Promotion cost study: WebEffector, Seopult, RooKee

To date, there are 5 systems of automatic website promotion, 4 of them are basic, add-ons over link exchanges (WebEffector, Rookee, Seopult, Megaindex), and also 1 independent - MainLink.

We do not take into account the Maremoto, as not well-founded and poorly studied, niche development.

Of course, the main quality parameter of aggregators is the effectiveness of moving a project to the TOP for a specified amount, as soon as possible.

There is also a minor factor, which for some may be paramount - the budget for promoting the request .

So, we will analyze 3 reference aggregators - WebEffector, Rookee, Seopult. We want to see and compare the cost of promotion requests, as well as to obtain additional information from these systems.

As I unsubscribed a little higher - Maremoto is not taken into account, the Mega-Index is also a niche, not massive, Mainlink worthy of a separate review, which will be done in the future.

500 competitive queries were selected , on the basis of which a core was formed, which was evaluated by all three reference aggregators.

WebEffector - we get the following data:

• Geo-dependency
• Promotional budget.
• Predicted traffic on request.
• CPC - the cost of the transition.

Seopult - we get the following data:

• Budget promotion.
• Predicted traffic on request.
• CPC - the cost of the transition.

Rookee - get the data:

• Promotional budget.
• Request promotion strategy (VC, HF, SC, MF, NK, LF).

Also programmatically, we calculate the standard data that is embedded in our favorite and free program for analyzing keywords:

• Frequency (word, "word", "! Word").
• Seasonality request.
• The structure of traffic (in which search engines).

And additionally summarize the information:

• Maximum keyword promotion budget.
• Average keyword promotion budget.

Naturally, the maximum and average numbers are summarized based on the data of reference aggregators.

We will try to find out where the prices are higher and where they are less. We also summarize the cost of promoting ALL 500 requests in these automatic promotion systems, just for statistics. The region for all requests is one - Moscow.

Analysis data can be downloaded and viewed in detail each of the requests.

In the study of 500 competitive inquiries, the Key Collector program was used, which is a “continuation” of the free version of a previously released program, with only added functionality and not yet publicly available, but we are studying demand to estimate the market’s “capacity”.

We decided not to release it in the free version, because this will lead to a global parsing of reference aggregators, overloading them, which we don’t want to do.

We will definitely write a detailed post about the Key Collector , but for now, evaluate the functionality.

So, the results of the study showed that with the same approach to estimating the reference budget, there are quite significant differences. Which is natural, because each of the systems has its own formula, refined based on the experience of analysts.

We also identified requests that were evaluated with a "glitch" and clearly do not correspond or weakly correlate with reality, but I repeat - more often these are glitches than errors. In the statistics that we have laid out - you will find such requests yourself.

All data on 500 requests were collected by the program within 2 hours and 10 minutes , of course, you can remove timeouts, load aggregators and Yandex, but we did not pursue such a goal. During the analysis, I never caught a captcha on any of the services.

The table is sorted by the average cost of moving a keyword.

The average cost of promoting all 500 requests in aggregators would be 4,440,430 rubles , and the maximum would be 7,161,041 rubles .

• The cost of promotion in the WebEffector would be 3,209,000 rubles .
• The cost of promotion in Seopult would be 5 520 600 rubles .
• The cost of promotion in Rookee would be 4 514 206 rubles .

In principle, download the file with the analysis data, draw your own conclusions, for this we did this study, for this we wrote the Key Collector .