EP14 YouTube

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. Timestamps 0:33 Back for another episode — Dale and Liam reunite 0:47 This week's topic: what does brand-aware search actually measure? 1:08 Liam's starting point: years of branded search data 1:53 How a few B2C examples became a universal rule 2:25 A tub of yogurt versus a multimillion-dollar ERP system 3:01 You can't outsource your thinking — to research or to AI 3:45 The original claim: share of search reflects share of market 4:50 Share of search as a stand-in for share of voice 5:29 Brands do not grow: market share barely moves 6:30 When a leader stumbles: the password management example 7:53 It's actually measuring a lot of other useful things 8:24 Slides: when share of search does track market share 8:54 Product parity, price parity and how things are sold 10:37 The supermarket with an unwatched back door 11:41 No door-to-door detergent salesmen 12:24 Price discrepancy: $20 versus $200,000 13:15 Volume: one search, a thousand licenses 14:16 Microsoft Office, Exxon and 100,000-fold basket sizes 15:10 Drinks, houses and boxes of Tide: why B2C variance is small 16:31 Ehrenberg's own caution about uniform basket size 17:01 Light and heavy buyers in B2B search data 17:46 Free trials: noise that inflates search volume 18:35 Penetration is not revenue 20:43 Partners, procurement and cross-selling: revenue that never searches 21:42 Liam's in-house story: the vendor that sold itself in 22:29 Ideal conditions versus the typical B2B picture 23:35 Real data: the social media management category 23:59 Buffer versus Sprout Social: volume versus value 25:54 Nearly half the search volume, about 1% of the revenue 27:16 Sprout Social: branded search down, revenue up 28:17 Two stories: the company picture and the category demand picture 29:03 Growth from bigger contracts, not more customers 31:08 Detergent for families with 12 kids 32:37 Penetration and market share are two different things 33:06 HubSpot's users versus Salesforce's money 33:43 “Our revenue's never been better” 34:37 Hightouch and the declining CDP category 35:51 Defining penetration: the Tide example 36:55 HubSpot: 50% greater penetration, a fraction of the revenue 38:00 The Fortune 1000: 85% versus 0.4% 39:34 Where a brand's revenue actually comes from 41:28 Audience question: can you segment around the variances? 42:14 Branded search as a measure of demand 43:37 Fax machines and Ricoh: share up, category collapsing 46:02 Category demand: missing from B2B conversations 46:22 The bowtie and trying to outrun a lack of new business 47:50 The 95:5 rule and stationary markets 48:33 Why laundry detergent grows at about 2% a year 50:26 Dynamic tech categories: fax machines and CRM 51:45 Conditional win probability and the odds a lead is in market 52:37 Why a hot category makes you look like a genius 53:01 Televisions and the 8K flop 54:14 When good enough is good enough 54:59 Marketing automation and mechanical lead scoring 55:16 The lessons: active demand and category health 56:25 B2B demo software and a 99:1 market 57:11 NFTs and the crypto bros 58:04 Wrapping up Key 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 Subscribe & Follow Catch every episode of B2B Effectiveness: Evidence-Based Marketing Ideas for B2B Practitioners on your favorite podcast platform, and subscribe here on YouTube for future episodes. #B2Bmarketing #ShareOfSearch #MarketingEffectiveness #BrandMarketing