AdWords
2.6K members online now
2.6K members online now
Dive into advanced features like Remarketing, Flexible Bid Strategies, AdWords Editor, and AdWords Scripts
Guide Me
star_border
Reply

Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭
# 1
Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭

The KeyWords:

best wine under 10

best pinot noir under 10

best chardonnay under 10

good chardonnay under 10

inexpensive pinot noir under 10

cheap wine under 10

 

Current Structure:

  1. best wine under 10 - Adgroup Best
  2. best pinot noir under 10 - Adgroup Pinot Noir
  3. inexpensive pinot noir under 10 - Adgroup Pinot Noir
  4. best chardonnay under 10 - Adgroup Chardonnay
  5. good chardonnay under 10 - Adgroup Chardonnay
  6. cheap wine under 10 - Adgroup Cheap

 

All have "custom" landing pages. Nothing special in terms of design, just my regular search results page using the right criteria for the keyword (i.e. variety=pinot%20noir&pr_high=10&sortby=rating)

 

As currently structured, the ad headlines look like this:

 

Adgroup Best: Buy {KeyWord:the Best Wines Online} - Would translate to: Buy Best Wine Under 10

Adgroup Pinot Noir:  {KeyWord:Buy Pinot Noir Online} - Would translate to: Best Pinot Noir Under 10, but (3) would just be Buy Pinot Noir Online

Adgroup Cheap: Looking for Cheap Wine? Find Good Wines Wine at Low Prices!

 

The keywords are underperfoming. Would I be better off putting them together in an Under 10 ad group?

 

 

 

1 Expert replyverified_user
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Marked as Best Answer.
Solution
Accepted by Eric (Google Employee)
September 2015

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Badged Google Partner
# 2
Badged Google Partner

"The keywords are underperfoming. Would I be better off putting them together in an Under 10 ad group?"

 

Perhaps the structure of the adgroups and the account is not the issue. What performance factors ar you measuring? If CTR for example, the best way to improve CTR of the KW's is to improve the CTR of the ads.

 

Dynamic Keyword Inserion headlines are tricky. Buy {KeyWord:the Best Wines Online} may not appear as Buy Best Wine Under 10, depending on the QS of the keywords which trigger the ad to show. The headline may come out as 'Buy The Best Wines Online'. It's hard to know which headline produces the highest CTR, when that headline is not static. If the goal is to have the headline read Buy Best Wine Under 10, maybe use the static headline, and try some slight variations. 


'Looking for Cheap Wine? Find Good Wines at Low Prices!' Users may be looking for inexpensive wine, but would you consider your product cheap, ie, low quality? WHat if you test quality against cheap in the ad text? Quality wine for the same price as cheap wine, might prove interesting.

 

There's also KW match types, and the search terms report. If you are using broad/phrase match, the underlying search terms may be the underperforming KW's, that are skewing the data. Add better performing KW's and exclude irrelavent terms as negatives.

Tom

View solution in original post

Marked as Best Answer.
Solution
Accepted by Eric (Google Employee)
September 2015

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Badged Google Partner
# 2
Badged Google Partner

"The keywords are underperfoming. Would I be better off putting them together in an Under 10 ad group?"

 

Perhaps the structure of the adgroups and the account is not the issue. What performance factors ar you measuring? If CTR for example, the best way to improve CTR of the KW's is to improve the CTR of the ads.

 

Dynamic Keyword Inserion headlines are tricky. Buy {KeyWord:the Best Wines Online} may not appear as Buy Best Wine Under 10, depending on the QS of the keywords which trigger the ad to show. The headline may come out as 'Buy The Best Wines Online'. It's hard to know which headline produces the highest CTR, when that headline is not static. If the goal is to have the headline read Buy Best Wine Under 10, maybe use the static headline, and try some slight variations. 


'Looking for Cheap Wine? Find Good Wines at Low Prices!' Users may be looking for inexpensive wine, but would you consider your product cheap, ie, low quality? WHat if you test quality against cheap in the ad text? Quality wine for the same price as cheap wine, might prove interesting.

 

There's also KW match types, and the search terms report. If you are using broad/phrase match, the underlying search terms may be the underperforming KW's, that are skewing the data. Add better performing KW's and exclude irrelavent terms as negatives.

Tom

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Explorer ✭ ☆ ☆
# 3
Explorer ✭ ☆ ☆

Hi Paul,

 

After reading both posts I have come to an alternative solution. What was mentioned in the above post is correct Dynamic Keyword Insertion ads can be tricky and I tend to stay away from them. I believe that we have 2 small issues, firstly the issue addressed above but also a small structural issue. In my honest opinion I would change the structure and keywords around a bit.

 

I would structure the ad groups in this way;

 

Generic Wine - Include keywords: "Wine" and [Wine] - Monitor quite generic

Pinot Noir - Include keywords: "Pinot Noir Wine" and [Pinot Noir Wine]

Chardonnay - "Chardonnay Wine" and [Chardonnay Wine]

 

The reason behind structuring the keywords in this way are as follows; Keywords such as 'cheap wine under 10' will be picked up on the phrase match and we are able to cover more traffic with the more generic terms. With more generic terms however negative keywords are a must a search terms will need to be constantly looked into in order to stop masses amounts of spend. By adding campaign negatives of "expensive" etc you will be able to target anyone in the market for cheaper wine.

 

Alternatively you could have Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Wine as campaigns and go more specific on top of this splitting the ad groups out with highly specific keywords.

 

In terms of ads I find if you want something doing, do it yourself. By creating each ad yourself and following best practices you will be able to ensure you QS for your keywords increases, in turn dropping the overall CPC. You have done well picking the most relevant pages possible and this should be kept the same!

 

This is something to be taken into consideration when strucuturing your account.

 

Hope this has been further help :-)

 

Thanks,

Liam Bendelow

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Top Contributor
# 4
Top Contributor

Oh, my! A wine thread Smiley Happy. An AdWords wine thread. Can anybody find anything more interesting? 

 

I'll try to state my opinion and let both Paul and the rest of the contributors consider it or ditch it altogether.

 

@Liam: "pinot noir wine" and [pinot noir wine], just as Chardonnay, will not pick up searches such as "pinot noir under 10". Pinot Noir and Chardonnay are, I think, always used in order to define a wine variety, and sometimes (maybe many times?) the noun wine is excluded. If I were to talk about wine I wouldn't use the term "wine", I'd just say we had this and that for dinner (white meat or fish, for instance Smiley Happy and we drank a wonderful Chardonnay.

 

@WinePaul: It's not the keyword that's underperforming. It's never the keyword, or never just the keyword.

 

Think of the customer experience: she searches for something (the search term), that search term triggers a keyword, the adgroup in which the keyword is placed designates the ad whose turn it is to show. That ad is shown, and if the searcher clicks on it, he is greeted by your nothing special landing page.

 

Now, if we were to judge the CTR of a keyword, it is actually the average CTR for every search term / ad combination triggered by that keyword. Not just the keyword. 

 

If, on the other hand, we judge the final purpose of advertising, the conversion, we have yet another factor to consider: the landing page. For every search term triggered by a keyword, and paired with a ad, we have the landing page specified in the ad's destination URL which has a great contribution to the conversion.

 

Disconnect the ad from the search term through a match type which is too loose, you won't get great CTR.

Maintain the search - term / ad connection and lose it on the landing page, you'll have good CTR, high costs, bad conversion rates and low revenue. 

 

I think you should take a good look at your search term reports, ad the Ad Id as a segment, and try to see things through the eyes of your customers, who searched for something and saw a certain ad. You may discover that certain search terms perform well overall, others perform well only when paired with some ads and badly when paired with others, and some underperform regardless of the ad they're paired with. I did write two blog posts, one covering CTR and how it can be misleading, and another one regarding ways for identifying the keywords responsible for certain search terms, maybe you'll find them useful if you're willing to go deeper with your investigation.

 

As for this ad: Looking for Cheap Wine? Find Good Wines Wine at Low Prices!, it doesn't look at all right to me. To me, and I'm neither filthy rich nor any great connaisseur, when it comes to wines cheap and good don't have quite the right ring to them. Again, as a pair. Good wines at decent/fair/right prices, yes. Good but inexpensive wines, yes. Cheap good wines, ..., no. There's a certain distinction in wine (as there is nobility in Cognac and bacteria in water Smiley Happy that simply does not work well with cheap. For the customers I'm thinking of.

 

Now, it could be entirely possible that if you have a certain type of customer that only cares about getting a cheap (very cheap) wine and that's it, doesn't care at all about anything else, it could work. But maybe then the ads should skip the "good wines" and concentrate on variety (red, white, rosé), taste (sweet, medium dry, dry), large stock, quick delivery, anything that could appeal to a segment which is not preocupated by quality but rather by getting two cheap bottles of wine, fast.

 

(Reading the whole thread again, I see that Tom touched upon the same cheap issue. I'll stop here and wait for other opinions as well.)

 


 

Calin Sandici, AdWords Top Contributor | Find me on: Google+ | Twitter | LinkedIn | myBlog
Was my response helpful? If yes, please mark it as the ‘Best Answer.’ Learn how here.

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Explorer ✭ ☆ ☆
# 5
Explorer ✭ ☆ ☆

Excuse me for my lack of wine knowledge :-) (Not a massive wine drinker myself) I wasn't 100% on what terms were used but the principle is the same and as Calin said the structure would be better going down the types of wine etc. I agree with the fact adding keywords including 'cheap' and 'inexpensive' will have a detrimental effect on the account and should not be used when picking your keywords. I was under the impression that you have specific landing pages created and so the destination URL's were highly relevant, if I have misunderstood then yes this needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Taking users closer to the product they want presents an easy and comfortable shopping experience making them more likely to convert. Once you have built a solid structure and a large enough database of keywords you can introduce Broad Match Modifier. This will help with picking up word order variants etc. however I can't stress enough how important negatives are in terms of performance and cost for these terms.

 

It would be worth you reading this before implementing BMM to your account:

 

http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=175280

 

Thanks,

Liam

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭
# 6
Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭

Thanks to all of you for your help. I appreciate what you were saying, but I left myself open for more beginner level answers by not giving more background to my campaign and adgroup structure. In this case, I am really asking specifically whether I would be better off putting all of the "under 10" queries together or leave them in there individual adgroups based on the other qualities in the query.

 

To give you a better idea of what I'm dealing with, I have 10 active campaigns, primarily based on location targeting. The biggest campaign has 105 ad groups, including the ones I mentioned in my initial post. I use mostly phrase match (almost no true broad match, a few with the modified broad match) with a good deal of exact match on keyphrases that come up often.The landing pages all have their own headlines and text, but in the structure of the basic website, not as freestanding "landing pages".

 

I have used and discarded keywords like "wine" and [wine] as bringing too much unwanted, non-converting traffic at too high a price. I focus more on the longer tail, where people are a little more specific about what they want.

 

The ad you folks had so much fun picking apart "Looking for Cheap Wine?" is actually one of my best converting ads. It's amazing how many people are searching for cheap wine, and meaning it! The landing page headline is actually "Low Priced Wine" and includes over 900 wines under $15 sorted by popularity. The rest of the text reads

 

"Not cheap! Never say cheap. Thrifty. Good value.


These aren't cheap wines, just wines that don't cost a lot. These are some of the most popular wines in the store. They're good to drink on any occasion. including Tuesday night burgers or pizza."

 

That is followed by the list of wines under $15, with 20 wines per page.

 

I actually have several different Chardonnay ad groups, for example. I have one for Chardonnay, one for California Chardonnay, one Argentine Chardonnay, and one for Chilean Chardonnay.

 

So, if you wouldn't mind, I would like to pose the question again. Do I put all of the "under 10" keywords together, or leave them where they are?

 

Paul

 

 

 

 

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Badged Google Partner
# 7
Badged Google Partner

Fantastic response once again Calin!

 

"Do I put all of the "under 10" keywords together, or leave them where they are?"

 

Best practices, and what "works" for others is not what you "should" do, if that just doesn't work for you.

Which direction are you leaning towards?

What is the biggest concern for, or against making this structural change?

"The keywords are underperfoming."Just moving keywords from one adgroup to another, with no further optimization, is probably not going to improve "performance".

 

Like Calin said, it's not just the keyword or the ad, it's how they work together, in the context of user intent.

Calin's blog post on the topic was great, it's definitely worth checking out. Smiley Happy

Tom

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

[ Edited ]
Top Contributor
# 8
Top Contributor
Paul, as Tom says, there's no universal solution.

If I were you, I'd test different campaigns for:

- best chardonnay under 15 (the site says 15, not 10, right? Smiley Wink )
- best Pinot noir under 15

Etc.

Carefully chosen keywords, one ad group per campaign, tightly matched sitelinks (examples of those wines, special promotions, etc.), AND product extensions. With 3-4 static, well targeted ads per ad group if you get a lot of traffic, or two if you get moderate traffic.

If in 2-3 days your ads show with sitelinks, you've hit your target. If they don't, it'll probably not be relevance-related and a bit of bid raising may help. There will be hints in QS, maybe CTR as well if you have a baseline to compare to.
Calin Sandici, AdWords Top Contributor | Find me on: Google+ | Twitter | LinkedIn | myBlog
Was my response helpful? If yes, please mark it as the ‘Best Answer.’ Learn how here.

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭
# 9
Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭

Thanks again.

 

I went to Colin's blog post and learned something new. I already knew about the keyword/searchterm/ad combination being the key, but I didn't know how to get it out. I was able to segment ads by keyword, but missed the segmenting of the download. It's a ridiculous place to hide such key information, but I'm glad to know where it is.

 

Here is the upshot:

 

  • I filtered for all my keywords the include "under 10"
  • I exported the search terms, segmenting for Ad ID.
  • In Excel, I sorted the data by AdGroup, Ad ID, and CTR
  • I subtotaled by Ad ID, Adding Clicks & Impressions
  • I caldulated the CTR of the subtotals

 

The data yield was murcky at best. It seemed as if a key component was missing - the percent served for each ad.

 

If an ad had 3 impressions and 2 clicks for a CTR of 66.67%, is it better than an ad that had 19 clicks in 62 impressions for a CTR of 30.65%? If they were served equally, clearly the ad with 19 clicks was better than the one with only 2 clicks. The segmented data is only on search terms that had clicks - not the search terms that generated no clicks.

 

To get percent served, I had to download an Ad report. Combining the two reports, I was able to come up with an answer. Grouping the keywords by "under 10" turns out to be better than keeping them with their wine type.

 

If you would like, I can post some of the math, but it turns out to be pretty obvious to the naked eye once the data is combined.

 

Paul

Re: Best way to structure/restructure for a group of keywords

Top Contributor
# 10
Top Contributor

Hello, Paul.

 

Clearly, the confidence level for the 2/3 versus 19/62 CTR is pretty low, so you could not draw any conclusion from that.

 

In a way, you've just proven that the audience looking for "under 10" is a specific audience, for which price matters more than wine variety (and somehow this was to be expected).

 

Thanks for coming back to keep us posted. Are you going for a different campaign altogether, with specific sitelinks, dedicated to "under 10", or will you stop at ad group level?

Calin Sandici, AdWords Top Contributor | Find me on: Google+ | Twitter | LinkedIn | myBlog
Was my response helpful? If yes, please mark it as the ‘Best Answer.’ Learn how here.