Connecting to LinkedIn...

[Commentary] AMP responsible for 60 per cent of publisher’s mobile traffic

3 months ago by Matt Comber

W1siziisijiwmtcvmdmvmtmvmdkvmzevndqvnzgvyw1wymxvzy5qcgcixsxbinailcj0ahvtyiisijiymdb4njawxhuwmdnjil0swyjwiiwib3b0aw1pemuixv0

We’ve spoken recently about Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) and what they mean for recruiters and their websites, and the feedback we received was that a large number of people still don’t really understand what impact it has in the ‘real world’. Let’s be clear, AMP has entered the mainstream and the conversation needs to open up a lot more on the topics.

Context

Around 2 years ago, we started to see large changes to the traffic distribution on our client's recruitment websites, with mobile taking up a much more even percentage of overall traffic. This was a shift from standard mobile traffic to ‘mobile optimised’ pages. We directly saw a 30% increase in our client’s website’s overall traffic due to the fact that we had built only mobile responsive websites. AMP is the next evolution of this. 

This is no better demonstrated than Digiday’s recent article detailing the Guardian’s success with AMP. Like many publishers, the Guardian has readily adopted AMP (Google’s answer to Facebook Instant Articles) and is reaping the rewards. So much so that 60 percent of the Guardian’s mobile traffic is AMP – a huge success when you consider that other news publishers generally get 10 to 15 percent of AMP mobile traffic. 

As Digiday points out, AMP pages are two percent more likely to be clicked, and the subsequent click through to non-AMP pages is 8.6 per cent higher than on regular mobile pages. Natalia Baltazar, a developer for the Guardian, reinforces this in the article by saying that “more and more users seem to be recognising the lightning bolt of Facebook Instant Articles and AMP,” and that “they know the page will load instantly.” 

Interestingly, the article goes on to say that some publishers are averse to AMP because of the losses in ad revenue when compared to regular mobile pages. Not for the Guardian. Digiday reports that the Guardian’s ad rates on its AMP pages are within five percent of its regular mobile pages. This is further backed up by Baltazar, who says that ad viewability is actually higher for the Guardian’s AMP pages as ads load at a much quicker rate than they do on regular mobile pages.

How does this apply to recruitment websites?

It is clear that Google is giving precedence to AMP. We can’t stress enough how much weight is behind this technology for mobile and have started to see non-blog pages listing in the search results which are AMP optimised. I strongly believe that job pages which are AMP will become big business in the near future. These pages are perfectly AMP’able (I’ll claim that word as my own!) and from a user experience perspective should be served up quickly, which is what AMP specialises in. 

If you are writing a brief for your next website, I would 100% ensure that your provider is able to provide AMP support. It’s not good enough anymore to sit back and hope that your website might be ok, you need positive future-proof action. The future landscape for mobile, I am sure, will be strongly driven by AMP job pages, something which in real terms is not being adopted yet. 

What we think this article demonstrates is the real, practical and tangible benefits of AMP. Technology changes so quickly that users can often become cynical when it comes to actually seeing the benefits of these innovations. As proven by the Guardian, AMP is an incredibly effective tool for improving the user experience. Particularly as the success of AMP has prompted the Guardian to redesign its mobile site and pages to enhance the user’s experience.