Ad Group SrAd Group Sructure Strategies

[cpcking]

:rolleyes: What's the most cost-effective campaign structure?

2 options:

1. The keywords in an ad group share 1 term-
e.g blue widget, red widget, yellow widget etc.

2.The keywords in an ad group share 2 terms-
e.g red widget online, red widget buy, red widget great etc.

I understand that option 2 is better, but will I get Penalized (in terms of min cpc, exposure, quality score) for choosing option 1?

If I choose to build my ad groups as in option 2 it would mean breaking down the keyword list into very small and targeted ad groups, which is very time consuming.

I prefer to start with option 1, and break down the ad groups (or "pill and stick") only when I see some traffic that justifies the work. On the other hand if I get penalized (even unknowingly by getting less exposure) I'll go for option 2 from the beginning.

Would love to hear your opinions about this approach.

[Mel66]

I think your Option 1 could work, assuming you are sending visitors to a category-type page for "widgets" which has all the widget types on it. You'd also want to make sure your ad copy is appropriate, e.g.

Buy Widgets Here
Red, Blue, and Yellow Widgets
Order your favorite today

or whatever. You could then gather stats on which type of widgets merit their own ad group, as you describe. I don't think you'd be penalized unless your ad copy or landing page lacks relevancy vis a vis the keywords.

All that said, I think most advertisers find that the more targeted their ad groups, the better they perform. It is time consuming to set up initially, but worth the effort in click-through and conversion.

Melissa

[cpcking]

Thanks Melissa!

Wouldn't you start with option 1 Initially, and than go for option 2 only for the keywords that generate traffic?

If you start off with option 2 you may be wasting your time on keywords that don't get searched.

Its obvious that option 2 is better for conversions and ctr but is it worth the time to do it initially instead of starting broader and faster?

Cpcking

[Mel66]

Speaking from my own experience, it has been worth the time to create targeted ad groups from the start. This is where keyword research is important. If you're concerned about getting enough traffic, look at Wordtracker or Google's estimator and see what the data says. Even still, those tools aren't totally accurate - I've had ad groups send me much higher traffic than what the estimators said. Gut feel is worth a lot here.

That's not to say I don't have ad groups at higher / more generic levels, too - I do, but I wouldn't have nearly the success I've had if I tried to start with these and get more granular later. The cost in terms of lower ROI on the less-targeted ads is just too high for me.

However, I'm sure this varies depending on what business you're in. But in general, I still think more targeted ads are better and can actually cost less in terms of time and money in the long run.

Melissa

[leftoverjoe]

I usually start with an Option 1, then go to Option 2 when I start to refine the campaigns. You've got the right idea in that it is better to start segmenting the terms more specifically if you find that they are either costing a lot and converting, costing a lot and not converting, or just plain sucking down impressions but not getting many clicks.

Then it is definitely worth your time to adjust your keyword groupings. But like Melissa said, you should make sure your ad copy reflects the keywords as much as possible even when you're just starting out with an Option 1 strategy.