---
title: "Google's own numbers: structured data lifted CTR 25-82%"
url: https://seomadman.com/studies/structured-data-ctr-google-case-studies
section: studies
published: 2026-07-27T00:00:00.000Z
modified: 2026-07-27T00:00:00.000Z
author: Adam Hafez
topics: ["Structured data"]
---

# Google's own numbers: structured data lifted CTR 25-82%

## The short answer

Google's own structured data documentation states that Rotten Tomatoes measured a 25% higher click-through rate after adding structured data to 100,000 pages, and Nestle measured an 82% higher click-through rate on pages that appear as rich results. Google gives no dates, sample sizes or markup types beyond those headline figures for either company.

## Key takeaways

- Google's own structured data documentation reports Rotten Tomatoes measured a 25% higher click-through rate after adding structured data to 100,000 unique pages.
- The same Google page reports Nestle measured an 82% higher click-through rate on pages that appear as rich results in search, versus pages that do not.
- Google also credits the Food Network with a 35% increase in visits after converting 80% of its pages to enable search features, on the same page.
- Google discloses no timeframe, sample size, markup type or methodology for any of the three figures beyond the headline percentage.
- These are Google's own selected success stories, not a random or controlled sample, so they show structured data can help, not what a typical site should expect.

Two numbers get quoted constantly in structured data pitches: Rotten Tomatoes at 25% higher
click-through rate, Nestle at 82%. Both come from Google itself, not from a third party summarizing
Google. Here is exactly where they live, what Google does and does not disclose about them, and why
citing Google's own greatest hits is not the same as citing a representative study.

## What Google's own page actually says

**Three companies, one paragraph.** Google's structured data documentation states plainly: "Rotten
Tomatoes added structured data to 100,000 unique pages and measured a 25% higher click-through rate"
for the enhanced pages versus pages without structured data. The same paragraph adds that "Nestle
has measured pages that show as rich results in search have an 82% higher click-through rate than
non-rich result pages," and that "the Food Network has converted 80% of their pages to enable search
features, and has seen a 35% increase in visits." All three sentences sit on the same Google Search
Central page, not on separate dedicated case-study pages the way Google's Rakuten recipe case study
does.

**No dates, no markup type, no sample window.** Google names the outcome and, for Rotten Tomatoes,
the page count, and stops there. There is no disclosed year, no named schema type (movie, review,
recipe or otherwise), no control methodology and no confidence interval for any of the three
figures. A reader can verify that Google states the number; a reader cannot verify how Google's
partners arrived at it.

## Why this is evidence structured data can help, not a typical result

**These are Google's own selected success stories.** Google chose to publish these three examples
out of every site that has ever added structured data. That is survivorship bias by construction:
sites with a flat or negative result after adding markup have no reason to appear on a vendor's own
promotional page, and Google has no obligation to publish them if they did. A 25% or 82% lift is
real for the site that reported it, but nothing here says it is the median, the average, or even a
common outcome.

**Different markup, different rich result, different starting point.** Rotten Tomatoes' figure
plausibly comes from review or aggregate rating markup surfacing star ratings in search; Nestle's
figure is framed around whatever specific rich result Nestle's recipe or product pages earn. A site
adding FAQ markup to thin pages, or organization markup to a homepage, is not adding the same thing
these companies added, and should not expect the same multiplier.

## Why we care

**Cite the source, not the number in isolation.** "Structured data increases CTR by up to 82%,
according to Google" is defensible; "structured data increases CTR by 82%" is not, because it drops
the fact that Nestle's figure describes Nestle's rich results, not a universal constant. Link to
Google's own page when quoting either figure, since that is the only place either number is
verifiable.

**Treat the lack of methodology as a limit on the claim, not a reason to ignore it.** Google
publishing these figures at all is meaningful: it is Google's own documentation, not a marketing
blog's paraphrase, and Google has no incentive to overstate a competitor's or partner's result.
But a case study built for a doc page is not a substitute for measuring your own before-and-after
click-through rate once you ship structured data on your own site.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does Google say when these results were measured?

No. Google's structured data documentation states the Rotten Tomatoes, Nestle and Food Network figures without a date, timeframe or sample period. Treat the percentages as Google-verified but undated.

### Are these figures from independent, controlled experiments?

No. Google presents them as summaries volunteered by the companies themselves, not as findings from a controlled study Google ran. There is no control group, no significance test and no disclosed methodology.

### Where can I read the original source myself?

Google's own structured data introduction page at developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/intro-structured-data states all three figures directly, with a link to Google's separate case-studies index for other, unrelated case studies.

## Sources

1. [Intro to How Structured Data Markup Works](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/intro-structured-data) - Google Search Central (primary)
2. [SEO Case Studies and Success Stories](https://developers.google.com/search/case-studies) - Google Search Central