THE RKGBLOG

Brooooooad Match

Watch Your Match Types

Google AdWords Broad Match has recently got a whole lot broader. While this may be good for Google’s top line, it isn’t as good for users or advertisers.

In Summer of 2005 Google changed the definition of “broad match” to include “expanded match” technology. We’ve never been huge fans of “expanded match”, but it appears to us that over the last month or two the definition of expanded match has been blown out even wider.

Prior to summer of ’05 “broad match” essentially meant that Google could serve an ad if the user typed in all the words in the ad phrase in any order and with any other words included. So, if I had an ad running for “acme widgets” my ad would be served if the user typed in “yellow widgets by Acme”, or “acme wodget-style widgets”, or “i hate acme widgets”, or “widgets acme” etc.

When you look through user search logs you realize pretty quickly that even advertisers who are as obsessive-compulsive about term creation as we are are can’t anticipate all the possible permutations of word order and add-ons that might come along with a standard search term. The long tail is very long — a huge fraction of searches are unique. In the logs you find entire questions like “Where’s the best place to buy an Acme widget for my daughter’s birthday”. Broad match helped capture these long-tail query crumbs.

We did some research a couple years ago (prior to expanded match) comparing actual user searches to the ads that they clicked on. This internal study clearly showed that on broad matched ads, the conversion rates of those who actually typed in the exact ad phrase were considerably higher than the rates for those who came in on broader matching algorithms.

However, something like 80% of the traffic on these broad matched ads was from exact search matches, so the overall quality of the traffic was a bit worse, but with a wide array of well-considered negative associations we could make most terms work efficiently on broad match and get the benefit of wider reach.

When expanded match came out we noticed a number of annoying “benefits” of the new system.

One was that if you searched for one retailer’s brand name, often Google would serve ads for their competitors as well even though the competitor wasn’t advertising on that trademark name. In their wisdom, Google had ferreted out that people looking for Acme, might also want to see Apex’s collection of widgets. There were some helpful elements in expanded match in that capturing all the pluralization combinations, word tenses, etc became less important. But for diligent agencies this wasn’t very helpful; we’re going to do all those combinations anyway for the sake of the ad copy.

We restricted our use of broad match because of this, but still used in appropriate circumstances. With the changes over the last few months, we’re finding many fewer situations where broad match makes sense at all.

Over the last few months, we’ve noticed that the broad “matches” Google makes have become extreme. As just one example of many, Google will at times match specific SKU searches against generic category ads, or national retail store ads, even when we’re running a much more specific SKU ad (eg matched to the specific phrase, specific landing page, and specific copy) with a high max CPC.

I think Google’s revenue maximizing algorithms have discovered that the combination of “extended match” and quality-score based auctions means they can pretty much serve any ad you have on any search related to your category. The result? Higher cpcs, less traffic because of the less targeted copy, and lower conversion rates because the landing pages are wrong: a perfect storm for advertisers, degraded results for users, but more short-term revenue for Google.

Smart advertisers need the breadth of the “old-style” broad match (without extended match) to cover the permutations of search phrases. Without this, advertisers are forced to explode their term lists for word ordering, which isn’t good for agencies or for Google. N words can be arranged N! ways. Permuting 2 word phrases doubles the number of two word phrases. Permuting 3 word phrases increases the size of the phrase list six-fold. And permuting 4 word phrases generates a 24-fold increase.

Google needs to maintain their focus on ad relevance. Poorly targeted results train users to avoid sponsored links, and that hurts Google and advertisers alike.

Users, advertisers, and Google itself would be better served by bringing back the option for the old-style broad watch.

– George

Technorati Tags: ,

Comments
13 Responses to “Brooooooad Match”
  1. Hi Sam,

    Responding to your comment (http://www.costpernews.com/?p=24) on my post (above):

    Broad match a nice crutch for advertisers who do not want to take the time to build a massive term list with carefully assigned landing pages and targeted copy. The bottom line is Google’s matching algorithms are the best in the world, but they are nowhere near as good as those of a smart human, and never will be. Language is really hard.

    But the proof is in the pudding. Every time we’ve pulled terms off of broad/extended match and put them on phrase or exact match, the conversion rates on those terms have improved. The tough calculus is whether that improvement gives enough ability to bid more and gain higher position and traffic, such that you get better performance and just as much volume. Often it turns into a volume versus efficiency game.

    Particularly with the added complexity brought in by the local advertising network, it seems that Google’s brain center has too many ads to choose from within a retailer’s portfolio, and they aren’t making choices with the best interests of the retailer in mind. We think retailers will benefit by shrinking the choices for them until they learn to better prioritize among them.

    George

  2. Regarding the matching of phrases:

    When I use broad matching, is it possible to track what the actual phrases were?

    If this was possible I guess this would be a great way of gathering data…

  3. Hi Kim —

    You are totally right — this is a great way to do keyword research. :)

    For the engines, you usually need to scrape the referer (sic) string to get these. (Some CSE feed engines provide the query phrase in their cost reports.) Most good web analytics and bid management packages do this. Marketers should look for a ppc platform that not only provides reporting on the advertised phrase, but on the searched phrase.

    Cheers!

    Alan

  4. Excellent info! I have also greatly increased my conversions by adjusting on page text for my landing pages. This is something you should split test until you are happy with your numbers.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. Google’s Broooader Search – Harming Advertisers and SEM PPC Economics?

    Alan Rimm-Kaufman is a brilliant analyst (even has a PhD in Operations Research and Statistics and is a fellow Yalie… boolah boolah). However, I disagree with my fellow bulldog on some of the conclusions he makes about Google’s expanded se…

  2. [...] coming to me desperate for help with Adwords spend has content network on (without knowing it) and using broad match – showing ads in places that seemed “plausable” but which returned horrific return on [...]

  3. [...] your cost-per-lead/sale can go through the roof.  This got worse in the Summer of 2005 when Google started making broad match into “expanded broad match” — and now it sounds like things are going [...]

  4. [...] Can someone tell me why Google insists on automatically opting in their advertisers for every new service they begin to offer for PPC? Just recently I was automatically opted in to their new automatic match feature. This is another one of their services drives more clicks and higher CTR’s for their advertisers while not necesserily driving more conversions or a higher conversion rate. This sounds alot like something called extended broad match. [...]

  5. [...] of the savvy PPC agencies caught onto this quickly and started being very careful with match types and developed clever ways to get around this [...]

  6. [...] your cost-per-lead/sale can go through the roof. This got worse in the Summer of 2005 when Google started making broad match into “expanded broad match” – greatly increasing the situation an ad will [...]

  7. [...] coming to me desperate for help with Adwords spend has content network on (without knowing it) and using broad match – showing ads in places that seemed “plausable” but which returned horrific return on [...]

  8. [...] relevance and revenue, but in recent years, the short-term revenue side has been winning out.  A broader and broader definition of broad match leads to keywords showing for more distantly related search [...]

  9. [...] 之前写过一个博文来讨论广泛匹配VS精确匹配,但没有短语匹配的具体案例,同时文中的广泛匹配只基于Adwords广泛匹配的现状,没有涉及多少广泛匹配演变的渊源,及其引发的口水战。2004年以前,Adwords使用相对保守的广泛匹配,匹配到的搜索词相关度非常高,基本是含有原词和微量变形的。从2003年下半年开始,Google开始测试延伸广泛匹配extended broad match,并在2005年用以取代原有的广泛匹配。从RKG这样比较优秀的代理商的博客上,可以看见这在2006年已经成为了一个问题。 [...]