Broad -   golf clubs
Phrase – “golf clubs”
Exact -   [golf clubs]

Now I haven’t heard or read anything official from Google personally, but a member over at Webmaster World gives the Google representatives reasoning as -

“Instead of triples of all keywords, they want advertisers to go from “broad” to “narrow” (in their words).”

Although Google may have a point that every keyword does not need to be replicated for each match type it is suprising to hear (if true) because actually you should start completely the opposite way with your PPC campaigns. So ignore Google on this one and I will explain in more detail why. If you don’t already know what each match type does, read up here.

Start Narrow

Don’t waste your money by using the default broad match straight away. Start narrow with specific exact, phrase and negative keyword combinations before even thinking about using broad match.

You can start with all exact match phrase keywords before building out to phrase match, but if you are confident and use negative keywords properly phrase match is easy to use. Not all keywords will require an exact and phrase match equivalent either, but absolutely those keywords with medium to high volume should have an exact match version. Equally those lower volume keywords might not require a exact match version. So to take the golf clubs example, I might start with only an exact match version of [golf clubs] as it’s very high volume and could potentially appear against an even larger number of terms if on phrase. However, a lower volume term like “buy golf clubs uk” probably wouldn’t require an exact match version and you could start this on phrase match straight away.

This approach means you do not need a different match type for every keyword and helps to keep your campaigns managble when dealing with hundreds of thousands of keywords already. I know some agencies and bid management software companies recommend replicating keywords into each match type which is fine, but you will often find that your campaign is bloated and a large part of it is unnecessary.

The narrow to broad approach also applies to the actual keywords you are using aswell as the match type, so use specific keywords with long tail variations, rather than more generic general phrases to begin with.

Make sure your campaign is performing with these match types to start with – monitor your internal logs and run search phrase reports (to see what people really searched for) to expand your current keywords or add further negatives to your campaign.

Use Broad Match To Sweep Up

If you have additional budget or want more volume you can then think about introducing broad match, although the expanded match element does need to be very closely monitored.

Use broad match to ’sweep up’ any low volume keyword variations that exact and phrase match types have not already covered. When using broad match, try initially going in with a lower bid than your exact and phrase match equivalents and it can produce great results. You will need to continue to monitor your logs and run search phrase reports to further expand your keywords (& negatives). Again, aswell as match type you can also start to trial more generic search phrases for further volume (on exact match of course, have you been listening?).

Splitting Adgroups Based On Match Type

Not always, but sometimes it makes sense to split up adgroups via match type. You know when using an exact match phrase that for the advert to appear that [exact phrase] must be searched for, so it makes sense to focus your advert on this term specifically. When using broad match, your advert might appear against a number of keyword variations so sometimes it makes sense to diversify your ads a little more and test. You might find that you just make a new adgroup for just one or a few of your exact match keywords as you need greater control over them for example. Remember, trial, review and test what produces the best CTR and more importantly conversion for your campaign.

Optimise Match Types Based On Performance

Obviously the great thing about using various match types is that each match type will perform differently from the other. So each should have their own separate bid and be optimised based on their own individual performance. This allows you to have greater control over your campaign and ultimately spend money where it makes the most sense for improved return.

Note – Don’t forget, the choice of match type does not impact your quality score. All match types for the same keyword have the same quality score regardless, so this is not a factor. They do obviously massively influence your CTR though, which is the biggest factor of Googles quality score algo.

Normally Google do not charge for clicks on new advert testing like this which is good news. But for me it’s quite scary how far they are taking the expansion of where they show their adverts.

At the top of search suggest is far to easy for accidental clicks in my view although Google are also testing showing ads at the bottom which would seem better. Another concern for navigational brand searches, are Google offering you any real value in showing your advert here? Especially with increased use of Chrome which combines a traditional url bar with search.

Google recently removed keyword trademarking in the UK and subsequently profit through increased brand bidding from advertisers in fear of losing brand traffic to competitors.  In many cases advertisers do not need to bid against their brand or the money would be better spent elsewhere, so will these adverts fuel even more fear? Johanna Wright Director of Product Management at Google argues -

“This is another example of search becoming more dynamic and Google getting users to the correct results as fast as possible,”

Is Google really focusing on the user experience here or is this a revenue making exercise? Lets hope Google make this opt in or at least have an opt out feature at the time of its (potential) introduction, not months after.

Google had already quietly changed their policy at the end of October allowing PPC ads for beer. However according to the Inside Adwords blog the new rules are for promotion and branding rather than direct sale which are still not allowed -

“To comply with the updated hard alcohol and liqueurs policy, advertisers must promote the information about hard alcohol and liqueurs that their websites contain, such as recipes and brand messages. Ads that directly promote the sale of hard alcohol and liqueurs are still not permissible through our program. In contrast, advertisements for beer may directly promote its sale.“

The news comes after Google firstly removed their keyword trademark policy in the UK and then permitted advertising for online gambling in the UK, Italy, France and Spain.

Obviously only the cynics would correlate this with an attempt to subdue the effects of the current economic climate, Googles subsequent fall in share price and predicted fall in ad spend for 2009 where 97% of Googles revenue is still driven from. Although it is certainly good to see Google making decisions on a local level meaning big opportunities have opened up for those businesses (and in turn search marketing agencies) in these industries.

I analysed the landscape 2 days after the change was put in place and noted that even in that short 2 day period many advertisers who decided to place adverts against their competitors keywords had already been slapped out of the bidding due to poor quality scores from low click through rates.

4 months down the line, have there been any further changes to the same brands?.

Interestingly, there are again less competitor adverts against the brands analysed previously which all had competing adverts against their brand (with some strange broad matches aswell).

• Tesco
• Asda
• Last Minute
• Amazon
• Confused
• Go Compare

Now that’s only 6 brands, so a very small sample size to say for sure. Using the Adwords preview tool removes any personalisation and does show some ads against the last two brands in particular. But notice the higher CPC markets such as car insurance firms have seen a reduction aswell. Elephant, Money Supermarket, U Switch etc all the same with far less paid adverts.

Why?

Click through rates are king in Adwords.

If you cannot maintain a high enough CTR, you will have to pay through the nose to appear, often meaning it’s completely unrealistic from an ROI perspective. Google recently announced further changes to how it calculates quality score, meaning an even greater emphasis on relevancy and CTR.

Google still profiting from the change

So while CTR has meant it’s extremely difficult to bid against high volume previously trademarked keywords, just how many more advertisers are bidding against their own brand as protection now?.

Back in June Hitwise noted a big increase in paid brand searches -

“Before Google’s changes took effect (4 weeks ending 12/04/2008), 9.2% of the search traffic that the top 100 online brands in the UK received from their top brand term came via a paid listing on a search engine. However for the his figure went up to 11.2% – equivalent to an increase of 22% – during the first four weeks after the changes took effect (4 weeks ending 31/05/2008).“

So the question is now – Should advertisers still be running branded adverts incurring that cost when it’s so difficult for competitors to appear there? Would the money in many cases not be better spent elsewhere?

If you have competitors bidding against your brand it makes sense to protect youself – but how many advertisers are now running an advert against their brand without any competition ‘just incase’?

Has Google scared advertisers to spend more merely through fear of protecting themselves?.

It would be interesting to see a further update by Robin Goad and the Hitwise team on the changes.

It’s been a couple of days since Googles keyword trademarking policy change and it’s interesting to see many advertisers have already been slapped out of the bidding. In a quality score world, its not as simple as bidding against any brand due to quality based minimum bids. Although you might be able to display against any brand you like for a short period, Google will soon kick you into touch if you are deemed not relevant enough.

Patrick over at Blogstorm posted about the effects of the new trademark policy with screenshots of adverts against once trademarked brands such as Tesco, Asda, Lastminute.com and Amazon. But it was just time before many of them simply fell away…

As I mentioned previously in my post regarding preparation of the Google trademark change, quite simply, it will be extremely hard to be able to display against many core branded terms due to low click through rates which will mean you will get slapped with a high minimum CPC.

Lets take a look at those same brand examples today -

First and foremost, there has been a massive reduction in adverts as expected. Some of the examples may have been rather bad ‘advanced matching’ from Googles broad match feature otherwise the adverts left within the bidding for the above examples are either -

1) Maintaining a high enough click through rate (and therefore quality score) to keep a reasonable level of minimum CPC. For example, notice how Lastminute.com are having more trouble protecting their brand as many competitors can get away with using ‘Last Minute Holidays’ within the advert title which will be helping to maintain their CTR and advert alive.

2) Advertisers within high CPC markets will find the high minimum CPC’s less of a problem than those in low CPC markets. Advertisers in insurance, loans, mortgages etc markets already pay a high cost per click (£5-£30 max CPC’s), so a high minimum CPC of say even £10 might be lower than their usual average CPC anyway. So for example, Tesco has just a couple of loan related advertisers who can pay that price.

For the above reasons, brands like Amazon will probably have less concerns with competitors. Some of the main areas effected are highly competitive markets with high relevance between brands and product offerings where consumers actively comparison shop for the very best deal. Brands within ‘car insurance’ for example have been hit hard.

These guys pay high CPC’s and have a relevance/comparison shopping nature -

Are you prepared? Are your clients?

Are you going all out aggressively to bid against competitors trademarks?.

Are you going to start bidding against your own brand as protection?.

Perhaps a mixture?. Or are you going to wait and see what your competitors do?

Looks like Tesco have taken the ‘moral high ground’ issuing a statement that they will not be bidding against anyone elses branded terms.

Will this moral high ground mean that they get less competition against their own brand?.

Lets see.

The key thing to remember here is ROI. You can go and bid wildy against any brand you like if you are willing to pay through the nose for it, but with a lack of relevance and ultimate conversion its expenditure you can do without.

Lets not forget, Google has quality based minimum bids, so although you may think your brand is relevant, if your click through rate is not high enough your minimum bids will get very high. Trademarks are still in place for adtext and this is a massive factor in click through rates.

Against core branded keywords advertisers will find CTR will not be high enough to allow bidding against brand unless you are willing to pay extortionate CPC’s. This is because core branded keywords contain a high number of navigational queries with lazy searchers who would rather search for the brand than type the url directly into the browser. These searchers can be blind to anything other than the brand they searched for.

I recently set up a competitors adgroup for a client with these types of competitor terms. The competition was directly related selling the same product and all keywords were on phrase match. However, as expected CTR was simply not high enough to keep them active. Unless Google lower CTR thresholds you will see this -

The Hitwise blog highlights the gap in brand traffic lost between the US and UK (where the US have always been able to bid openly against keywords), so there is brand volume to be had from competitors. It just needs to be taken from longer tail queries and more inteligently than simply bidding against core terms.

Another key thing to remember is the relative nature of Googles bidding platform.

If you are bidding against your competitors brand as the only advertiser against the brand owner, then your CTR will be poor in comparison. Google takes into account all advertisers against that keyword. So if you bid in a pack with 8 other advertisers who will also have relatively poor click through rates then the quality threshold might be a lowered a little allowing for lower minimum bids.

So will the threshold naturally decline over time?

Google are moving inline with their policies in the US/Canada.

We’re writing to inform you that we’re changing our trademark complaint procedure in the UK and Ireland. This change may affect how we handle the trademark complaint you currently have on file with Google.

If you’ve submitted a complaint letter requesting that we prevent advertisers from using certain trademark terms anywhere in their ad text, we will continue our efforts to support your request. However, from May 5, 2008, our trademark complaint investigations will no longer result in Google monitoring or restricting keywords for ads served to users in the UK and Ireland. This will bring our procedure in line with the approach taken in the US and Canada. Complaints received on or after today will be processed under our revised procedure.

You do not need to file your trademark complaint with us again unless you would like to amend it based on the new guidelines. For more detailed information regarding our trademark complaint procedure, we invite you to review our revised complaint procedure, posted online at http://www.google.co.uk/tm_complaint.html.

To learn more about this trademark policy revision, please visit http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=92877&hl=en_US.

Sincerely,

Advertising Legal Support Team

More details on the upcoming policy change here.

The new policy will have a big impact on advertisers brand bidding, providing opportunities to bid against competitors brands while of course making it more difficult to protect your own.

Read more about understanding when to bid on your own brand here.

“As of April 1, Google will be making significant changes to their enforcement of display URL policies. The “Policy Team” has taken a stricter stance on the relationship between display URLs and destination URLs — and they will be allowing few exceptions to their rules. In short, if your destination URL is www.example.com, your display URL must be www.example.com. Just to alleviate any confusion: display URLs are what is displayed in your ad text – destination URLs are where your ad text leads post-click.“

To me there has been no change. The ad level destination url has always had to of directed traffic to the same TLD as the display url to pass manual approval. Googles ad policies can be seen here.

So for example -

Display url – www.ppcblog.co.uk
Destination url – www.ppcblog.com

Would never pass manual ad approval. Or at least if your not working from an agency account/MCC.

So, I cannot see the fuss with the “rule changes” or envisage them really impacting many people. There are still plenty of ways around them -

• Taking advantage of companies multiple TLD’s (that do not redirect) to display two ads per SERP
• Redirects (after manual approval) or cloaking
• I-framed landing pages

I wrote about some of these blackhat PPC methods.

In theory, you should NEVER have been able to use ppcbloggy.com as your display url in an effort to display for ppcblog.co.uk even with a redirect. Bridge pages and redirects have never been allowed and I have had adverts banned quite a few times due to this (testing obviously).

Although obviously they do work if you implement them after manual approval with the correct technique.

So Shoemoneys posts about dominating the entire SERPS still may or may not be caught depending on the method used. It worked because they had different domains as the display url and were either simply taking advantage of the period between manual and auto ad approval using multiple Adwords accounts… (which will get caught in the end)

OR

They complied with the rules (display and destination urls match) and then added a redirect after the manual approval (without amending the advert) which will still not be picked up until someone points it out. Google need to pick up redirects after manual approval to spot these things…

So there is no confusion here, this is only for TLD’s. You can still play with the / of display urls even if the page does not exist.

Example -

www.ppcblog.co.uk/Whatever etc

Discussion over at Sphinn.

You may have noticed that the little magnify glass next to each keyword now has an extra arrow, which brings up the following when you hover over with a mouse -

By clicking on the ‘details and recommendations’ link it takes you over to the new keyword analysis page. I went through a few campaigns to find a keyword with a ‘poor’ quality score to highlight the kind of advice you get, as shown below.

The report does not necessarily give you that much more information than you could probably work out yourself, but I do like the breakdown of components which will help provide a little more transparency into what element might be the problem in a keywords performance, especially for the everyday advertisers.

A bigger picture of the screenshot can be found here.

The 3 step process requires advertisers to input information about their business before the tool provides 4 suggested adverts.

From the tests I ran, the suggested adverts seem to be way off in terms of quality, so don’t expect this tool to do all the hard work for you. In fact the disclaimer at the end sums it up nicely -

“We cannot guarantee that template ads will improve your campaign performance. We also reserve the right to disapprove any ad you submit. You alone are responsible for the ads you run and for making sure that your use of an ad does not violate any applicable laws, including trademark laws.“

Screenshots of the full process can be seen here, here, here & here.

Oh and here.

Update – This has been in a beta in the US for quite a while according to the Seroundtable.