RKG Logo 434-978-4300

A classic mistake in paid search management is turning off the ads that “don’t work.”

I made the case previously that almost any keyword “works” if you pay the right amount for the traffic, acknowledging that the right amount might be pretty close to zero if the words are poorly targeted.

Nevertheless, many firms use the machete approach to management. A major retail client we just started working with this summer had all of their non-brand/ competitive search terms turned off by their agency because “they didn’t work”! That kind of thing makes me wish there was some sort of PPC licensing board with the authority to strip licenses from those who don’t know what they’re doing.

But the mistakes can be less obvious and egregious than that example.

TWO COMMON ERRORS TO AVOID:

  1. The “Oracle of Delphi” error

    This mistake begins by sorting a phrase report by sales descending and adding up all the money spent on ads that didn’t generate any sales. This is something you should never, never do. There is nothing inherently wrong with data — it’s just data — but this “analysis” will lead to frustration 100% of the time, which can in turn lead to harmful reactions.

    This is guaranteed to lead to frustration because, even if you’re managing search brilliantly, for a big program with a long tail the amount of money “wasted” on “unproductive” keywords may be quite large over any given period, and no one wants to see that. The thing is, these low traffic ads are not unproductive and the money is not wasted.

    It is very much analogous to sorting a cataloger’s mail file by sales descending and noting to the Circulation Director that “98% of the catalogs you mailed didn’t generate a sale!!! We can save all kinds of money if we just mail the buyers!!!”

    Because of our friend, statistical noise, we don’t know in advance which low traffic terms will generate a sale on very few clicks and which won’t. Indeed, it’s not uncommon for us to see something like 30% of ads that generated a sale during one month generated no sales the previous month. Cutting off the tail, as Alan demonstrated well a couple years ago, leads inexorably to “the death spiral”.

  2. The “Yank the Rudder” error

    Another related mistake involves sorting that same report by cost descending and pulling back on higher traffic “head” terms that are above your efficiency limit.

    On the surface, this seems like absolutely the right thing to do — and it might be. But a couple things to assess before you do this:

    • Do you have enough data on that ad to make a good judgment?
    • Would an order here or there change your view of that ad’s performance materially?
    • If you lengthen the data collection window, does the performance of the ad look better? For example: the “Steinway piano” ad that generates 3 orders per year will look like an absolute dog in the periods between orders, but will look like it’s been under-bid once that $20K order takes place. Ads with low conversion rates but high average order sizes can be particularly deceptive this way.
    • If you shorten the data collection window does the performance look better? It could well be that the ad was inefficient at the beginning of the period in question but that the bids have already been adjusted to address that problem. Further pull back would simply cut sales efficiently generated.

A top-flight bid management system will handle these nuances correctly, but many folks don’t have the luxury of working with such a system. As such, it’s important not to overreact to any one spreadsheet.

That’s not to say agencies and internal PPC managers should get a pass when the KW performance looks out-of-whack. Far from it. It’s probably never okay to spend $1,000 on the KW “pencils” to generate $30 in sales on 6 orders over any period in time — somebody dropped the ball in a big way, there. Just recognize that one data pull doesn’t tell the whole story, and what looks like missed opportunity or wasteful spending could conceivably be a non-issue on further review. Those things that do look problematic should be investigated more fully before remedies are applied.

Technorati Tags: ,

If you like this post, consider subscribing to our RSS feed. You can also have new posts sent to you via email.


Related Posts

Comments

  1. Shay OReilly, October 28, 2009:

    Very true George. I hear arguments for “pruning” all the time. I hope a time comes soon when that myth has been completely dispelled.

    I think the same principle applies to negative keywords. If you’re getting broad matched to some ‘bad’ search queries it’s often, though not always, better to just create an exact match version so you can give that ‘bad’ traffic an appropriately low bid.

    Shay

  2. Mark Kennedy, October 28, 2009:

    Very good post, George. And good comment, Shay.

    The whole reason you use tails is because although they are low volume, one sale from them gives the terms a killer ROI.

    The problem with low volume tail terms is the stigmatism Google puts on them within your campaigns. In red letters “low search volume”. Like they are commanding you to get rid of them. Even though one sale could make the keyword one of your most valuable.

    You have to be very careful with pruning. While it’s good to keep your overall Q-score optimized, don’t sacrifice potential sales to do so. Prune when necessary and only when the data is significant.

  3. Maggie, October 28, 2009:

    You bring up a good point when you say that marketers cut ads prematurely. marketers need to be sure there is enough data to make the decision. So often people will see a low CTR and Conversion Rate and cut right to pausing the ad before examining the actual clicks, impressions and other data that make up those statistics. If marketers really examine ads in the total context of the data, they will be far more efficient at optimizing campaigns.

  4. George Michie, October 28, 2009:

    Thanks for your comments, folks! I seem to have struck a nerve :-)

  5. Aaron Lofstrom, November 3, 2009:

    I disagree with the statement, “A classic mistake in paid search management is turning off the ads that “don’t work.”. If you are saying that immediately turning off non performing Keywords is a bad idea then I would tend to agree with you more often than not. One should always heed the warning Mark K and consider CTR and Q-scores in all decisions. It is my feeling that poor performing Ads (not keywords) should always give way to better performers.

Your Comment

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2009/10/28/ppc-the-wrong-way-to-improve-efficiency/trackback/

Blogs Citing This Post

  1. Trackback: uberVU - social comments on October 29, 2009
  2. Pingback: How to Evaluate Your AdWords Accounts | GROWMAP.COM on November 3, 2009
  3. Pingback: You Missed The Golden Days of Internet Pay Per Click Advertising Circa 2003 | GROWMAP.COM on November 5, 2009

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • George Michie: Kevin, Marc, thanks for your comments. Help is coming, but not the solution. There are a number of instances when the CTR on the...
  • Marc Adelman: George, You have been an advocate of “the advanced control option” for years now. Depressing right YEARS! Eh…listen...
  • Kevin Hill: Is what they really need is a fourth match type. Here’s google’s help documentation on broad match: This is the default...
  • Kevin Micalizzi, Dimdim Web Conferencing: Jim (& George)- We still offer a free version of Dimdim. Just click Sign Up Now at the top of the...
  • Tomas: indeed, i can’t talk about it either… :)
  • Philip Price: Thank you for the RegHack, it worked for me, tho at first when i made the reg file with the information i copied from above i also...
  • George Michie: Sorry Jim, this post was written in 2007. Apparently some of those products are gone.
  • Jim: Hey, I checked two products like dimdim and cutepdf but none is free. What are you talking about free and open source?
  • George Michie: If they keep hearing the same message, and seeing evidence in the data to back it up, something will have to give. There is hope on...
  • Tomas: I’ve been having the same argument with Google for months now and in the end there does seem to be a feature in the algorithm that...
  • George Michie: Doesn’t have to be, it can be intra-adgroup as well.
  • Josh: George – I take it you’re referencing a scenario where your exact-match keywords are not listed as negative exact match keywords...
  • George Michie: Melissa, you’re right, it’s always happened to varying degrees, particularly since the advent of extended broad match....
  • Mel66: I don’t think this is a bug. It’s been happening for years. It *is* impossible to manage, and I can’t help but wonder if...
  • George Michie: Thanks Matt, Sometimes humor serves a purpose.

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 948
  • Words: 451,089
  • Comments: 2,875

Administration