• http://mytechmadesimple.com Scott Eklund

    I’ve been waiting for this for a while, this is going to save me a lot of time and effort with my campaigns.

  • http://twitter.com/jmloquist Jeff Loquist

    I could see how this could be beneficial, but can also see this causing a LOT of wasted spend if  an advertiser is not careful with their negatives and such.

  • http://www.andykuiper.com Andy Kuiper – SEO Analyst

    It makes sense and it’s easier, however those who are effectively targeting misspellings, etc. will miss out on the much lower CPC for these types of clicks. 

  • Venkat Raman

    Its Good thing in Adwords, this things helpful to easy manage the campaign and save time. Let’s we check how could beneficial with budget cost.

  • http://twitter.com/PhilWendell Phil Wendell

    I would be interested in giving this a try, but I’ll be watching the search term report.

  • jacky you

    We (www.hatsshoponline.com) offer 24 hours customer services on weekdays
    as well as hours on Saturday (except for major holidays). We believe in the
    timeliness of customer service, and would like to do everything to satisfy our
    customers. If you have any problems, comments or suggestions, please contact
    our customer service representatives. Email:  hatsshoponline@hotmail.com

  • Tracey Fletcher

    Will be interesting to see how this option will change the keyword quality score? If at all?

  • http://twitter.com/BlackHatPPCBlog Black Hat PPC

    Apparently this isn’t going to effect negative match types though. So those advertisers who have campaigns split by match type and negative match accordingly are now going to have duplication going on in their campaigns if they are opted in to this.

  • http://twitter.com/malcolm_gibb Malcolm Gibb

    I’ve been waiting for this for a long time, although I think I will test it out on limited campaigns and monitor the search term reports for a while before rolling it out across campaigns. At least there is the option to turn it off! I’ve also written about it in my blog 
    http://www.malcolmgibb.co.uk/blog/index.php/google/adwords-improves-match-types/

  • http://twitter.com/andrew_goodman Andrew Goodman

    Clear delineation in the functions of different match types has (to date) been one of the true hallmarks of the integrity and precision of the AdWords program. Overture/Yahoo, despite many high hopes that we had for it in the past, was a nightmare because there were no clear definitions of match types, and virtually no way to understand how matching in the two types (“basic” and “advanced”) actually worked.

    I am having trouble grasping the notion that the only commenters on SEL so far on this feature have been “anticipating” it and see no problem with it whatsoever? This completely breaks the conventions around what match types are and how they are supposed to behave. Also: CPC’s aren’t the issue, people… it’s ROI? *Google has been doing this for years*… in broad match. That’s where it should stay. People are far too trusting of Google features like this. It will play havoc with campaigns that have been carefully architected. It’ll dilute performance and hurt, not help, campaigns that have already been tuned to respond to the search intent around very particular phrases that have been exact and phrase matched. That’s my 2c. But hey, if you really trust Google that much be my guest, and while you’re at it go ahead and opt into automatic matching at the same bid as your search campaigns!

    Most of the comments so far seem naive, but maybe people here at SEL just leave comments to drop links.

  • http://deepfootprints.co.uk/ Joel Chudleigh

    I agree with Andrew, this is not a helpful move for advertisers. If anyone believes that terribly patronising tone from Google’s release then they are in the wrong game.

    Google have done this because they have seen that they are missing out on monetising many misspelling, synonym and variation type keywords.

    Many advertisers have realised the pitfalls of broad match and have moved away from it in recent years as it damages ROI – but does have value in keyword research if managed carefully.

    With this change they will effectively increase impressions and traffic for a vast number of advertisers and of course with that will come greater revenue for Google. It will also increase CPC’s as it will mean that many more advertisers will join the harder workers on the niche keywords.

    I have written up my thoughts more comprehensively on our blog:http://deepfootprints.co.uk/online-marketing/ppc/thoughts-on-the-new-improved-phrase-and-exact-match/#comment-6020

  • http://www.facebook.com/greatestmanonearth Joe Bilmy

    sdfsdfasdsdf s dfsdf 

  • http://twitter.com/jccornwell Chris Cornwell

    I am not particularly enthusiastic about this. I bid on some broad matches, mixing in the appropriate negatives, to get this traffic already. Now it seems Google is throwing a wrench into the works simply to drive more clicks.  Not necessarily a good thing. I’m taking a wait and see approach.  Luckily Google is offering an opt out which I might just take.  

  • http://twitter.com/jmloquist Jeff Loquist

     According to adWords Help any variations will use the QS & first page bid of the root exact match term.

    https://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2537522

  • http://twitter.com/sck419 Stephen Kapusta

    I’m not thrilled about this at all.  Why even bother with match types now?  The main reason that I’ve steered clear of any major advertising initiatives on Yahoo, Microsoft, and other similar PPC platforms is their very vague handling of match types.

    I’ve worked hard to develop a list of specific misspellings, acronyms, and etc. which convert very well.  By automatically serving ads for these queries they will not only drive more clicks, higher costs, and lower conversion rates, but will also drive the average CPC of my misspelling variations up due to increased competition.

    They are rewarding lazy marketers (those with very large marketing budgets & poor strategy) by including this feature — as well as themselves.

  • http://twitter.com/jmloquist Jeff Loquist

    People are way too quick to jump on the bandwagon of what Google says is good (for the most part). So what if the QS for the Exact match term stays the same. What about the fact that you generally pay a lower CPC for a misspelling or other variation when you bid on it exactly or the fact that CTR% is going to vary on those variations and over time and could potentially lower the QS and raise the CPCs over time…yeah, some of us consider those things Goog.

  • Nick_Snow

     I completely agree – this change seems to also blur / overshadow / overwrite the functionality of Modified Broad Match in some ways. As Joel noted below, this is about Google making investors richer and not about making Adwords more useful for advertisers.

  • Miriam Reissnauer

    I totally agree. In what way is giving up control good
    for you? There’s after all a reason why search marketers like combining all 4 match
    types for a maximum level of control and the exact implementation of search
    strategies. BTW, there’s broad match modified (BMM) as well – the thingie with
    the plus -  already a super convenient match type for not missing out on
    closely related relevant queries. 

  • mikekujanek

    The article falls short of mentioning the flawed rollout of this feature. What advertisers should know is that all advertisers – worldwide – will be opted into upon the rollout of Near Exact / Near Phrase in mid-May. While some of us will catch this and request an opt-out, the industry will inadvertently be affected by the feature and increased bid pressure that it will cause. If you wonder what Google has in store to meet its Avg CPC goal in fiscal Q2 2012, this is a feature to help achieve that – and at your expense.

    There is no value in this feature to advertisers because the feature is wholly redundant. Google already offers broad match, broad match modifier, phrase match, and then even search query reports to give marketers insight into new keywords for misspellings, plurals/singulars, antonyms.

  • http://www.rimmkaufman.com/ George Michie

    Andrew hit the nail on the head.  Google is doing advertisers the “favor” of eliminating exact match, turning everything into modified broad match, effectively.  Dumbing down the product will help some, but penalize others.  As long as the sophisticated folks have the ability to opt-out I’m cool with it, otherwise I’d be on the war path.

  • http://www.roibot.co.uk/ PPC Management

    Yep, Google is finding a way to make more money out of those who steer away from broad match

  • Craig Barrett

    I am stunned that Google continues to roll out “features” that do nothing but water down their system and its value. From the elimination of the old search query report to the elimination of exact match, it gets worse ever day. If only Bing/FaceBook/Anyone could offer a credible alternative and keep Google in check!

  • http://twitter.com/mvanwagner Matt Van Wagner

    Wow!  This is unbelievably crazy bullshit! Hey Google, we’re  your partners, not your adversaries!! 

    Unilateral and FUNDAMENTAL changes like this with a month’s notice is reckless, irresponsible and completely adverse to responsible business partnership.  
    Unlike SEO, where Google has no financial relationship with optimizers and is free(r) to change algorithms as they see fit to ‘improve’ results,  advertisers pay money to Google every minute of every day, and have made huge investments in building out complex and efficient campaigns to maximize reach and return on ad spend, based on FUNDAMENTAL matching rules. The heavier the investment by partners, the more likely they are to have build structures to optimize campaigns.

    30 days notice to change the foundations of everyone’s campaigns structures is completely unacceptable! 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=676198553 Timo Weis

    The only advertisers who would not opt out are:

    a) Users who don’t understand SEM
    b) Lazy advertisers who cannot be bothered to implement a proper account structure
    c) Agencies which get paid commission based on Search Spend
    d) Users who don’t know about it

    For all other advertisers who are lucky enough not to be in the groups above, CPCs will still increase as the competition for your keywords will be higher, based on everyone who is not opting out. 

    And the only winner is……Google…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=676198553 Timo Weis

    Hi Matt, you can opt out before the roll-out. Contact Google, they have a tool with which they can opt out all campaigns in the back-end before the roll-out.We were facing the same problem.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=507536131 Michael Shostack

    If I wanted to expand my reach to cover off on these things I would use broad match modifier.  Don’t take away the control of phrase and exact match, and don’t redefine how they work.

    It looks like they are giving some control still, but who knows how well it will work.

  • Gail Mullard

     Having built a business on the back of Google products and passing the search giant a lot of dosh in the process, it seems as though I am fighting with them week in week out now.  As someone else pointed out above a new player is required to dilute their power – the company is turning in on itself and its faithful partners.

  • http://twitter.com/mvanwagner Matt Van Wagner

    Hi Tim
    Thanks – after my blood pressure came back down, I called Google and they graciously offered to opt out accounts.  

    However, why was this not an opt-in vs. opt-out?  

  • http://twitter.com/AidanJMcCarthy Aidan McCarthy

    I’m ok with this being offered as a match type for those who want it but I’m not at all ok with G’s assumption that everybody wants to be opted in – that is a disgraceful cynical move!

    Once again G shows a big up-yours to users in favour of its own revenue.

  • Tracey Fletcher

    Thanks Jeff for the response

  • VaskoTashe

    Great feature add-on by Google.

    This could be a great time saver!
    http://cyberlinkmedia.com/ 

  • TimoWeis

    Hi Matt, what do you think will work in favour of Google in terms of increasing their revenue? :-) Nobody who knows SEM would opt into this new feature.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Wright/791862277 Dan Wright

    wow – thanks for the better perspective to those worthy posters – I’m thinking about it differently now.

    Knew I should have checked the fine print 

    /homer moment

  • Pat Grady

    I wonder if DKI will consider the typo close enough to inject?

    Thanks G, everything you do to make it simple and easy, is another setting that makes it complex and hard – as a consultant, thanks.

  • Josh Babbitt

    I totally agree.  These should have been introduced as different match types, such as Modified Phrase match, and Modified Exact match.  For Google to just assume that everyone wants this, and automatically opt the campaign in to it is lame.

  • AdwordsAgencySA

    I agree with you Andrew. They are making new definitions for already existing terms. But then they can do whatever they want. This way they monetise more off the same keywords by having more competitors, it ties with their marketing of end users as Agencies loose them money. Use it in Broad Match Modifier as it is intended… 

    So no you are not alone….

  • MrBrig

    Yawn!
    You think Google wants their client base to not succeed? If we are all losing money, will some stop using AdWords? If they leave, will Google miss out on money? YES. If you can trust anything, trust the profit motive! Welcome to capitalism. They WANT us to succeed. This change will only bring higher profitability to users. Yes, it will require tweaking for some people, but lets stop this “trust” nonsense. Google is in the business of helping us make money, because when we succeed, they succeed. They could try to pull a fast one, and they would make money, but in the long term people would stop using their services and Google would begin losing their advantage in the online advertising market —- and that’s a horrible business model.

    Brig
    SlideBelts.com

  • http://www.deadlywind.com/ Paintball Barrel

    Since google automatically corrects most typos in searches nowdays, I don’t see why this matters?

  • http://www.semmedia.org/ SEM Media

    This improvement will really help Google Advertiser to misspelling and targeting wrong keywords for their campiagn

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Goff/100003745805608 Adam Goff

    my classmate’s sister-in-law makes $84 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her income was $9078 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this site N u t t y R i c h dot cöm

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lionel-Rizky/100003781846299 Lionel Rizky

     make it easier to promote your website http://easyhighincomejobs.com/ please visit my website and select the one product that I offer my diwebsite. thank you

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZQTYJRROHH2ZV5LBOWAFK7J53I CAS

    I’ve done some deep digging into this and I must say, I’m not
    happy. I’ve already turned off all of the close variant options in all of my
    campaigns — it was either that or Pause ALL broad campaigns.

     

    My account is set up in match type campaigns with massive
    amounts of negative KWs to discourage cross traffic. We took into account about
    80% of the variants in spelling and plurals, etc. in the account itself.
     It took almost 3 months to clean up an account I inherited that was a
    mess. So we now have close variant options in Adwords. And initially I thought
    it would be great because I assumed it would pick up the few things we left out
    in the account AND there would be a downstream change in the “Opportunities”
    tab in terms of KW ad recomendations. Not so! Here is an example of what is
    happening:

     

    1) Campaign X-Exact Match>Adgroup X-Exact Match>KW-X Exact
    Match

    2) KW-X Exact Match is also a negative in the Campaign X-Phrase
    Match>Adgroup X-Phrase Match

    3) KW-X Exact Match in 7 days had 155 Impressions at a CPC of
    $1.22

    4) Search Query report shows KW-X Exact Match Close Variant (an
    EXACT duplicate of the KW in #3 above) is triggering ads from the SAME Campaign
    and getting 497 Impressoins at a CPC of $1.64… MORE MONEY!!!!! And it’s the
    same Keyword!!! In the same Adgroup, in the same Campaign!!!! How is that
    possible? I didn’t think duplicate KWs within the same Campaign/Adgroup were
    allowed….

     

    So, my CTR has gone down on the KW I had listed in the campaign.
    I can’t add this “close variant” KW because IT’S THE SAME KW and a
    duplicate!!!  And my Ad Rank has also gone down so my overal costs have
    gone up.

     

    AND, these close variants (both Phrase and Exact) are triggering
    Ads from my Broad Match campaigns as well. 

     

    This totally threw my campaign into a tizzy. So — I had
    two choices – Turn off ALL my Broad Match Campaigns or Turn Off ALL close
    variants. I chose to turn off the Close Variant options for now.

     

    If you have Campaign/Adgroups with mixed match type KWs or
    you’re just beginning to build a campaign then I could see how this would be
    very helpful/useful especially in terms of dealing with all of the plurals and
    misspellings — but it nearly tanked in terms of cost my very successful
    campaign. 

     

    It will be interesting to see what happens in the long term.