Google, What Happened to Do No Evil?

[B-Double-U]

Here's a fun one!

I almost crapped my shorts when I saw this one...

Scenario:

I put up a keyword set for an ad group like the following<br>
Red Ferrari F430
Orange Lamborghini Murcielago LP640
Yellow Bugaati Veyron

Basically, I am trying to say that they are widgets with VERY specific criteria and model numbers.

Now for the bomb that was dropped on me.....

They chose to publish the ads for "Fast Car".

When I asked how this is possible, I was told the following:

Although you're not opted into Automatic Matching, when keywords are in the broad match type (meaning they don't have any parentheses or quotation marks) they are still susceptible to appear as synonyms of well performing
keywords.

Key Word in that sentence being "Well Performing".

What are they thinking!!!

Well performing from their pocket book. They have just chosen to associate a very very broad term to a very very specific, highly targeted and HIGH COST ad group.

This totally and 100% defeats the purpose of setting up an adwords account and choosing keywords... Why don't they just crawl my pages and they can attribute keywords based on whatever they feel is appropriate and I will just pay a monthly fee? Then I would no longer have to manage any of it and they can just send me a report with Hits, Page views, Server calls and other useless data...

Granted, I can see that you may want to make "T.V." synonymous with "TV" or, I can even see you stretching that to "Television", but going from "Orange Lamborghini Murcielago LP640" to "Fast Car" is totally and completely ridiculous!

I am so mad right now I can't even think straight... ADWORDSREP, please know that your company lost a whole lot of trust, with this move, from everyone here at our company....

Has anyone looked at their search query report lately and seen this same thing of Google adding in very very broad terms into adgroups with very specific and targeted terms?

[AdWordsRep]

This totally and 100% defeats the purpose of setting up an adwords account and choosing keywords...

...going from "Orange Lamborghini Murcielago LP640" to "Fast Car" is totally and completely ridiculous!

I am so mad right now I can't even think straight... ADWORDSREP, please know that your company lost a whole lot of trust, with this move, from everyone here at our company....

I am very sorry to hear this has got you so upset, B-Double-U. I hope I can show you that you have very useful methods available to you which will allow you to have your ads show for only the searches that you prefer.

I am guessing that you are not aware of the options you have, as an AdWords advertiser, to control how your your keywords are used by the AdWords system. The options will allow you to define things to suit your needs, and I hope you will explore them.

Very briefly, you have the option of broad match which is the default, and which, by definition, is 'expanded'.

Then you have the option of "phrase match" where your keyword phrase is between quote marks, and in which the words between the quote marks must remain 100% intact. With phrase match your ad may still show for queries which include additional relevant words in front of or after the "phrase". It is important to note that phrase match is not expanded - so this may a very useful option for you.

You also have the option of [exact match] where your keyword appears between square bracket. Exact match means that your ad will appear only when a user has searched on exactly what you have included between the brackets, and will not show for any other searches at all.

And of course you can use negative keywords to fine tune either broad or phrase match. Negative keywords do not impact exact match at all, since it is already exact.

Some quick examples to illustrate:

Orange Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 = broad match, which is expanded. This might indeed show for searches like 'fast car'. Note that 'expanded' broad match is not the same thing as 'automatic matching'.

"Orange Lamborghini Murcielago LP640" = phrase match. This will never show for searches like 'fast car' but may show for 'lease Orange Lamborghini Murcielago LP640'. So this may or may not be a good choice for you.

[Orange Lamborghini Murcielago LP640] = exact match. Your ad will only show for the search 'Orange Lamborghini Murcielago LP640'. Note that it would not show your ad for 'Orange Lamborghini Murcielago' because the LP640 is missing.

Below are a number (of potentially hundreds if not thousands) of negative keywords that you could use to refine your broad and phrase matched keywords.

- model
- kit
- picture
- photo
- dvd
- video
- free
- used
- wrecks
- wrecked
- modified
- parts
- repair
- repairs
- lease
- leased
- rent
- rental
- paint match
- paint
- painting
- art
and so on.

I hope that this will show you that you do have a great deal of control over how AdWords will use your keywords. Basically, the system will do what you instruct it to, given the way you have entered your keywords into your keyword list.

More information may be found in these AdWords Learning Center multimedia segments:

Keyword Matching Options - 5 min.
http://services.google.com/awp/en_us...073/index.html

Implementing Keyword Matching Options - 5 min.
http://services.google.com/awp/en_us...049/index.html

Also, this information from the regular AdWords Help Center:

What are keyword matching options?
http://adwords.google.com/support/bi...en&answer=6100

I do hope that this sets your mind at ease a bit, and allows you to control things to your satisfaction.

Best,

AWR

[shorebreak]

B-Double-U,

Welcome to late 2008, a period that will be looked back upon by SEM scholars as the point at which Google's 'Do No Evil' [dog]ma was run over by bad economic [car]ma.

Yesterday keyword intelligence firm AdGooRoo put out a report summary showing monthly growth in advertiser count on G, Y! & MSN; it is pretty astounding and explains what you're seeing. AdGooroo looked at ad coverage on Google through mid/late November, and is seeing 54.9% higher ad coverage so far in Q4 '08compared to Q4 '07. On first page search results (which make up the bulk of G's impressions), AdGooroo's seeing 4.4 ads per page in November '08, compared to 2.4 ads/page in September '08.

Clearly, G is trying to react to the negative macroeconomic impact on AdWords by throwing more ads into their search results, in the hope that more ads will increase monetization - both directly by increasing click volume and indirectly by increasing advertiser competition (and therefore CPCs) on its first page results.

There's no one industry-accepted match type strategy, but one obvious way to deal with the issue is to use 100% Exact Match and/or Phrase Match. Obviously that's a lot of work and requires ongoing diligence to find additional keywords to add, but IMO it's the way to go if you can afford the added time & effort.

The AdGooroo data should be a huge eye-opener to people, as it implies strongly that AdWords is a revenue yield maximization system working on Google's behalf. No sudden change in everyone's Quality Score can account for the AdGooroo, so we're left with the knowledge that match types are an important lever for Google, and despite their claims to the contrary, it is being used by them for aims that have nothing to do with your ROI.

[Show Me Cables]

Shorebreak, thanks for the message. I think that may answer my question in a different thread about the disproportionate number of impressions I got on Monday.

That is a shame, because it really compromises the usefulness of the broad match. In general, I would only use the phrase match and exact match on general words. If I had keywords that were as specific as those mentioned above, I wouldn't think that broad match or phrase match would be necessary. If you can interpret those keywords as "fast car" then it seems like broad match and phrase match are pretty much always necessary.

[B-Double-U]

It's more than a little patronizing or condescending to hear the above response to my question, seeing that I have been involved in internet marketing before google was even around and I was one of the first clients of GoTo before it was ever Overture...

Although I do appreciate that there are tons of people out there that need the FAQ's and the "101" class on adwords, I am not one of them...I have attended numerous Adwords seminars and inevitably the instructor and class end up asking my attending group for clarification and advice, if that says anything...

Broad match was implemented because there was no way for people to add in the crazy, one-off terms that were spiking up and down each day, week or month. Usually by the time you were made aware of the new terms, you either missed the boat or you were so overwhelmed from reporting that you could not get that term in. It was one of those old BS stories that you used to hear

"There isn't enough keyword demand for that term to warrant its inclusion into our database"

Usually characterized by the term having an extremely high CPC rate without competition.
Broad match used to solve that problem and was a happy medium for it.

It also was one of the only ways to take a set of words that are in different parts of a sentence, to be included like:
"Orange Murcielago LP640" would show for "Orange Lamborghini Murcielago LP640".

This is a complete money grab and Google knows it.

We were also told:

You can easily utilize you search query report to find these words and add them as negative keywords"

GREAT!!!

For one, I spend way to much time reporting on things that are important and I would rather NOT spend that time on trying to find out how and where Google is trying to screw me over. It's almost like they tried to find the most convoluted way of doing it and made an executive decision to pull the proverbial wool over their clients eyes.

The real reason this won't work is because in order to find the terms in the search query report, THEY NEED TO BE PROVIDED, and over 25% of our reports and costs are allocated to something they like to call "Other Unique Queries" and this is their slush fund and catch-all for things they don't want to show. So basically, we are being told to go through door #1, but then they lock the door!

Merriam Webster defines Synonym as follows:

Synonym: 1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

There is no way that these words can equate in any sentence that you can create. This means that the words are not synonymous.

Unfortunately, I am unable to see a legitimate case for these actions and therefore having my unhappy opinion.

[johninbrooklyn]

I agree that AdWords Rep's response was geared more toward a total newbie than someone that obviously understands AdWords. Still, I at least appreciate a response from a Google rep. I'd rather have them engaged on this forum than just lurking and never mentioning anything. I have also noticed a big obvious shift in the last couple weeks where we're competing with unrelated companies. This will come back to haunt Google if taken too far. We sell a very specific type of software for a small niche industry. Lately we've seen our ads go from #2 or #3 to #7 or #8 on our main keywords because Google has put in all these non-related software companies in the mix. Some of these companies must be bidding on a broad match - maybe even just the word software. Obviously these companies aren't the smartest search engine marketers in the world, but we're being penalized because someone searching for our specific niche software is instead being shown a bunch of completely unrelated software advertisements. It's unfair to us, it's unfair to these other companies, and most importantly it's unfair to those using the Google search engine looking for a specific product.

[searchengineman]

This is directed to ADWORDSREP, if he could add this to the suggestions list up on high at GOOGLE JUSTICE LEAGUE headquarters.


A) Yes Expanded Broad match is annoying, An option to opt out would be nice. (I use phrase match)

B) The Keyword Query Report:

I agree "Other Unique Queries" is no way to report on important phrases that may certainly help a campaign select negative keywords or add lucrative niche phrases. An option to see view thes phrases or terms would benefit customers and Google.

C) We all know that Google rotates ads (ADGOOROO research), only a select few advertisers are shown over 50% of the time, and an even smaller amount all the time. I think its fair that the overall coverage percentage be shown. What use is GREAT Quality score if your AD is only being served 10% of the time?.

My 2 cents

Searchengineman

[B-Double-U]

I do have to defend Google on one point here...

"Other Unique Queries" is needed on their side to keep out any confidential information.

If a person searches for American Express Card Number XXXXXXXXXXXXX, then they suppress the entire term and add it to the Other Unique Queries list.

Also if they search for a UPS, USPS, Fedex, DHL tracking number in their search, then they suppress that as well.

Basically, anything that could be deemed personally identifiable is lumped in there and they tend to err on the side of caution in this regard, so I really can see the need for it, but I just wish there was a more effective method.

[searchengineman]

Originally Posted by B-Double-U

I do have to defend Google on one point here...

"Other Unique Queries" is needed on their side to keep out any confidential information.

I think you're defending the recipients of the "Internet Darwin Awards". Typing your credit card on an unsecured site? and in a Google search?

At least I'll be able to find the companies who've posted my unsecured credit card on a web page!

Its an interesting point, but really how many people would fall into this category.

Searchengineman

[B-Double-U]

Well, It's not the majority by any means, but it is out there....

...Simple queries using the Google search engine can turn up a handful of sites that have posted credit card information to the Web, ZDNet UK sister site CNET News.com learned on Tuesday

There is no shortage of ways to search Google to find such data. Whole sites spell out how to search for financial information and describe software vulnerabilities and vulnerable configurations on Internet machines. Google is the tool of choice because its powerful search options, such as the ability to search for a range of numbers -- useful in finding credit card data -- is not present in other companies' search engines....

It's a decent article, but you will have to google it for the linky

[kg84]

I noticed this about a month ago. Below is my post, including a reponse for adwords rep.

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...ad.php?t=24438

[Discovery]

I think we all have had some frustrations with broad match.
Simply understanding what "Broad" really means to our keywords is always changing and that can be a challenge to keep control of.

To be totally honest, I think "Fast Car" makes a great deal of sense under broad match. Phrase match no, but broad match absolutely.

That aside I think before we call Google "evil" for this case we do have to compare them in context with the rest of the industry.

We received a prompt and full response from a real person at Google. AWR doesn't know you, so s/he did the right thing and answered at a basic level as could help you and many forum members. More advanced/detailed conversations are meant for you and your account rep.

SEM has become a complex symphony to orchestrate, however Google does offer all the instruments to play Mozart if you are a good conductor. Other advertising networks provide you with a tuba, cello and violin and you'll be lucky to strum out Mary had a little lamb.

So the question is, has Google become out of balance, taking more profits by introducing advanced tools and features that confuse their advertisers? Has this resulted in unfair treatment of their advertisers? Certainly it is true novice advertisers are now appearing for a ton of keywords they never knew about and that dilutes the effectiveness for advertisers trying to be precise. This is a valid point to argue. Again, I would ask that you compare Google in context to other advertising outlets.

Yahoo is a pure money grab, with little to no control over matching, placement and virtually no reporting capability. It's a guessing game.

MSN adcenter has a high degree of control over keyword matching, but a lot of growth is needed in the area of reporting and advertiser support.

ASK.com - Well if you want to put all your money on red and spin the wheel, that's what you get there.

I have many examples of Google being evil, invasion of privacy (Google maps, earth, medical and so on). We can also be upset about auto inclusion in the iphone ads. However, broad match, well although not perfect it's up to us to use the tools and employ the right strategy to minimize the risk.


At least Google give's us tools and information, we may not like what we find, but that is better than being left in the dark altogether.


Discovery

[sitetruth]

What happened to "do no evil"? A 63% decline in Google's stock price, a decline in revenue projected to continue for the next three years, and failure to make money from any product other than AdWords. Layoffs have started at Google, and there is fear in Mountain View. Google is still profitable, but the glory days are over.

This isn't the first unwanted feature that Google enabled by default. The classic is the "Google Content Network", which most advertisers don't need or want. An ad on search results is displayed when the user is looking for something, so a click there has a reasonable chance to convert to a sale. An ad on some semi-related non-search page is about as valuable as a banner ad; most of the clicks there come from the 10% of Internet users who click on anything and buy nothing. If you haven't found the secret hidden checkbox that turns off ads on the Content Network, keep looking.

[Discovery]

I'm not sure where you're coming from Sitetruth.

I know that every advertisers needs are different, and different things work for each of us. As an agency advertiser Content has been bread and butter for us for years. It certainly can cause us fits from time to time, but compared to Yahoo...? Ask? ABC and Findology? Google is the tops hands down.

I agree, no new feature should be auto opted in, but instead defaulted to opted out. They made this mistake with the phone/pda advertising recently.

Google losing money on other "products"? Did I miss it or when did Google have some other source of revenue outside of advertising and adwords? Is there a Google line of clothing, Calculators or golf gear out there?
Every decision they make has to pass the "will it result in more ad revenue" test. Every feature, online app and gadget has the end goal of generating more traffic to increase ad rev. The Google Phone is the only actual physical item for purchase that I can think of that Google has had a hand in rolling out. And although this one has a retail component to it, the purpose is still to have another lucrative channel to pump ads onto.

Again, I don't think the evil part of Google is their adwords and adsense offerings. Not perfect, but they are far better than any other offering. Knock Yahoo and Ask before you trash G. If you want to call Linda Blair on Google then you should be looking at their privacy infringements on consumer data and collusion with the incoming administration. Adwords injustices are petty compared to this strategic alignment.


Discovery

[RonnyD]

Overall, this crazy broad match is a neutral to positive for us.

Still, you wanna hear the best one?

Keyword: German Translation Questions got a hit from Search query, Gestapo Interrogation Techniques. What is up with that one Big G? Y'know, i would never have come up with negative kw Gestapo.

[AdWordsRep]

This has been a very interesting thread, with divergent opinions - which leads me to offer this up:

I have a meeting with a couple of colleagues at 10:00 on Thursday morning (Mountain View CA time) specifically to talk over broad match and how it is perceived/used/valued/not valued by our advertisers.

I've already shared this thread with them, but thought I'd go a step beyond that and ask for further feedback - whether postive, negative or neutral.

When I talk to them, I'll both quote you verbatim and link-to this thread again.

That said, I'll add a thought here - for what it's worth - based on years of passing along feedback to the right people:

In order for you to be most effectively 'heard' by these folks (who have actively asked for feedback on the subject, who care about the answers, and who have made time to talk about it) I think that a clear calm and concise post is more likely to have impact than one that is a closer to a rant or an essay - just given that human nature is what it is.

Thanks for the thread, and thanks in advance for your further thoughts.

Best,

AWR

[B-Double-U]

I am still waiting for an answer on another issue that reared up today.

It seems that even though we have chosen to have "image" as a campaign wide negative keyword, google is now posting adwords ads to the image searches.

I am guessing that aside from people in the imaging, industry like istockphoto and the rest, that most companies would not want to pay for facilitating some kid in a forum looking for a quick picture to post, to get to their site only to have them steal an image to make a point or joke in a forum...

A way to opt out of this would be keen or to at least add it as part of the content network, so that we can opt completely out of the content network. It would be a shame though, to have to dump a profitable portion of our spend, due to this reason.

Hopefully that feature will be added soon

[Discovery]

You can exclude the image ads by going to campaign site exclusion
Then select the tab "Page Types"
Then in that menu check the box for "Image-sharing pages"

Don't know if it truly has an effect but you can add, images.google.com to your site exclusion list for good measure.

Discovery

[Mel66]

AWR, as usual I'm a day late and a dollar short on this thread, but I'd be very interested to hear what the outcome of your meeting was WRT broad match. Increasing advertiser choice on broad matching options has been a request for a while now and I'd love to hear if any progress has been made in this area.

Whatever you can share, of course.

[B-Double-U]

So here is the official response I received from my rep

With regards to excluding yourself from Image Search, I wanted to clarify
that this is part of our search network, which also includes sites such as
AOL and Ask.com. Currently to prevent your ads from showing on Image
Search you will need to opt-out of the search network on your campaign
settings page. I just want to point out that this might have an effect on
your overall traffic, since it will be limiting overall search network
traffic.

So, I guess, I would like to request that offering a method for the advertisers to directly opt out of specific properties would be nice. Or even if an update is going to be rolled out, that the advertisers are made aware of that roll-out and given the option to accept or opt out of the change/addition before it hits. I especially think that this is appropriate for scenarios of this nature where it is common belief that the image search was set apart from the rest of the searches for the specific reason of relevancy. It would be like inserting articles into the google shopping results, it's a bit flip on what the original intention was.

With everyone under the understanding that image search is for images, then to just light up ads for products and services , in my eyes, defeats the purpose of the image search and reduces the relevancy of the target everyone has focused on for those ads they created.....