ exact, gets just over 1,000 visitors, should be a lot more.
#2 for 165,000 exact
#3 for a different 165,000 exact
#4 for a 110,000 exact
#5 and #6 for another 165,000 exact

For the time, money and effort to get them there, it's really not worth it. You're better off going for a 8000-10000 exact term, where you know you can get #1. Then move on to similar keywords.

Outside the top 3 (top 2 even) for a 60,000 exact keyword, you'll probably get under 100 visitors a day.

I think it partly depends on how much potential he has for earnings from the visitors he gets. If we are talking about adsense then it might not be worth the effort. But if he is monetizing with affiliate commissions that are based on a percentage of the sale (and if his site is geared toward buyers, not just information seekers) it could be worth it.

You can't just look at the puzzle from one perspective, you have to take into consideration the monetization of the visitors you can get.

 

[BlueTurtle]

Thanks for the info blueturtle
I thought search results and quoted search results gave a rough idea of how many sites were optimized for the keyword.

OK, in the top ten there are:
5 authority sites (Wikipedia, national newspaper 2 regulatory bodys and yahoo).
2 exact match domains
1 plural of exact match domain
2 other sites that I compete with

You're welcome.

Yeah, the quoted search results is really just some sort of extrapolation they make based on some unknown factors. There's usually not many highly targeted pages for a keyword unless it's very broad, but for broad pages it's hard to be "highly targeted" anyway.

If there's a couple of emds in there then that's a good sign that it's not too crazy. If those strong sites are newspapers then that's also good, as newspapers are generally very broad and wouldn't compete with a strong authority site.

Although a newspaper is a sort of 'authority site'. It's more of an authority on general things. What you want to look out for are authority sites in the exact niche. Those general authority sites are ranking more because they're strong, rather than hugely relevant.

You can beat them by being hugely relevant, and not quite so strong. Ranking is a factor of both relevancy and strength, a distinction a lot fail to make and one that's crucial for determining competition and how you should approach getting on page 1.

The regulatory bodies are tough ones. Who's sitting where exactly?

ie 1) regulatory body 1. 2) wikipedia. 3) newspaper1 and so on..

That'll give us an idea of how relevance of the sites to the keyword. If wikipedia and the newspapers sitting at in the top 3 then they'll be quite relevant to the keyword which will make them hard to beat.

If the regulatory bodies are 1-2 with wiki/newspapers 3-5, and the rest 5-10 then it means you can get number 3-5 by being extremely relevant(on page seo with strong lsi keywords + keyword in anchor text with lsi keywords there too + backlinks from relevant sites), and of course still having some good link juice/power, but with your increased relevancy you won't need as much "power/juice" as wikipedia/newspapers.

 

[davids355]

You're welcome.

Yeah, the quoted search results is really just some sort of extrapolation they make based on some unknown factors. There's usually not many highly targeted pages for a keyword unless it's very broad, but for broad pages it's hard to be "highly targeted" anyway.

If there's a couple of emds in there then that's a good sign that it's not too crazy. If those strong sites are newspapers then that's also good, as newspapers are generally very broad and wouldn't compete with a strong authority site.

Although a newspaper is a sort of 'authority site'. It's more of an authority on general things. What you want to look out for are authority sites in the exact niche. Those general authority sites are ranking more because they're strong, rather than hugely relevant.

You can beat them by being hugely relevant, and not quite so strong. Ranking is a factor of both relevancy and strength, a distinction a lot fail to make and one that's crucial for determining competition and how you should approach getting on page 1.

The regulatory bodies are tough ones. Who's sitting where exactly?

ie 1) regulatory body 1. 2) wikipedia. 3) newspaper1 and so on..

That'll give us an idea of how relevance of the sites to the keyword. If wikipedia and the newspapers sitting at in the top 3 then they'll be quite relevant to the keyword which will make them hard to beat.

If the regulatory bodies are 1-2 with wiki/newspapers 3-5, and the rest 5-10 then it means you can get number 3-5 by being extremely relevant(on page seo with strong lsi keywords + keyword in anchor text with lsi keywords there too + backlinks from relevant sites), and of course still having some good link juice/power, but with your increased relevancy you won't need as much "power/juice" as wikipedia/newspapers.

In order:

Regulatory body
Competitor
Emd
Competitor
Yahoo
Emd
Newspaper
Regulatory body
Emd
Wikipedia

 

[BlueTurtle]

If you're not ranking, or don't have a chance of ranking #1 or #2, you're wasting your time. I'd really look at the top 3 rankings and see if you have any chance to beat them before wasting time on this.

60,000 exacts is really not as good as it sounds. That's 2,000 searches per day, meaning if you're #1 you'll get about 800-1000 visitors a day, and if you're #2, you'll probably get anywhere from 250-500 visitors a day. Is that really worth it?
I have:
#7 ranking for 650,000+ exact term per month, gets under 1000 visitors a day.
#1 for 150,000+ exact, gets just over 1,000 visitors, should be a lot more.
#2 for 165,000 exact
#3 for a different 165,000 exact
#4 for a 110,000 exact
#5 and #6 for another 165,000 exact

For the time, money and effort to get them there, it's really not worth it. You're better off going for a 8000-10000 exact term, where you know you can get #1. Then move on to similar keywords.

Outside the top 3 (top 2 even) for a 60,000 exact keyword, you'll probably get under 100 visitors a day.

It all just depends on how much money you can make out of each unique. You can make a lot of money out of 50 uniques a day if you're shit hot at copywriting.

Most people don't spend ANY time reading about copywriting and getting sales in general. Everyone just focuses on traffic and all the traffic in the world(well, maybe with *all* of it you would won't make you money if you can't convert.

It does of course depend on the keyword, but people are people. If you've got people coming to your site you can make money out of them, no matter what. Anyone can make money out of highly commercial, targeted searches, but it's the good copywriters that can make money out of general traffic, or people who weren't looking to buy.

It's not that hard either. People are always potential sales, anywhere, anytime. That's how the high street shops make their money. People don't sit at home writing a list of things they're going
to buy, they just head out for a day at the shops, then end up seeing a ton of stuff they 'want' or 'need'.


1000+ uniques a day is huge. If you're not making a good living from that then you need to start studying the top copywriters.

Depends on the words and the method you use to monetize. For instance if you are targeting a business niche and you land on the 1st page and see people paying adwords for the same KW you may be able to convince them that either buying your site or hiring you for SEO would be a good investment.

Just learn to sell and you'll never think of running an SEO company or selling your site to anyone again. Running an SEO company or selling a site is small money compared to what you can make if you can convert people on your pages yourself. You'll also do far less work. Once you've setup the page you can hit the beach and sip mojitos Running an SEO company is an on-going full time job, where the more clients you have the more work you need to do. You can hire employees, but it's still much more work/time/hassle than just doing an amazing landing page and converting people directly into $$$.

 

[davids355]

Agree with the above definitely. Our traffic does convert, we sell some physical products as well, and they sell pretty well to our current visitors.

Have been thinking about hiring someone specifically for sales strategy though - it's something I'm terrible at

Anyway, got to try these things - If it fails then hopefully I'll still learn something