Hi pals, I heared about some technique a while ago, and today I heard about it again, twice. One of the places that I read about it, was here. Basically, this technique says that instead of segmanting to adgroups, I should segmant my keywords into campaigns. It says that inside my campaigns (That are AdGroups like) I should set up an adgroup for each UNIQUE keyword, inside the AdGroup I should have all the 3 match types of the keyword. What dou you think about that? In your opinion, what are the pros and cons of this method comparing to the good old way? Thanks.
the best method for a newbie is to segregate every keyword into its own adgroup, including plurals and also segregate every match type into their own adgroup. Since newbies do not understand keyword clustering I do not recommend combining any keywords variations until you have a crystal clear understanding of the adwords system. Watch my video in my sig for more details DO NOT put multiple match types into the same adgroup. It is by far more effective to separate all match types into their own adgroups. Read my previous posts and posts from those who have used my methods and you will see they gain a higher level of effeciency.
Hi Robert, Thank you for your answer. The only thing is, I am not a n00b (I am running about 20 campaigns). And yes, when I segment my keywords I do seperate between the match types. I have adgroups for broads, and adgroups for Exacts & Phrases (together). Now I am thinking of breaking it up to adgroups for each match type. However, the first time that I've seen the technique I've written in my original thread, I ignored it. Now, when I started seeing it again and again, I started thinking. Maybe it worth the shot. So thats why I've written the thread, so what do you think about that technique?
There's no good reason to put everything in separate campaigns unless you need to control budgets or geos. Mixing match types in the same ad group, imo, is a horrible idea.
Robert, what is your theory as to why this works better? I'm just curious. So the performance of each match type doesn't affect the QS of each other since each match type can perform much differently maybe?
hmm, so far for keyword campaign, all i have been hearing from the experts and gurus are like this.. Campaign Adgroup 1 - keyword1, "keyword1", [keyword1] with at least 2 ads for split test Adgroup 2 - keyword2, "keyword2", [keyword2] with at least 2 ads for split test With this, all it takes is relevancy, from keyword, ads, display URL to landing page. And go on... Let me know if otherwise. It's good to learn if there's new method.
Hi what I am doing is that I Have created one campaign and in this i have made many ad groups and in 1 adgroup i have taken 5 keywords which is in broad and that same 5 keywords in exact and phrase..I have 5 ads relvant to that 5 keywords running in that ad group.. My ctr which was 0.23 % raised to 2.38 But QUESTIONS is why i am not getting the conversions though i am on 1st page..
As Roberto says, put each keyword into it's own AdGroup. This is what I do. The only time I ever have more than 1 keyword in an adgroup is if it's not getting many impressions. In this scenario I group it together with other similar keywords of the same Match Type that also arent getting many impressions. Example of how I structure keywords: Campaign: Widgets - Exact AdGroup: Blue Widgets Keyword: [blue widgets] Campaign: Widgets - Broad AdGroup: Green Widgets Keyword: green widgets and so on ...
I think the advice given "to split everything into campaigns" is designed to help people organise their campaigns into an easy to read format. As in, they can see from the campaign screen, exactly what each campaign does. It also allows you to freely change geo targeting and scheduling for each individual keyword. However in the long run, I really think that this type of setup will get cluttered very quickly as you add more and more keywords. It also means that changing adverts for similar keywords is more tedious. Rather than using this method, I would suggest people simply come up with a naming convention that is standard accross their entire account - that way they should have no problem figuring out what each campaign or adgroup is for. For example, I always use the following naming technique for my campaigns "Client Name > National OR Regional OR Scheduled > NOTE (e.g: London, 5:00 - 21:00)" I use the arrow thingy as a way to define the next "virtual" category.
i followed this method and it works well for beginners trying to determine which keywords work and which dont.
As of today I'm using: Adgroup 1: "keyword1", keyword1, [keyword1] Adgroup 2: "keyword1", keyword1, [keyword1] Done with AdWords Editor, but I get "Quality Score Great" and minimum bid at $0.05 for "internet marketing terms" and a squeeze page... As of today for a dog training site... 18 clicks 8 leads 1 sale using Google only.. Only method I ever use for this site... - Chris
Chris, You mean : Adgroup 2: "keyword2", keyword2, [keyword2], isn't it? The method is similar with what I've been using for a year now. Yes, the QS is great, so as the bid. Ciao,
Allbeit in my opinion, the wrong way of doing things. - Any split testing isn't accurate. A vs B, A might happen to work for a few of the searches that trigger the Broad/Phrase matched keywords, yet B might be the best for the exact matched keyword. It's not a true split test at all. What you'll find is if you broke those 3 keywords down into 3 ad groups, their QS would be AT LEAST as good as what they are now. How do I know? Because that's how I used to do until someone advised me otherwise. I changed it and things have improved.
To answer your follow up question... No I do not see an advantage of separating match types within campaigns unless you have concluded with the fact that a specific match types performs to a much greater degree than another match type AND you want to allot more budgeting to one match type vs the other. Example You have determined that Exact matches perform XX% better than Broad matches and since you have a limited budget of $xx.xx you want to ensure more spending to exacts while limiting broad spend Then you can create the following Daily Total budget $1,000 per day Broad Campaign - Daily budget $250 Exact Campaign - Daily budget $750 This will now ensure more spend is allocated to a more performing set of keywords, therefore maximizing daily spend and not eliminate the education and potential behind Broad matches. However, if budgeting is not limited, then I see no advantage.
I have my account set up as follows: Campaigns: Widgets - Exact Widgets - Broad Widgets - Phrase Each AdGroup inside those campaigns is similar i.e same adgroup names just with it's different match type in each. The benefits? - Google limit standard accounts to 100 ad groups per campaign, therefore if you didn't have them split up that's only around 33 ad groups for each match type. Not many at all. This way I can have 100 in each. - It's easier to track IMO. I can look at Widgets - Broad and if it's getting clicks, I know there and then that a broad matched keyword has been triggered. I can then either A) add new Exact matches or B) additional negatives entered. If they weren't split up I'd have to go into the compaign and check - IMO the Search Query Report is next to useless. - As Robert says each Campaign can also have it's own budget. I have my broad matched campaigns a lower budget than Exact, even though incidentally at the moment they aren't being reached on some. Robert, in what way would you say this isn't all beneficial, just out of interest? Surely it's a more organised way having: Widgets Exact - Widgets - [Widgets] Widgets Exact - Blue Widgets - [Blue Widgets] Widgets Phrase - Widgets - "Widgets" Widgets Phrase - Blue Widgets - "Blue Widgets" etc...
I usually think of AdGroups being components of Campaigns. In Campaigns, you just basically determine the period and budget for the run, and in AdGroups you determine the targeting, the type, the keywords, and all the rest. If you just make one AdGroup for a Campaign, without making more AdGroups, you still have one AdGroup. You probably could notice that you could really make things precise. I use several AdGroups within a Campaign so that my creativity does not overrun my budget. No matter how many ideas I have, it is all under one cost umbrella. That makes it easy for me to keep track of.
If you are running out of room in your account then you will need to begin keyword clustering. combining widets and blue widgets is fine, so long as messaging does not need to be different between the keywords While it does make things easier, I have already proven the 1 to 1 method out performs grouping keywords within the same adgroup. Unless you can prove efficiency can be obtained greater than 1 to 1 your statement is out of sheer lazyness of not wanting to maintain a massive database. Again, 1 to 1 adgrouping has already been proven to outperform groupings of keywords.
I'd like to know what you believe is the difference. If I get 35000 impressions, are you saying that I'd get an appreciably higher number of impressions? And how do you manage your PPC budget, when each campaign has to have a budget set on it? Do you basically let it do what it would do, regardless? If you have a 20 dollar daily budget on 10 keywords, in 10 campaigns, that's a potential daily bill of 200 dollars. Do you take your actual daily budget and divide it across the campaigns? Then what is the point in that, when the budget is what is the first setting of ad frequency? If cost is no object then great for you. But when you have to divie up a small pie into smaller pieces, that seems self-defeating.