Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 39
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: October 16, 2007 - 7:05 am
Posted By: storyspinner 630 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.semclubhouse.com)
Category: Google AdWords
We have come across a different issue that relates to the investigation of expanded broad match, and has wider-reaching repercussions for your PPC campaigns, as well as understanding oddities in interpreting Analytics. We have been seeing this issue for the last month or so (since Aug-Sep 2007)....
18 Comments
Comments
Wow, that sounds like a huge mistake from Google, and an even huger headache for AdWords advertisers...
http://searchengineland.com/070723-154239.php
&
http://sphinn.com/story/953
I've seen these types of queries translate into sales more and more frequently over the past few months.
Jeremy – count your blessings. Your experience is the exception rather than the rule here.
Personally, I'd say an ad distributor that shows an ad for "Ladies Golf Clothes/Shoes" when I searched for "women's perfume" is seriously flawed.
PPC advertisers have been observing this phenomena for several months – as Mike mentioned in the article it has been in discussion and speculated about over at WebMasterWorld and other places. What is different now is the explanation for the behavior has been confirmed by Google engineers - that the ad is definitely being displayed based on the user's previous search query.
Showing ads based on the previous query results in non-relevant ads being displayed and that does not enhance the user experience . The only thing it does is improve Google's revenue by maximizing the bid price and quantity of ads that they display.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm tired of hearing how Google is all about the user experience and then they pull a stunt like this that severely degrades that very experience.
I don't see a problem with this. If the search results the first time around didn't show a searcher something worthy of clicking on it makes sense that they'd use that information combined with a 2nd search to determine what the user is looking for. I'm sure there are bad examples you can find, like golf shows that smell perfumy, etc. but I think this is a good thing.
This is one of the reasons I'm surprised that people are so concerned about and fearful Expanded Broad Match. Even if the query doesn't SEEM relevant to the user's search (ie doesn't seem targetted to your site) that doesn't mean it's not relevant. A) It was relevant enough to something for Google to show it and B) Relevant enough for the user to click it - unless your ad copy is vague then you got a targetted click whether you want to admit it or not.
I have been thinking about this whole previous query situation. I have to applaud Google for their creativity, but often with innovation comes unforeseen problems. My concern is that for advertisers with high bid prices who do not want their ads to show for non relevant searches, this new technique for determining which ads display can be very expensive.
I'll agree with Tim and Jeremy that there may be cases where the previous search query may be related and may work to your advantage, but showing your ads for non-relevant queries is normally not a good practice.
Think about it, the problem with showing an ad for a non-relevant query is that many searchers still click on the ad – relevant or not - and the advertiser is charged for the click.
It is for this reason that one of the first things you do in PPC Optimization 101 is to ensure your ads don't show for non-relevant queries. If you can keep the ads from showing in the first place you don't have to worry about a searcher clicking on the ad and your client doesn't have to worry about paying for it.
I also wanted to clarify something. The previous search issue isn't isolated to Expanded Broad Match. It affects all match types - so switching to exact or phrase doesn't cure this problem. Switching can cure a lot of weirdness with EBM, but not this problem. If you're running adWords, you are affected by the previous query issue.
Okay – I'm out of here. It's a lovely Fall day and meant to be spent outdoors. Enjoy.
" The previous search issue isn't isolated to Expanded Broad Match. It affects all match types - so switching to exact or phrase doesn't cure this problem. "
I find that part especially disturbing.
It's one thing to play this type of game on a campaign that's already setup to allow for some leeway in what phrases the ads show for...but to toss this kind of stuff at someone who has gone to the effort of switching over to exact match so they can fine tune their spending?
It's irresponsible.
Maybe Google's AdWords servers are getting a little bogged down and they see this as a good way to send some folks scurrying to Yahoo, Live or Ask? ;)
"The previous search issue isn't isolated to Expanded Broad Match. It affects all match types - so switching to exact or phrase doesn't cure this problem."
Christine, could you share an example of where you see this being a problem, even if it's just theorhetical? I am especially interested in an exact match example.
TimDineen said:
"I'm surprised that people are so concerned about and fearful Expanded Broad Match. Even if the query doesn't SEEM relevant to the user's search (ie doesn't seem targetted to your site) that doesn't mean it's not relevant. A) It was relevant enough to something for Google to show it and B) Relevant enough for the user to click it - unless your ad copy is vague then you got a targetted click whether you want to admit it or not. "
TimDineen, there are two problems here:
Re: A) Google is not perfect in determining relevancy. Consider the steel foundry PPC advertiser who, due to expanded broad match, was having his ads display for searches for Dollywood (Dolly Parton's theme park in Tennessee). According to Google, Dollywood = Pidgeon Forge, TN, and Forge = steel forging. There are many, many more examples, especially where the same word has different meanings in different contexts.
Re: B) If the ad were clicked, it was likely clicked by accident, and would have a high bounce rate, costing the advertiser money for no gain. Even if someone does NOT click on the ad (as was likely in this case), the CTR will be negatively affected due to the extra non-clicked impressions, and ad placement might suffer as a result, causing the advertiser to spend more to achieve the same positioning, again costing the advertiser money.
I'd like to see the statistics Google used to come up with thie idea to do this. Are people so frustrated with one search they perform another?
grnidone, who needs stats? Obviously it makes sense to Google because it's making them more money.
Advertisers should have the option of opting out of expanded match.
Mike,
I don't know the exact keywords used in your dollywood example so I wonder if negative keywords would have prevented the issue? I just punched dollywood into the google keyword tool and pigeon forge & pigeon forge tn were listed. Google sees a connection there, even in the natural results. A search for pigeon forge tn shows the dollywood site at #5.
Jeremy,
The dollywood example was an example from our direct experience of a blatant mismatch of expanded broad match. We fixed it two years ago.
The two biggest problems with this for me is:
1) Google have not told advertisers about this. That is simply dishonest. If Google believe this is so great then why not tell advertisers about it? We have a right to know what we buy!
2) There should be an option to turn this "feature" off. As examples in this thread and other places has shown there are definately many situations where it is not good. Let the advertiser choose!
Mike,
I understand it was an example based on experience but that doesn't really answer the question - would proper negative keyword implementation have prevented the issue? If the keyword was listed as a potential match and wasn't added as a negative at the onset of the campaign I wouldn't fault Google.
Demib, Google has told everyone about this feature (see the broad match documentation) and you can turn it off or opt out - use exact and phrase match instead of broad.
I've mentioned it before but if you bid on anything related to movies or film, like if you were say Blockbuster or Paramount Pictures your brand would show for things like "incest home movie" or "child rape movie". To me that is a major problem. It has happened, I have documented it. It's an ongoing battle and an ever growing list of disgusting negative terms that would raise the hair on the back of your necks (kind of a sick window into the human soul.) Why should I have to tell Google I don't want to pay for clicks for things so blatantly off my topic of the legit media industry? why are they even running ads relating to illegal activity? You can't mention illegal activity in your ad copy or landing page, but they sure as heck will make you pay for an errant broad match out to an illegal term. If that doesn't prove to you that extended broad match is flawed and needs an opt out button immediately, then I don't know what to tell you.
TheRealTerry - The example you listed could in theory happen with "basic" broad match, it wouldn't be limited to expanded broad match. If you're just broad macthing "movies" or something similiar without proper negative matches you leave your self open to show ads for some interesting variations.
Oh, trust me, I have a nice long negative keyword list and do not show for any of those terms now, but it took weeks of showing for those items and reviewing search query reports to gather them. I still worry what is inside those "...and 30 other keywords" segments that we DON'T get to see. Why can't we see those? I paid for them, I should get to see every damn keyword clicked, period.
My point is it wouldn't happen if Google applied the same criteria to block ad copy and landing page content for illegal and otherwise inappropriate terms to what they show ads for and collect money on. Seems like that would be high on the priority list to not collect money for "child rape movie" terms as that comes dangerous close to them becoming an accomplice to a crime. I mean, if I can come up with the negative keyword list why can't they do the same and apply it across the board? They are picking up a ton of cash from unknowing account holders whose brands are showing for things they wouldn't allow you to build creative for. Seems like they are putting on a public face of not allowing advertising for certain terms, but behind the curtain they are collecting cash for them all the same.
And beyond that issue, expanded broad match is flat out retarded. I mean, who thought taking a synonym of a mispelling, ignoring the qualifying terms that accompanied the orginal phrase and then matching all that loosely categorically would ever yield anything but 99% garbage? You get crap like "genetic research" = "gene research" = "jeans" = "levi jeans" = "sales on levi jeans jackets". The only two ways to describe that are "WTF" and "$$$ for Google at the expense of advertisers and searchers alike". I mean, just let us opt out on problem keywords and go back to standard broad match as we see fit. Otherwise the viewpoint that Google is making too much money ripping off people to meet advertisers needs on this remains a valid and very important point.