am revamping my campaigns to be more streamlined and productive, but I can't seem to find a straight answer on this question (likely because one does not exist, I'm afraid). My question is whether the different levels of geotargeting make any difference in either ad placement or quality scores? For example, my firm services individuals throughout California and I currently have each region in the state targeted with "general" (non- city or region specific) keywords, as well as a statewide targeted campaign with city-specific keywords (general keywords+city name, etc.) and a national campaign with "California" keywords. This works fine, but I wanted to know if there is any difference either with quality score or ranking between the following setups: 1) A campaign (or adgroup) geotargeted at Los Angeles (City) with "Los Angeles" keywords/ads; 2) A campaign (or adgroup) geotargeted at Los Angeles (City) with general, non-city-speciic keywords/ads; 3) A campaign (or adgroup) geotargeted at Los Angeles (Metro) with "Los Angeles" keywords/ads; or 4) A campaign (or adgroup) geotargeted at California with "Los Angeles" keywords/ads. I want to set up the most effective campaigns and adgroups possible, but if scenario #1 is better than the rest (which intuitively it would seem to be), that means I should build a specific campaign/adgroup for every listed city in California (hundreds of them) geotargeted just to that city. I also have about 50 different adgroups of about 30 keywords each that would have to be applied to each city. Creating and managing so many adgroups/campaigns could prove difficult, so if all of the scenarios are basically equal then it would save me a lot of headaches. I guess the "bottom line" here is whether anyone knows if "city" geotargeting is more effective than "regional" as far as quality score, relevancy, etc.? Any insights would be very much appreciated!