• http://www.summitweb.net/seo-inverness-scotland.html Martin Oxby

    Sorely missing the global vs. local and the broad, exact and phrase matches we could easily analyse.

    As with all Google changes, we will just have to lump it and get used to it. This article mentioned the positives, which are true, but they’ve removed much-used features of Keyword Tool, which just makes it more of a hassle to get the data you want.

  • Chris Bernard

    Don’t trust estimator tools and certainly don’t trust those provided by the company incentivized to make money off of it. Best technique… test with AdWords at the local level, bucket the best words, then get optimizing.

  • Max Winkleman

    I’m not a fan of it thus far. But, that’s pretty typical for a change of this magnitude. Like anything that’s forced upon you, the more I play with it, the more I will learn to love it or hate it.

  • http://www.keshkesh.com/ Takeshi Young

    Bing’s keyword tool provides a lot more data, although they’re obviously working with a much smaller dataset.


    What happened to “if if ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?

  • Shashank Naithani

    After reading this. I opened the keyword planner tool.
    i think its hard to evaluate the parameters locally.
    feature like broad, exact match filters are gone.

  • Dean Rowe

    I think the match type issue is probably a bug… when you start the Keyword Tool for the first time it says:

    To specify a match type, add punctuation:

    Broad match: New York hotels
    Phrase match: “New York hotels”
    Exact match: [New York hotels]

    This isn’t working (if you perform the 3 different “New York hotels” searches they all come out the same), but I imagine and hope it’ll be fixed soon

  • treb072410

    Great post! Good read! Thanks for sharing!

  • Rachel D

    I’m not sure why it was changed to the planner, didn’t seem as if anything was wrong with the keyword tool! However as mentioned will just be something you have to get used to.. going to have a go on it to get my head around the new format!

  • http://www.tweedsolutions.com/ Tweed Solutions

    I’m not sure why it was changed either. The keyword tool was fine.

  • http://www.LeadDiscovery.com/ Jerry Nordstrom

    I’m a little frustrated with the new implementation as well. It seems the core problems are the goal of the tool combined with the design logic, or lack thereof.

    In short the tools goal is now 100% focused on creating or supplementing campaigns/adgroups with new “ideas”. Although this is needed and very useful, I believe many of us used the tool in a vastly different way in the past. We used it as a quick keyword research and measurement tool – A one off utility tool, not a multi-step campaign building tool. Conducting this kind of research with the new “Keyword Planner” often sends us down an unexpected and confusing path.

    The exact, phrase and broad match options are under the pencil icon – No rhyme or reason here, just hey, we moved it under the pencil with no mouse-over help to give you a heads up where we hid it. And if you think it belongs under the “Campaign Filters” we didn’t put it there. Also, please remember, don’t you dare use the browser’s forward or back button – You’ll get dumped straight out of the tool.

  • Scott Davis

    Ironically, that reminds me of something a guy I used to work for had as his email signature. “If it ain’t broke, break it!”

    Needless to say that’s not a good policy…

    But Google, being Google, doesn’t play by its own rules. A recent example of this is NAP on Google+ pages and map listings… Today Google took it upon themselves to change street names for physical locations and implement a “drop down list”, so If you happen to be on Lincoln Avenue, and they don’t have it listed… your map listing now says you’re on “Lincoln Street”. Thanks for the help in keeping our NAP consistent across platforms and directories, Google!

    But back to the topic at hand… Keyword Research now takes me twice as long as it used to in sorting through all the irrelevant suggestions “not closely related” to the adgroup keywords I put in to view volume for and having to set up exponentially more adgroups because Google doesn’t think the “quality score” of what I’m doing is good enough now. Ironic since the clients are happy with it and the advertisements work. I don’t need Google giving me adgroup suggestions… My clients know what they want to advertise for. Google doesn’t.

  • John E Lincoln

    You can actually do match type. But it is broken right now.


  • Ravi Kumar

    It seemed hard to use,but when used, looks goood

  • Daniel Patrick

    Sounds cool. But I still prefer using Keywords Tool. Visit my blog http://traductoor.blogspot.com/

  • Gemma Goldstein

    I have many issues with the keyword planner:
    1) Traffic estimator, with several keywords you bid at $4 and it gives you an estimated cpc of a low number say $2, you bid at $3 and it ups the cpc to $2.75???? where is the logic, tell me??

    2) Broad match, the traffic estimator (when one puts a budget of $1,000,000 and a bid of $20 on a non competitive keyword) gives search volumes much lower than that of the tool. It is broken, please Google fix it quick. I need this tool, I need to know broad match search volumes.

    3)I would like to be able to see only computer volumes/cpcs as they often vary significantly, though I understand this will change with enhanced, I look forward to seeing some new data.

  • Daniel Benny Simanjuntak

    Hopefully they do bring back a “closely related” tool. Used the Keyword
    planner yesterday and was not a fan. Just makes keyword research a
    harder process. 

  • David Andersson

    Don´t really like it either. Hope they change it soon

  • nelson brown

    I miss older days with free keywords research tool. Really not easily acceptable.

  • http://bestpricebestdeals.blogspot.com/ Best_Price_Electronics_Items

    I have been using Adword for the past 2 years but when it was buried by Google and been replaced by Planner i was thinking that planner can not as good as Adword but i was wrong. Planner is even better.

    Best Fat Burning Tricks Without Exercises

  • Tim

    The missing match type really lowers the functionality. I was also surprised to find out that if your using 1024×768 resolution and Firefox the keyword planner doesn’t display the results in a usable form (the keyword column is just squished beyond recognition).

  • http://www.pogostick.co.nz Jas

    Bing have a better keyword tool but unfortunately its limited to 10 keywords at a time – you think with all the money these search giants are making they could at least build a decent keyword tool … oh hang on they actually like it when us advertisers are shooting in the dark, wasting money on dead-end keywords

  • Saby

    Hi Jas,

    If you’re looking for a Keyword Tool that isn’t limited to 10 keywords, why not try out Wordtracker’s new Free Keyword Tool -http://freekeywords.wordtracker.com just enter your email and a password then you’ll receive 50 results and 100 if you verify your email address!

    If you have any questions just drop us a line.


  • http://www.adgooroo.com ChiefGooroo

    Switching to Keyword Planner was a mistake. Pure and simple. Especially when Google had so much feedback on the forums stating as much.

    Poor UX design – confusing design, multiple pages, and options that don’t do anything (try the slide bars).

    Match types don’t work – this is a bug that’s been reported for at least six weeks. They still haven’t fixed it.

    No device breakout – there’s simply no good reason to combine mobile with desktop. (Unless you don’t want people to know how small mobile really is, that is).

    Suspicious search volumes – the explanation that the search volume estimates are higher because they now combine mobile and desktop is not the entire story. Statistical analysis shows that the new search volumes are 12% higher *on average* versus the previous mobile and desktop combined amounts. Many keywords have much larger variances (off by 100%+).

    Opaque CPC values – the new CPC figures also blend together mobile and desktop. While the average mobile keyword costs just 77% of its desktop counterpart (meaning you can do the math), there are many keywords which have much higher or lower CPCs on mobile than on desktop. Some mobile CPCs are just 5% of desktop while others are 800%+.

    I’m not against change. But when you have an existing userbase, it should be done with an aim of making things better, not worse. Keyword Planner is not only not as good, Google had the feedback for months that it wasn’t going well. Is it too harsh to suggest that the person behind Keyword Planner should be fired? Maybe, but they should be transferred to some other group where they can’t do any more harm (preferably somewhere which doesn’t have any UX requirements.)

  • http://www.brickmarketing.com/ Nick Stamoulis

    It feels like I just have to go through more steps to get the same (or at least similar) information. What’s the point of making the switch? I’m a big fan of the “if it aint broke, don’t fix it mentality” but it seems like things are being changed for the sake of change.

  • Reva

    Yeah, agreed completely. The implementation is really frustrating – like you said, it’s about getting people to add keywords to existing campaigns/ad groups, and has sort of removed the research function. I also hate the removal (even if it’s temporary) of the “only show results directly related to my initial query” button. Wrote up my thoughts here: https://www.digitalgroundup.com/blog/2013/09/04/google-combines-keyword-planner-and-keyword-tool-to-much-chagrin/

  • Reva

    I agree that there was no reason for the change, but also, if you’re going to make the change, at least tell people how to use it! The lack of instruction, notification or warning from Google made the whole thing all the more frustrating. It’s not the kind of thing I want to discover when I’m in the middle of a time sensitive build for a client (two weeks before it was officially announced and a help center provided).

  • seoservices4smallbusiness

    Yesterday I happened to notice this change!! R.I.P keyword tool which i love. Keyword planner is harder to use couldn’t find exact match filters, need to work on this !!

  • http://kapsh.info/ Pramesh Karki

    Doesn’t shows Global Search Volume though I change the location to All Locations. Is it just for me or for others too?

  • http://ppccampaigngenerator.com/ Jarad Collier

    Yeah, Keyword Planner is awful. But does anyone notice how Google just makes changes without disregard to the end-users? Call it innovation if you will, but I call it not giving a crap about what’s important to the end-user. Isn’t their whole thing “user experience”? The float this concept of positive user experience and relevance around but it’s clearly just corporate speak when it serves them.

  • Claudia Habenicht

    I am so not fond of this new tool. During the time when both was available I never used the new one, hoping google would measure how people click…
    I can see no advantage, research now takes twice as long and the result is still poorer.

    I need details on competition, global vs local, PC vs mobile. I differs vastly per product. Where is the download option, where are the tick boxes? Google’s ideas are good add-ons, but there must be a ‘filter’ option bringing it down to the best few.

    My suggestion: have all info in one table, add/delete coloums (broad/exact/phrase, global, locally, devices etc), tick your choices, download / save that search. THAT would have made the old tool better.

    If this tool shall drive more AdWords money to Google, I think it does the opposite, people give up and look for other tools.

    Can we please have the old tool back as an option until this is bettered? I there anybody to whom they actually listen?

  • tom

    After Reading this the keyword planer tool is using is very hard to use…

  • http://www.forge.co.nz/ Perry Bernard

    The reality is that many people using the old tool didn’t know how to apply the differences between broad, phrase and exact. Google now forces us to look only at exact. I’m not opposed to that, but I did like the insights the other stats gave, especially phrase. Broad, not so much.
    Probably, Google identified that the majority of people were applying these incorrectly in Adwords campaigns leading to poor results. While this might have gained them good profit in the past, the increasing web-savvy users are discovering that those poor experiences have lead to a negative attitude towards Adwords’ relevance as a good marketing tool. The only way to resolve this was probably to force people to work off exact match stats. I’m concerned though that it’s too easy to still use broad match when adding the words to your campaigns.