• CJ Haugen

    It is interesting the first thing brought up here is the breaking out of campaigns based on match type. After previously trying out a similar structure at an adgroup level, we were told by various agencies and through some research that this is no longer a best practice. However, Google has actually built a few things out for us following that structure and said it’s sort of 50/50. Does it depend on the account and the business?

    • Jeff Ferguson

      Doing the match type silo on the ad group level actually takes away a lot of the benefits of splitting them out at all, such as shared libraries for budget and negative terms, which is why you probably never really felt they worked well. Doing it on the campaign level though is money, especially for larger campaigns. The exact match silo does most of the targeted heavy lifting and the others become an automated keyword discovery system, if you take the time to use the search term report at least once a week.

      • Ben

        Jeff,
        When you say:

        “Doing the match type silo on the ad group level actually takes away a lot of the benefits of splitting them out at all, such as shared
        libraries for budget and negative terms” –> Could you elaborate on what you mean by the negative terms? Why is this not a benefit on an ad group level?

        • Jeff Ferguson

          Just about everything in the Shared Library is campaign level and very helpful with this strategy.

    • Amanda West-Bookwalter

      I agree with what Jeff said, for sure! Try it at the campaign level and actually take advantage of what that difference provides, and I’ll bet you’ll see better results. I can’t imagine why any agency would say it’s not best practice. It’s the only way to ensure you’re not getting cross traffic pollution. I think finding the best account structure is more about trying to figure out the nuances to how it/ what works best than scrapping match type sorting all together, but I’d love to hear any thoughts/examples otherwise!

  • Jeff Ferguson

    I’m a big fan of splitting by match type, but we use all types and for every case study I see against it, I have 5 more for it. Limiting it to just mod broad limits the technique’s ability to discover new terms, both good and bad. I can see ditching phrase match, because technically broad will catch the terms anyway, but it does make for a messier quality score during the process.

    • Amanda West-Bookwalter

      Yes, I think it really depends on the keywords! I can think of examples that not having plain broad could limit some great stuff for your account, but most of my accounts have very strict ROAS or CPA goals, and it would be difficult to maintain with broad match. I have taken high performers and made a small broad match campaign with them in the past to see if there are any terms I’m neglecting, but I keep the budget small. They always have terrible returns, but could bring in some stuff I had left out!

  • ?????????

    It’s really convenient structure. We use smth like this.
    I just want to add, should review search terms in ad groups with mod. broad match and based it add new keywords to groups with exact match, and accordingly to add this keywords like minuskeys in exact match in mod. broad match groups.
    What about naming it’s usefull, also you can use the numbering of campaigns and groups. It convenient if you use prototype ad campaigns in spreadsheet for some comments and label. This is particularly useful for if there the same groups in different campaigns, and want to look at changes at the lavel of ad groups.

    For example:
    1_001_PANTS (Kiev)
    1_001_001_Pants_Broad
    1_001_002_Pants_Exact
    1_002_PANTS (Ukraine)
    1_002_001_Pants_Broad
    1_002_002_Pants_Exact

    • Ricardo Zamorano

      ?????????, it is really interesting your numbering method. Could please explain it a bit more?
      For instance
      1_001_001_Pants_Broad

      1: Campaign?
      001: Ad group?
      001: Broad / 002: Exact / 003: Phrase ?

      Thanks

      • ?????????

        Ricardo,
        1 is a cluster (for instance “general inquiries”)
        001 is a Campaigns
        001_001: Ad group

  • Nadi Mertan

    I would like to make an addition to this part:

    “A vital part of this is making sure you have all your exact match keywords as embedded negative exact match keywords in your modified broad match campaigns. ”

    One of the important points here is making sure none of your exact match keywords are “low search volume keywords”. There have been some cases when no ads were triggered by the search queries because the matched keywords were low search volume keywords. At the same time they could have triggered an ad if they weren’t added as negatives to the other match type groups.

    • Amanda West-Bookwalter

      That’s a very good point, Nadi! You’re not doing yourself any favors by adding a low search volume keyword as an exact match and then as a negative to the broad match campaigns, because it likely won’t trigger as exact match. You’ll want that broad match keyword to still be able to pick it up if it ever comes up again.

  • Jonny Walsh

    Could you not just separate out match types by adgroups rather than campaigns?

    • Amanda West-Bookwalter

      If you did, you could still implement a negative embedded strategy as well as create targeted ads; however, you wouldn’t be able to use different budgets, settings, etc. So, it’s really up to what you’d like to be able to do with them! In my experience, I like to have lower budgets on the modified broad match keywords, or they’ll eat too much budget.

      • Anu A

        Like Johnny, I do think separating out match types by ad groups is a viable option. However to ensure that Broad/BMM don’t eat budget, I always make sure that their bids are always lower than that of the phrase and most especially the Exact match terms. Even when not separating out (to aid manageability/low budgets), I would always recommend that Exact match to have the highest bid, followed by phrase, then BMM, then Broad.

      • Boryana K

        I also tend to keep both within the same campaign. To solve it, depending on your bidding habits, you could set separate bid strategies with their own target spend and bids.

      • Lucas von Fürstenberg

        In addition to that: The exact match keywords should have a better CTR than BMM, so seperating them into different campaigns can lead to better cpc on the exact match campaign.

      • Marko Minka

        In addition, it is easier to apply exact match negatives to BMM keywords using negative keywords lists feature – which works on a campaign level – than adding negatives to each BMM ad group separately.

  • Lukas Hietkamp

    We’ve been using this method for the past 2 years at my agency. Overall this is the preferred method for building out an account structure. But for smaller accounts, some keywords don’t get enough conversions to determine if the’re Alpha material (local advertising, niche markets etc.). So basically this advice is the same as all the other AdWords advice. Just adjust the method to the data you are seeing. Brad Geddes also covered this and other structures for matchtype in his post : http://searchengineland.com/3-simple-strategies-for-organizing-your-match-types-70096

    • Amanda West-Bookwalter

      Thanks for reading & commenting, Lukas! Ahh, of course Brad has covered it before! ;-)

  • Emma Harwood

    I have implemented this strategy after restructuring a previous agencies account. The issue I am now facing is that the broad modifier keywords are not being served, as I have the same term in the adgroup as an exact negative. Google has advised me not to use this strategy! It doesn’t make sense to be and I still agree with this match type strategy but if I can’t drive traffic then it becomes redundant.

    • Daniel Akbosh

      Just came across this article. I put it to the test for one of my campaigns and I had the same issue. Spoke with a Google Rep and they said the same thing. How do we fix this?

      • Emma Harwood

        I spoke to another consultant at Google, who I believe has a little more experience and he told me to ignore the error message. It does in fact work but the system automatically gives the message that the keyword is not being shown. Just remember to keep mining the SQR reports for further keyword and negative buildouts in exact

  • Art McCarty

    When you migrated the keywords over, did you migrate 15% of terms or more aggressively? I assume you brought over the same adcopy. Any increase in cpc? Great strategy and one I have wanted to implement and its the early part of the month so now is the time. Thanks for the great post Amanda and fellow marketers.