Match-Type Changes & Campaign Structure Choices via @navahf
0Reported today on Search Engine Journal
For the full article visit: http://tracking.feedpress.it/link/13962/13335887
Match-Type Changes & Campaign Structure Choices
First, I want to thank everyone who submitted their questions for #AskPPC – even if we don't get to your question this week, odds are we'll address your question in a future post.
Here are the questions for this week:
"Is Match-type segmentation still a viable account structure or have recent relaxing of match-type definitions rendered ineffective/obsolete?" – Joel from Atlanta, GA
"One of our clients insisted on creating a pure broad brand keyword…their reason was they wanted new terms to be added (they do not negate this from existing campaign ). Can you share your views?" – Rahul from Maharashtra, India
Selfishly, I had to use these two beautiful questions as the first entry.
Match-type theory – and the evolution of how to think about keyword choices and campaign structures – is near and dear to my heart.
I never liked segmenting campaigns/ad groups by match-type because:
Close variants have actually been a thing since 2014 and have influenced how keywords match on all match-types.
Yet it's only recently that we began to notice because:
Negatives present an extra curveball – they do not account for close variants, while active keywords do.
This means adding in far more negatives to protect a given keyword/match-type.
If you're going to have match-type ad groups/campaigns, you're eating into the 10,000 maximum negatives per campaign.
Recommendation
My recommendation is to think about the core 3-5 keyword concepts that represent the buyer persona the ad group is targeting.
How you choose the correct match-type comes down to your love of negative work and query auditing, as well as your honest limit for wasted spend.
A flexible budget (read high thresholds for waste) will adopt the following:
A more focused budget that car