• http://ppcisme.com Erez PPCisme

    Craig, I agree with you that broad match is the worse and there is nothing better for us than “included match” if it existed. But there are few things I would like your opinion on because I somehow disagree:
    1) You said that you want only 30% of your account budget to be spent on broad match type. Do you think this is reasonable? I mean, there are so many weird and unique queries that you couldn’t even imagine and I believe it’s more than 30%.
    2) I agree that you should add your best converting queries in all match types but this make sense only if large % of your sales are coming from specific keywords, but many times most of your sales will come from the long tails, and you just can’t have all of the long tails as keywords. Having too many keywords with low search volume is worse I think than having broad match keywords.

    Basically what I’m trying to say here that adding phrase and exact match types is recommended as long as there is enough clicks volume to justify it – that’s my opinion anyway.
    BTW, I’ve also encountered situations in which a certain search query triggered on of my broad match keywords although I have the exact query as an exact match type – this makes the whole match type “thing” a little more tricky, but that’s a different story.

  • http://www.clickequations.com Craig Danuloff

    Erez – Thanks for the questions. The 50% and 30% goals are rules-of-thumb and in this more than most areas the account specifics/situations really matter. The density of queries in your head will determine how effectively you can capture things in Exact or Phrase – remember it isn’t that having lots of Broad is inherently bad because of the match type, only in that it usually means we haven’t scrubbed our queries – adding negatives and promoting other keywords to more specific match types. If Broad is making money, Broad is fine!

    In terms of exact queries matching against the Broad versions of the keywords, yes sometimes those do slip through. Shouldn’t be more than a few % of the clicks on those keywords though – AdWords help is clear that more exact versions should match higher within your account.

  • Stupidscript

    Thank you for these insights. I definitely agree that an “Include” match type is desirable. If I remember correctly, “Include” is how “Broad” used to work … before the days of keyword “expansions”, which, if I remember correctly, used to be opt-in, but are now simply the way “Broad” is implemented.

    I am having an impossible time correlating user queries with the term/phrase that was matched. Where did you get your chart? I can’t find anything like that in the AdWords interface, and I’ve been looking really hard.

  • Stupidscript

    Ahhh … I see now that the chart with Google queries and the keywords that matched them are part of ClickEquations’ toolset. So that’s answered.

    Regarding the “include” match type … isn’t that how Google’s original Broad Match was set up? Prior to “extensions”? I remember being asked to approve inclusion in Yahoo’s expansion option (if we didn’t opt-in, then matches continued to be made based on the same idea as you have for Include … in the query in any order = match), but I do not recall being asked to approve the same change at Google, apparently around October 2006 when expansions went into effect.