PPC Campaigns Blog Posts

Regular PPC Reporting: Worthwhile or Worthless?

Friday, August 14th, 2009

Google Adwords, PPC Campaigns

There are a number of reports available at a user’s disposal on Google Adwords. Some will use these on a regular basis. Some may dabble in the odd report from time to time (you know – open them up, have a bit of a browse at the information in a scattergun approach, then the phone will ring, and it’ll be 3 months before you repeat the process all over again). And some, well, they probably didn’t know you could run reports through Adwords!

But is conducting regular reporting through Google Adwords a worthwhile or worthless practice for those in PPC? I’m sure you already can sense the opinion of this blogger – I mean come on, why would Google place so much information at your disposal if it was all pointless and added no value? Regular reporting is an incredibly worthwhile practice, but it is essential that you know what you are looking for, and when you find it, knowing what you are going to do with that information.

So what sort of reports should we be running on a regular basis, and why are they so valuable?

(more…)

2 comments

The Importance Of Patience In PPC

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

Google Adwords, PPC Campaigns

Now in many walks of life, I can be quite an impatient person. When I’m walking through the supermarket aisles and someone decides to put their trolley slap bang in the middle as they browse the brands of ketchup to buy. Fresh cakes from the oven that I know need 10 minutes or so to cool down before I can eat them. That website that feels like it’s taking an eternity to load. The new must-have gadget I ordered online that takes 3-4 days to arrive but I want it yesterday. All these things test my patience, and I would be the first to admit that my thresholds aren’t too high at the best of times.

Fortunately, this trait of mine doesn’t extend into my day-to-day working profession, which is a good job, as impatience and PPC don’t tend to be the best of friends!

(more…)

1 comment

The Pros And Cons Of Brand Bidding

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

Google Adwords, Google Adwords Blog, PPC Campaigns, Quality Score, brand bidding

Just read a blog posted yesterday from E-Consultancy: http://econsultancy.com/blog/3817-paid-search-down

It appears that the percentage of clicks going on Paid Search is falling, which is potentially a misleading statistic (see my blog on Google and the 80:20 ratio). But they make another, very interesting point.  They indicate that the biggest fall is on brand-name keywords, and quote Andy Beal at Marketing Pilgrim, who says:
“Is that likely due to a reduction in spend, or Orbitz et al figuring out that they really don’t need to spend so much on paid advertising–considering they’re #1 in the organic results?” (more…)

no comments

Should I split my keywords down into one per Adgroup?

Thursday, April 24th, 2008

Google Adwords, PPC Campaigns

One Adgroup Fits All: Should I split my keywords down into one per Adgroup? This has been a topic of much debate with even the most experienced PPC advertisers coming to blows. This blog doesn’t aim to solve the mystery once and for all, but simply to look at the pros and cons in a few situations. Answering such a question is very much circumstance based; there is almost certainly no straightforward answer for most Adwords users. Let’s take a look at the following two scenarios:

  1. Find-me-a-fast-car A large company that wishes to advertise second hand sports cars nationwide. Conversions are not made online, but over the phone. The aim of the campaign is to generate as many clicks as possible for their budget.
  2. Creepy Cravings A small company that sells food and equipment for pet spiders, snakes and reptiles. The customer can order online for delivery.

Find-Me-A-Fast-Car

We are talking about a large campaign here where tens of thousands of keywords are delivering hundreds of thousands of clicks. It’s impractical to break the keywords down into individual Adgroups. The user might group keywords together, based on brand names like this

Ferrari (clicks/day)		Porsche				Lada
[ferrari] (100)			[porsche]			[lada]
[testarossa] (11)		[boxster]			[riva]
[testerosa] (6)			[boxter]			[used riva]
[ferrari  testarossa] (10)	[porsche boxster]		[lada riva]
[used testarossa] (8)		[boxster porsche]		[used lada riva]
Second-Hand Ferraris 			Used Lada Supercars
Live The Dream 				Live Your Grandparents’ Dream
Call Us Now For More Info 		Offers Of £50 Or More Accepted
www.find-me-a-fast-car.com 		www.find-me-a-fast-car.com

The question is, should they be splitting these 3 Adgroups down into 15? Let’s say the user currently spends 1 hour a week writing new adverts and adjusting bids. By splitting the keywords up, the user must now spend 5 hours writing new adverts and adjusting bids. For a large campaign like this, we’re probably looking at a more realistic figure of 50 car manufacturers, with 20 keywords per group minimum. That’s 1000 Adgroups, testing two adverts each, which is … a lot of hours. Ok, so our Adwords Expert is a dab hand with Adwords Editor and manages to fit all this advert writing in to their busy schedule, what do they gain? – Let’s see. Splitting up [ferrari] and [testarossa] would almost certainly improve the campaign’s click-through rate with better targeted adverts being allowed, but what about [testarossa], [testarosa], [ferrari testarossa] and [used testarossa]? Consider adverts for [testarossa] with the following titles:

Title Impressions Clicks CTR
Used Testarossa 100 10 10%
Used Ferrari Testarossa 100 12 12%

The adverts have been running for 2 days but require another 25 days to reach a 95% significance level! (www.splittester.com) That’s nearly a month to make a small step forward. So what if we leave [testarossa], [testarosa], [ferrari testarossa] and [used testarossa] in the same Adgroup:

Title Impressions Clicks CTR
Used Testarossa 350 35 10%
Used Ferrari Testarossa 350 42 12%

The same two days generates enough information to be 80% sure the adverts are different, and only 6 more days to get a 95% significance. It may be that grouping these keywords together has a slight detrimental effect on the clickthrough rate – a few of the keywords may have worked better on the old advert – but the potential benefits of the faster turnaround on the advert test will generally outweigh this. Even if the clickthrough rate on the new advert had only been 11% (39 clicks), the test would still have ended more quickly. But being able to run more tests will lead to more improvements in the clickthrough rate over a period of time, and the time taken to write hundreds of additional adverts could be better spent elsewhere. In this instance, splitting out the keywords would involve four times the amount of work, for just a few additional clicks…

Creepy Cravings

This campaign is clearly different, as the number of keywords is limited and we can see which ones convert. So let’s begin with a clustered set-up:

Spiders 			Snakes 				Iguanas
[spider] 			[snake] 			[iguana]
[spider food] 			[snakes] 			[iguanas]
“spider tank” 			“snakes 			“iguanas”
“spider” 			“snake” 			“iguana”

Because it would be very difficult to write varied adverts that are relevant to all the keywords in these Adgroups, we should certainly split them down:

Spider Tanks
[spider tank]
[spider tanks]
[cheap spider tanks]

This is much better – we can write adverts relevant to the search queries. These are a few of our ideas for adverts, and statistics after a week:

(1) Spider Tank 		(2) Spider Tanks 		(3) Cheap Spider Tanks
Looking For Your Spider? 	Looking For Your Spider? 	Looking For Your Spider?
Put Him In A Tank 		Put Him In A Tank 		Put Him In A Tank

CTR = 13.3% 			CTR = 14.4% 			CTR = 8.3%

Being the experts in campaign optimisation we conclude that advert 3 doesn’t work and it gets the sack. However, are we really making the most of our campaign? Instead of deleting adverts, we run some tests and find that when we move [cheap spider tanks] into its own Adgroup with advert 3 and then delete advert 3 from our old Adgroup this is what happens:

(1) Spider Tank 		(2) Spider Tanks 		(3) Cheap Spider Tanks
Looking For Your Spider? 	Looking For Your Spider? 	Looking For Your Spider?
Put Him In A Tank 		Put Him In A Tank 		Put Him In A Tank

CTR = 14.3% 			CTR = 15.7% 			CTR = 20%

So now we’re smugger than Larry when he said “What about calling it Google?” But have we gone the whole hog? Why don’t we take what we’ve learned and split up [spider tank] and [spider tanks]:

(1) Spider Tank 		(2) Spider Tanks 		(3) Cheap Spider Tanks
Looking For Your Spider? 	Looking For Your Spider? 	Looking For Your Spider?
Put Him In A Tank 		Put Him In A Tank 		Put Him In A Tank

CTR = 20% 			CTR = 20% 			CTR = 20%

So now you’re thinking of changing your name to Mr. Smug and buying the biggest house in Smuggleton. You’ve taken what would have been a very satisfactory Adgroup with a 14.4% CTR and split it up into three Adgroups with 20% CTRs.

Conclusion

In the first campaign there are more clicks to be had than we could possibly afford, and so our aim was to get as many cheap ones as possible. This means we have a huge keyword list which we expand regularly, with Search Query Reports, Google suggestions, etc. The bids have to be increased or decreased every time a change is made to the campaign, which means that trying to tweak every keyword becomes a full time job. We can increase the clickthrough rate on one keyword by writing an advert to match it and testing until significant. The effect may only be to decrease the average cost per click of the whole campaign by a fraction of a penny. This is a lot of effort for such a small gain. However, Adgroups with large numbers of keywords would be able to test many more adverts in that time and perhaps improve the clickthrough rate by almost the same amount, but with much more impact on the campaign. In the second campaign every click has a potential to change the success of the campaign by converting. It is much more important in this case to squeeze out every relevant click. So, in this type of campaign, investing more time into individual Adgroups will yield a greater increase in the profitability of the whole campaign. In a real campaign the choices and results will generally be less obvious, but with work the results can be very worthwhile. For such a niche campaign it’s likely that you’ll have budget to pay for every available click and so getting them is a priority. The cost of each click in such campaigns is less important, so long as the cost per acquisition remains profitable. These are two extreme examples. In the average campaign the choice of whether and how much to split down the Adgroups will be dependent on 2 or 3 factors; How much time you have & how much traffic you get (& if you can’t think of ideas for adverts).

2 comments

Automatic Matching – I Can Hardly Contain My Enthusiasm

Thursday, March 20th, 2008

Automatic Matching, Budget Optimiser, Campaign Optimiser, Expanded Matching, Google Adwords, Optimised Ad-Serving, PPC Campaigns, Pay Per Action, Preferred Cost Bidding, Standard Delivery Method

Google are currently beta-testing a new service, called ˜Automatic Matching’. The premise is simple , if you aren’t spending your complete budget, then they will show your adverts on searches that you aren’t bidding on, if they think it will be successful. On the face of it, this may sound like a good idea, but Google’s history with automated tools is, to put it mildly, poor. Looking back at their innovations over the past 12 months, there has been a steady stream of ˜improvements’ that will allow you to manage your campaign with less effort. And at the current time, I am using precisely none of them. Now, it is true that as a PPC account manager I should probably be doing things by hand, but the simple fact is that whenever I have used Google’s new tools, I’ve been disappointed. Here are a few examples…

Expanded Matching

When this first came out, it did so with little in the way of warnings. The first I knew about it was when my clickthrough rate collapsed on a few of my campaigns. Suddenly, where I had been bidding on leather beds on broad match, now my advert was appearing on searches for upholstered beds. In truth, I got lucky. Somebody who searched for upholstered beds clicked on my advert. As a result, it appeared in the Search Query report. If nobody clicks on your advert having searched for a term, then you don’t know about it. Even now, nearly a year later, if I search for upholstered beds, there are two adverts for leather beds. I guess some people don’t run search query reports very often… This option was designed to fill in all the keywords that are relevant to your campaign, but that you haven’t thought of. But the problem is that you can’t have Broad Matching without Google throwing in Expanded matches. Since Expanded Matching is totally unreliable, and you can never even tell what searches fire your adverts, Broad Matching has become, for me at least, unusable.

Pay-Per-Action

This sounds like a great idea. Basically, you tell Google how much you’re willing to pay for somebody to perform an action, and Google adjusts your bids accordingly. So I tried it on my two biggest, and most consistent accounts. Both of them had a very predictable cost per conversion, and I set that as my objective. The result? Virtually no traffic. In two days, a campaign that usually collected 250 clicks per day managed only 2 clicks (neither of which converted). But the point is that this is automated. It’s never likely to work very well. Either it’ll bounce your bids all over the place depending on the results from the previous day, or it won’t be sensitive to changes over time, and your bids will always be in the wrong place. It takes a human brain to work out whether the variation in the conversion rate is just random, or part of a more significant trend. Perhaps, with a lot of work, a computer could be programmed to draw reasonable conclusions, but as a rule, the tools implemented by Google tend to be relatively simple. I feel that my test could have been a lot worse , Google could have spent far too much per click. Underbidding may cost me potential sales, but at least I can’t make a loss!

Site And Category Exclusion

Alright , I wasn’t totally honest earlier. I am using this one for a few of my campaigns. The idea of this tool is that you may want to include or exclude certain categories of websites when you advertise on the Content Network. So, for example, you may decide that you don’t want your advert to appear on Forums, or on Video-sharing sites. And rather than input them all manually, this allows you to filter out irrelevant websites en-masse. This sounds great, but it raises two questions. The first one is that if these sites aren’t relevant to your adverts, why are they appearing there in the first place? This is Content Targeting. It’s targeted on the relevance of the content to your website. If it’s relevant, why do you not want to appear there. If (as is more likely), they aren’t relevant, why does Google show your adverts there? But the problem with the whole thing is that it’s just a shortcut to avoid you doing some work. Ever since Google implemented its Placement Report, you have been able to see which sites are working for you, and which ones aren’t. Armed with this information, surely it’s not that difficult to create a Placement Targeted campaign, and choose which websites you DO want to appear on. It doesn’t take very long, and you can always reactivate your other Content Network campaign occasionally, to make sure that you aren’t missing valuable traffic.

Budget Optimiser

This one’s just a bad idea. The idea is that you decide your daily budget, and Google adjusts your bids to get you as many clicks as possible for your money. That’s as many CLICKS as possible for your money. Exactly why would you want to do that? If you’re selling something, you want to maximise the value (or at the least, the number) of sales for your money. If you are generating leads, you want as many leads as possible for your money. So who would possibly want to maximise the number of clicks that they get for their money? I can’t think of many businesses that would find that useful. The simple fact is that clicks are going to be worth different amounts, depending on the conversion rate (and in some cases, conversion value). Google can’t take that into account, so it could easily bid a lot on low-quality keywords, simply because they are cheaper than the more competitive, more relevant terms.

Campaign Optimiser

There’s that word again… Optimiser (optimizer if you’re American). A quick look up on the Interweb tells me than optimization is defined as: œThe decision strategy of choosing the alternative that gives the best or optimal overall value The best value of what? Well, that’s up to you, really. In most cases, it’ll be profit, Google doesn’t know what a conversion is worth to you, But it doesn’t even take into account your conversion rates. Here are the changes it will propose, along with Google’s definition…

  • Daily budget adjustment Budget changes can affect your ad visibility and bring you more targeted traffic.
  • New keywords Proposals might include new targeted keywords that relate to your landing page.
  • Deleted keywords If the Campaign Optimiser identifies poorly performing keywords, it may propose removing them.
  • Changed keyword matching options The right matching option can help you reach customers more effectively.
  • Keyword CPC bid adjustments Your cost-per-click bid (in addition to your ad quality) affects your ad position.
  • Ad text edits The Campaign Optimiser may suggest changes to make your ad text more effective.
  • Refined location targeting We will suggest that you target only those regions that perform well for you

So, it will tell you if your budget’s wrong, even though it doesn’t know if your campaign’s profitable or not. It will recommend new keywords , if you’ve ever used Google’s keyword suggestion tool, you’ll know how well that works. It’ll tell you which keywords aren’t working. Based on what? Clickthrough rate? Cost per click? These are not things you want to be basing your decisions on. So Google knows which matching types are appropriate for you? How? If it knows that there are keywords that you could pick up through Phrase Match or Broad Match, then they should be added in on Exact Match. If it doesn’t, then why would it recommend them? Bid adjustments are just a bad idea, for all the reasons discussed already. Advert Text edits??? Google briefly trialled an Advert Text writing tool. It was so bad, I lack the words to describe it here. I wish I’d kept some of the adverts it suggested, but sadly they are no more… Regional Targeting? It all comes back to what Google calls optimisation. They want to maximise your clickthrough rate. Which is definitely not your objective.

Preferred Cost Bidding

Haven’t tried this one, but it worries me a bit. The idea is that you decide how much you want to pay per click, and Google adjusts your bids accordingly. Sounds OK, but one of the few backups that you’ve got if things go wrong is your maximum bid , you can’t pay more per click than this under any circumstances. I’m sure that Google are going to be careful, but how well would this tool work? If you want to pay £0.20 per click, but yesterday, a £0.30 bid generated clicks for £0.19 each, will Google adjust your bids to £0.31? This won’t increase your cost per click by £0.01, as a rule. Either your advert will stay in the same place, and your cost per click won’t change, or your advert will move up a spot, and your cost per click could jump sharply. Extending this example, if you need to pay £0.19 per click to appear fourth, and £0.31 to appear third, then this change would increase your cost per click from £0.19 to £0.31. Which one does Google go for if it’s in charge? The point is that you can’t choose an actual cost per click , it’ll be one of a set of possible values, based on your Quality Score, and the Quality Scores and bids of your competitors…

Optimised Ad-Serving

Of all the stupid ideas I’ve heard in this business, none can compete with Optimised Ad-Serving. Here’s how Google explain it:

œOptimize (default): The system will favor ads with a combination of a high clickthrough rate (CTR) and Quality Score. These ads will enter the ad auction more often.

So, you’re running more than one advert for this to make any difference. Why would you be doing that? To find out whether the new advert is better or worse than the old one? So how useful is it is your new advert gets shown 1% of the time, and the old advert gets shown 99% of the time. You’ll never get decent results. I can only guess that Google want to limit your risk by showing the established advert more often. And it would be useful if you could do this, but a more useful tool would be to allow you to select the relative frequencies that different adverts show. That way, you could show your old advert 75% of the time, and the new one 25% of the time, if you wanted to. A number of times, I’ve done assessments of campaigns for potential clients, and they’ve been testing multiple adverts, but with Optimised Ad-Serving. The result was that they could never optimise their adverts, as one got all the traffic.

Standard Delivery Method

Of all the stupid ideas I’ve heard in this business, none can compete with the ˜Standard Delivery Method’. Except possibly the Optimised Ad-Serving. Here’s how Google explain it: œStandard delivery distributes your budget throughout the day to avoid reaching your budget early on. Your ads will show periodically throughout the day. So, if you’ve got £100 to spend per day, and you’re paying £1 per click, but your budget runs out by 10am, Google thinks your advert should appear and disappear randomly throughout the day. WHY???????? Wouldn’t it make more sense to cut your bids to £0.20, and get 500 clicks per day instead of 100 clicks per day, for the same money? If you only want your advert to run at certain times of day, select those hours for it to run. But randomly appearing? Is there any benefit at all in this?

Keyword Suggestion Tool

Since Broad Matching doesn’t work, it’s not surprising that Keyword Suggestion doesn’t work very well either. I decided to try it out this morning, on a website that sells conservatory furniture. That’s all they sell, and their entire website is dedicated to this one thing. Google’s suggestions? bedroom furniture, leather furniture, lighting fixtures, outdoor lighting, art prints, chandeliers, art education, school furniture, furniture rental, furniture shipping… Need I go on? None of the keywords were even slightly relevant , no mention of conservatories, cane, or anything else remotely useful. Maybe I have already added everything vaguely relevant, but I doubt it, somehow. The tool may have some value , perhaps if you run it, it may give you a new idea for a keyword. But it’s pretty clear that you wouldn’t want to use Google’s suggestions in general.

Conclusions

So, back to the new tool, then. Automated Matching. Google clearly can’t look at my site, and figure out what it’s about , you can see that from the Keyword Suggestion tool. It’s not very good at working out other, similar keywords , you can see that from Broad Matching results. It can’t measure the success or failure of a keyword, since it doesn’t use the conversion information. It can’t determine what you can afford to pay for a click, since it doesn’t know anything about your business. And yet, despite all of that, Google is willing to spend any remaining budget on keywords, without even telling you what they are. I believe that one person can keep an account well-managed in about 10 minutes per day, plus an hour every now and then to do a bit more analysis. Is it really a sound business-decision to give Google control of your money? Automated Matching? I think I’ll pass…

1 comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »