Numbers – Typosquatting Study Variables

FairWinds recently released a study that calculated the cost of typosquatting for the brands behind the 250 most highly trafficked websites.  The total included costs from visitor acquisitions, lost sales and impressions and also recovery of typosquatted domain names, and came out to $327 million per year.

A major source of losses for brand owners is pay-per-click (PPC) sites; when a company invests in paid search, its ads appear on PPC and other websites in addition to the search engine’s results pages.  When an Internet user clicks on the sponsored link, either on the search engine site or another site, the company pays a click fee.  When an Internet user makes a typo or keystroke error while trying to reach a brand’s website and lands on a typosquatted domain site that is leveraging PPC to monetize traffic, we have found there is an 18% chance he or she will click on the targeted brand’s link (meaning the brand suffers a loss in the form of a click fee for gaining the visitor) and a 7% chance he or she will click on a competitor’s link (meaning the brand suffers a loss in the form of diversion while another advertiser pays the cost-per-click (CPC) and picks up the visitor).  The formulas that we used to calculate those losses are as follows:

For users who click on the targeted brand’s link:
18% x (Annual traffic per domain) x (Average CPC) = Advertising costs for the target brand

For users who click on a competitor’s link:
7% x (Annual traffic per domain) x (Average CPC) = Advertising costs for the target brand’s competitor

Originally in our calculations, we used an average CPC of $2.74 for each formula.  Given that we could calculate the CPC for the specific keywords in this study of 250 sites, we leveraged today’s Google estimates for each keyword CPC rather than looking at an historical average for a broad range of keywords.  Because there was a range of CPC and traffic values that could have created bias, we then extracted the weighted average CPC across the dataset.  We determined that $2.03 was the weighted average CPC for all the sites included in our study and therefore, $2.03 is the actual cost the site owners incur when a visitor lands on a typosquatted parked page and clicks on their link. Ultimately, this is the amount of money paid by the advertiser and shared by the contextual Internet advertising provider and the owner of the domain (and sometimes an intermediate party such as a domain parking company).

Obviously, this reconsideration alters our final calculation somewhat.  With the new average CPC, the total cost from ad clicks on typosquatted PPC sites in our study is $187,288,458 per year.  When added to the costs of lost sales and impressions, plus domain recovery costs, the re-calculated total cost of typosquatting is $364,276,874 per year.

If it’s not already apparent in the scope of this study, this figure applies to the 250 sites that we studied, and is not a comprehensive measure of all typosquatting (that figure would obviously be much greater).  To read the updated paper with an in-depth discussion of the damage that typosquatting inflicts on the 250 most trafficked websites, visit the FairWinds site for the entire paper, including discussion of how we calculated the sample set CPC.

Windows Catering Company is Run by a Genius: Catering.com

I was driving with my family to Nationals Park to see the Nats play the San Francisco Giants on Sunday, when I noticed a Windows Catering truck drive by. As it passed, (because I can’t help myself) I noticed the company’s domain name displayed on the side of truck. Again, because I can’t help myself, I asked my wife to slow down so I could take a picture of the truck for this post. I knew that a local business using a name like CATERING.COM would make a dynamite blog post. Alas, the truck pulled off at Navy Yard before I could call up the camera function on my BlackBerry. (I wish I had gotten the photo; if we can get a picture from the catering company, I will update this post later.)

It’s likely that the domain name windows.com was not available when the catering company first looked to “get online,” for obvious reasons (think Microsoft). So Windows Catering had to come up with an alternative domain name.

I wish I knew the story of how they came to acquire this domain name because it’s extremely valuable. I routinely run valuations for my clients and research how much domains are trading for in the domain aftermarket. I think a domain like catering.com could easily fetch between $1 million and $3 million today.

Why? Because catering.com likely garners a fair amount of type-in traffic, but it also has a unique ability to rank well in organic search results. Google and Bing (especially) assign page rank to older domains with keyword-to-domain root parity and sites linking in, so this domain has special attributes that earn it “search love.” This means that with even a modest SEO investment in the website itself, search engines are likely to assign it a high placement in organic search results. This gives the domain/website maximum visibility and increases the opportunity for it to earn organic click-throughs, without the incremental costs associated with paid search. Internet users broadly search the term “catering” over 16,000,000 times per month, and each time, they see catering.com among the top results.

This high rank not only drives traffic to Windows Catering from local D.C. searches, but it also introduces the brand to the wider U.S. search audience by delivering their impression to searchers throughout the country. For another example of how this works, go to google.co.uk and search for “catering.” You will see a UK company that owns a different domain with “search love,” caterer.com – this site’s owner has earned the top position in organic search in the UK because the domain has a Google page rank score of “5.” (In comparison, Guinness.com and Cadbury.com each have a Google page rank of “6,” despite being much better known brands.)

Smartly, Windows Catering also owns WindowsCatering.com, which it redirects to catering.com, for those customers who are familiar with the brand and search for it directly.

I think that this is a great example of the positive effects that a well-chosen domain name can have on a company. Sometimes unbranded domains can enhance a brand strategy, and not just for smaller players like Windows Catering. Just look at what Toys.com and Mortgage.com have done for Toys “R” Us owner Geoffrey, LLC and Citigroup, respectively.

UPDATE: Windows Catering got in touch after reading this post and sent over a picture of the catering truck that a fan had posted on Twitter:

Catering

The other night, I was at dinner with my wife and she pointed out that, in addition to the usual sweeteners (sugar, Equal, Splenda, etc), the restaurant also had a stevia sweetener.  I had not heard of stevia before, and was unfamiliar with this particular brand, Stevia Extract in the Raw (SEITR), so I picked up the packet to take a look.

Stevia1

Stevia is a plant with sweet leaves from which a low-calorie sweetener can be derived.  It’s regarded as a more natural alternative to artificial sugar substitutes like Equal and Sweet-n-Low.  SEITR’s parent company, Cumberland Packing Corp, also owns Sugar in the Raw, a popular brand of unrefined sugar.  Presumably, the brand name was chosen based on the “Sugar in the Raw” convention.

On the back of the packet, I quickly noticed the domain name: SteviaExtractInTheRaw.com.  Even though this is simply the brand name appended with .COM, it’s a terrible domain name, mostly because it is so long.  Also, it’s very easy to overlook the word “Extract,” because it is in such a smaller font, tucked under “Stevia,” meaning consumers will be likely to forget to include it when typing the domain name and they might assume, like I did, that “Stevia” is the brand name.

Unfortunately, Stevia.com has already been taken by another company, Healthworld Online, Inc., an online resource for health and wellness information. The site heavily promotes another brand of stevia sweetener: SweetLeaf.

Here’s a screenshot:

Stevia2

Luckily though, Cumberland Packing Corp also owns SteviaInTheRaw.com and points it to the main SEITR site.  This is a better domain name than SteviaExtractInTheRaw.com because it is shorter and because, based on the logo, it is more intuitive for consumers.  Additionally, it reinforces the ties to the sister brand, Sugar in the Raw.  I think brands should be conscious of these issues and focus on making it easier for consumers to access their content online.  One way SEITR could do this would be to promote SteviaInTheRaw.com as its primary domain name.  Another way the company could gain considerable competitive advantages is to acquire stevia.com and own the category online.