A theoretical scenario. Which is the better of the 2 situations, and why?

Assume conversion rate cannot be measured. Which is more effective: Adwords ad group structure A, or structure B?

I am selling "white widgets".

Structure A:

1. I create an ad group entitled "white widgets".
2. My only keyword phrase in the group is: white widgets (broad match on)
3. The title of my ad includes the term "white widgets" (creating the bold effect on every search)
4. The copy of my ad includes the term "white widgets" (creating the bold effect again)
5. I use dozens and dozens of boolean negatives to weed out terms such as "free", "cheap", and all irrelevants/undesirables that the adsense keyword
tool lists.

With broad match on, I can expect Google to display my ad when the terms "buy white widgets", "looking for white widgets", "store that sells white widgets", and all of the myriad combonations people are likely to attach to the term "white widgets", are queried. Google will provide me ad matches on terms I could never even conjecture.

I then repeat the formula with ad groups for "green widgets", "blue widgets", and so on.

Structure B:

1. I create a group entitled "white widgets"
2. I forumulate dozens, or even hundreds of unique terms applying exact match only. I use Wortdtracker, the Overture Tool, and tools that mix and match all possible keywords combinations. I import phrases from my log files into my group.
3. I use a generic copy that will only match the term "white widgets".
4. Adwords will not provide me with the "bold effect" in many cases, due to the attachment of many keywords to one ad copy.
5. My copy becomes more irrelavant because I cannot possibly put all the exact match phrases into the title and ad body.

With exact match on, I avoid spending money on queries I know are irrelevant. However, I miss out on all the possible search combinations that I could never have possibly conjectured.


Thoughts, comments, and questions...

That's mostly a matter of preference, personaly, i would think campaign A (broad match, using negative's) would be the easier of the 2. plus using keyword trackers, you can catch undesirables you may have missed, and add them to your list

Ditto -- the broad match with negatives appears to be the easier of the two. It doesn't require you to predict unpredictable search behavior, just filter out the most obviously untargeted ones... still leaving you with relatively wide reach.

Using a lot of exact matches is getting more uncommon nowadays. Kind of a niche strategy.

No argument with the logic that the broad match strategy would be easier to implement . . . but surely it means that clicks will be reported entirely against the one general keyword, and you won't have any information on which longer phrases actually occasioned each click?

No argument with the logic that the broad match strategy would be easier to implement . . . but surely it means that clicks will be reported entirely against the one general keyword, and you won't have any information on which longer phrases actually occasioned each click?

Your web stats should show the exact phrase that was searched for.

Your web stats should show the exact phrase that was searched for. I presume you mean your server logs . . . agreed, but not in your Adwords reports.

As long as the data was available (logs or Adwords) I'm ok with it. I do a lot of broad match campaigns then use the data from my stats (server logs) to better target specific search terms in Adwords.

Option A will give you more traffic. How you convert will determine your ultimate decision. Obviously measure both and see how it plays out on delivered click numbers and cost of conversion... or more appropriately profit per click.

Using a lot of exact matches is getting more uncommon nowadays. Kind of a niche strategy.
do you recommend using all the various levels of matching for the most important terms in the account?

if the CTR between exact and broad is way different then can't it save a good amount of money to use the different targeting mechanisms to sort the clicks into their precise groups?

Personally I'd build both at the Campaign level and test them side by side for traffic, cost, ad rank, conversions, revenue, etc... - basic ROI. Structure A may look better at first due to volume and simplicity of development, but Structure B will most likely cost less and offer better long-term ROI. One thing for sure is I'd definitely add DKI to the ad copy for Structure B and test it in Structure A as well.

Jeff

For those who will later need to know DKI = Dynamic Keyword Insertion

You can use {Keyword} and the searched term will be inserted in the ad copy. The one caveat is the search has to be 25 characters or less to work in the title and 35 characters to work in the description.

You can give an alternative if the character count goes over:
{Keyword: Alternative Text}

Back to the original question,

Which is "generally" more effective:

1. Broad match with many Boolean negatives
2. Phrase match with many unique keyword phrases

Back to the original question,

Which is "generally" more effective:

1. Broad match with many Boolean negatives
2. Phrase match with many unique keyword phrases
Number 1 is generally going to be most cost effective.

AussieWebmaster
Number 1 is generally going to be most cost effective. You really think so Aussie? Not to pooh-pooh but I politely disagree. In my experience phrase and exact produce higher CTR thus lower CPC.

- but -

promediacorp
Back to the original question,

Which is "generally" more effective:

1. Broad match with many Boolean negatives
2. Phrase match with many unique keyword phrases I don't think there is a binary answer - too many unknown variables. So I'd test, test and re-test.

Jeff

It depends tremendously on the situation, but, given Adwords' tendency not to deliver broad matches, the optimal strategy is to do keyword research to target all likely exact matches, treating them as broad matches, and filtering out any undesirable terms.