TRAFFIC
However, one interesting outlier is ‘online
bingo sites’, which returns 14% fewer bingo
affiliates on mobile as it does on desktop.
into new gambling verticals, such as slots
and casinos.
How can Google tell the difference?
Top-performing bingo affiliate sites
Despite the obvious challenges, there are
some bingo affiliates achieving success
across a range of generic keywords
analysed, although exposure is far more
limited for the unmodified phrases.
WhichBingo is the most dominant
affiliate across all generic keyword groups
and devices, followed by Bingoport,
BestNewBingoSites.co.uk and OnlineBingo.
co.uk (see Figures 4 and 5).
There is still a lot of ground to make
up in the battle for generic search equality.
Even WhichBingo occupies only 25 of
2,000 possible ranking positions on desktop
and just 34 on mobile.
Two key questions remain:
1. Why (and how) are affiliates being
excluded from broader generic
search results?
2. What can affiliates do to overcome the
inherent search bias?
I do not believe that the answer lies wholly
in branded keywords, but in our ability as
affiliates to serve a wider range of player
intents with our content and to diversify
Figure 4: Top performing bingo
affiliates (all generics/desktop)
SITE
In his article, Nick argues that SERP click-
through rates are most likely responsible for
the filtering out of affiliate sites from pure
generic keywords.
This may well be a contributing factor,
but in order to measure the relative click-
through rates of operators and affiliates,
Google needs to show both. The fact that
Google doesn’t return a single affiliate
result for the term ‘bingo’ and only returns
three for ‘online bingo’, suggests that other
forces are at play.
If not, you would have to agree that
Google is using historic CTR data, possibly
years old, to rank sites. Given the frequency
that Google tests and tweaks its algorithm, it’s
hard to believe that is the actually the case.
The myth of good user experience and CTR
You’ll often hear that if you focus on
your users, SEO will take care of itself.
This is analogous to saying that if you’re
driving a car and focusing only on the
wellbeing of your passengers, you’ll get
to your destination without looking
at the road.
Figure 5: Top performing bingo
affiliates (all generics/mobile)
NO. OF
RANKING
KEYWORDS
SITE
NO. OF
RANKING
KEYWORDS
1 whichbingo.co.uk 25 1 whichbingo.co.uk 34
2 bestnewbingosites.co.uk 16 2 onlinebingo.co.uk 16
3 bingomum.co.uk 15 3 bestnewbingosites.co.uk 15
4 onlinebingo.co.uk 15 4 bingomum.co.uk 15
5 bingoport.co.uk 14 5 bingoport.co.uk 14
6 bestoffersbingo.co.uk 11 6 boomtownbingo.com 14
7 bingotastic.com 11 7 bingotastic.com 12
8 freebingo.co.uk 11 8 busybeebingo.co.uk 12
9 loquax.co.uk 11 9 loquax.co.uk 12
10 twolittlefleas.co.uk 11 10 bestoffersbingo.co.uk 11
The truth is, you can’t on one hand
argue that it’s click-through rate causing
the generic exclusion of affiliates and,
then on the other, argue that good user
experience is the key to achieving it.
That particular point of view assumes
that there is no situation online where
an affiliate site could provide a good
experience for users searching for pure
generic keywords. This is simply not true.
An affiliate website appearing for the
term ‘online bingo’, could indeed offer
a lot of value to a user.
Affiliate sites would (in most cases):
- Provide a simple way for players to
compare site quality and bonus offers
- Provide detailed information and
advice about playing bingo online
- Provide specialist insight into the
experiences players can expect
(Google is not a bingo expert)
- Allow players to tailor their search
to their personal bingo preferences
Compare this to many of the operator sites
currently ranking on page one for the term:
- Basic bonus-orientated landing pages
with limited supporting content
(except T&Cs)
- Single brand options with no way
of comparing value
- The same white-label experiences
shared across hundreds of other sites
on a network
It is very hard to imagine a scenario where
an affiliate site offers such little value to
searchers, compared to operators, to the
extent that its CTR, bounce rate and
other usability factors are impacted
significantly enough for it not to rank in
the top 100 results.
The success or failure of an SEO
strategy is never due to a single ranking
factor. Rankings are the consequence
of an algorithmic analysis of multiple
data points across multiple site areas.
To suggest that CTR, site usability, links
or content are magic bullets is to neglect
the fundamentals that have underpinned
search since the beginning.
iGB Affiliate Issue 63 JUN/JUL 2017
11