Comments on: Separating Your Matches Types into Different Campaigns is a Bad Idea

By: pravakar

pravakar — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:08:18 +0000

Separating match type is not a bad idea, i can say using different match type we can save money and time. If we will need only sell or target leads then different type match is necessary in order to get more revenue

By: Pablo

Pablo — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:49:59 +0000

It’s unclear why this strategy is called a “bad idea” but all of the reasons say “it’s too confusing,” but ignore the benefits. Someone else already highlighted the simplicity of capping/uncapping the expensive broad match campaign. This feels more difficult if broad keywords are included with the exacts.

A broad match keyword can compete with exact when Google gets fancy with broad matching. Workaround is adding exact match negatives of every broad match keyword in the broad campaign. This forces the broad campaign to ONLY be used for broad matches, just as it should. You can’t do this with the proposed technique above.

By: Alan Mitchell

Alan Mitchell — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:21:34 +0000

Hi Joe,

Nice post. I completely agree that splitting out match types into their own ad groups (or campaigns) is a bad idea. As long as the structure of the account is well though-out so that keywords in each ad group are very tightly themed – as Kenny pointed out – then having all three match types in the same ad group shouldn’t present a problem.

Obviously some irrelevant searches might get broad-matched to your keywords, so you could argue that they might bring down the Quality Score of the whole ad group, but I think this is out-weighed by the benefits of a simpler account structure and an increased amount of ad group data made available for ad text analysis, insight and optimisation.

What’s more, now that we can run detailed search query reports at an ad group level, it’s relatively easy to identify broad-matched searches that are being matched to the ‘wrong’ ad groups (see my ‘10% Clicks Rule’ post). The search query report also makes it relatively easy to add new keywords and negatives, so that only searches which are highly-relevant to that ad group’s keywords are triggering that ad group’s keywords.

So as long as the account structure is granular and closely themed, I’m all in favour of keeping broad, phrase and exact match types together.

By: Markus

Markus — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:11:55 +0000

Hi!

Maybe you can help me with that: Google write´s “Listing the same keyword more than once in a single campaign works against you (our system interprets this as increased competition for this keyword, resulting in a higher CPC for it).”

How should I use matchtypes from that point of view. Separated in campaigns or use different mt in separate adgroups of the same campaign?

Thanks,
M.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:35:03 +0000

I have to disagree too.
I’ve been recently separating match types for a whole bunch of large accounts, which lets me pick different budget strategies depending on each campaign’s proprer match type.
For instance, I can uncap budgets on my exact campaigns if i want to achieve a maximum Impression Share on these high profitable keyword, while limiting my exposure on Broad Match which gets a higher CPA… and so on.
I would say as a conclusion that separating match types through several campaigns depends on your will (and the money too!) to cap/uncap campaign budgets.

By: Dan PPCPROZ

Dan PPCPROZ — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:41:27 +0000

Hey Joe,

I’ve used the campaign match type methodology, and I agree with you 100%

In theory it seemed very clever, but as you described, optimization was actually more difficult, not to mention the extra time downloading into Editor.

That being said, I do have a best practice suggestion that spans the fence, which I will post to my blog soon.

By: Amanda L

Amanda L — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:18:12 +0000

I always split my match types into separate ad groups as the exact match groups get a much higher click through rate. It also makes it easier to ensure that your exact matches will always show over broad or phrase match. It’s also a long term strategy for eventually getting rid of broad matches that are costing money and not generating conversions. With AdWords Editor it’s so easy to manage anyway! I don’t find it a chore at all.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:58:13 +0000

Hey everyone. Thanks for the all of the great comments!

@trebuchet: I think testing different ad copy for different match types can be beneficial. This is why I think that separating match types into different ad groups can help improve performance in certain case, but I think separating them out into different campaigns has no direct benefits. The complication of reporting comes from having to pull cobble together a clear picture of a certain keyword’s match types by pulling them from completely different campaigns.

@Kevin Adams: Thanks! Yes, the term ‘embedded match’ is the same idea as Negative Exact, Negative Phrase, and Negative Broad. Didn’t mean to confuse anyone. You are so right about the search query report, but at least now Google is providing deeper data for this report (we wrote on the expansion of this report previously). Yes, exact match is certainly the least trafficked of all the match types. It is the most tightly focused, therefore having the shortest scope. I guess it is a good idea to cleanse your campaigns of exact match keywords that aren’t generating any impressions. Good point!

@Kenny: I agree with you. I think campaigns and ad groups are structured properly, then all 3 match types can reside in the same ad group. You can then adjust your bids at the keyword/match type level. Thank you!

By: Kenny

Kenny — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:04:54 +0000

Totally agree with you here. Proper match typing is one of the things people in the PPC world understand the least, but it is one of the most beneficial and crucial items in a successful account. Understanding match type differences and using them strategically to essentially help you achieve appropriate coverage while simultaneously producing the best iterative keyword research tool you could ever have (real query data) is key. Separating match types of the same keyword is usually unnecessary if you’re doing the above. In fact, if you tightly theme your ad groups for maximum QS and ad relevance benefit, in most cases that will mean that the 3 match types (if all are used) should be in the same ad group. If it’s that high volume of a keyword that the phrase/broad match possibilities warrant actual different messaging, then maybe. After all, that is what an ad group (at least by Google’s design) is for.

By: Kevin Adams

Kevin Adams — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:12:15 +0000

Great post Joe! I went threw this in my head more times than I can count, but I came to a different conclusion.

First, Embedded Match as a terminology is gone since there are now Negative Exact, Negative Phrase, and Negative Broad. This is significant for isolating search queries.

The search query report has always been great but lacking too many queries. The new changes seem to be reversing that trend, but I have to look through more reports to see if all queries are being included.

A great way to START is by using multiple match types for the same keyword. Over time I see some exact matches don’t get much traffic, but some do. The ones that do I delete, ad a campaign level negative exact match for, and isolate into their own adgroup in an exact-match-only campaign. If they are performing great, I can make them perform better. If they aren’t performing very good, I can improve them. If I can’t get anything out of them in the new adgroup, I eventually get rid of them never to worry about that exact keyword again.

The phrase match is great at isolating segments of the possible search queries that my broad matches qualify for so that I can in-turn create more exact matches in my initial adgroups. Rinse-repeat.