metro area vs. cities
currently we run national campagins targeting metro areas. The larger metros with more demand make us hit our budget very early on before the smaller metros reach their desired target. Would we get better results if we ran our ads trgeting cities or radius's instead of metros?
Re: metro area vs. city trageting
Hello steves; Welcome to AdWords community;
I understand from your question that your campaign is targeting the USA. (The only country, "metro level" targeting is available);
In the US, Geo-targeting is quite advanced (though, not perfect). It can be reached up to a zip code level
My answer would be: YES. Target the geographic area, where you are running your business.
Did you find any helpful responses or answers to your query? If yes, please mark it as the ‘Best Answer’
Re: metro area vs. cities
We used to make numerous experiments regarding this question, on behalf of a large national client. Some metros have very irregular shapes and some even cross US State borders, these are the exceptions. Otherwise, in general, metro level advertising proved the most fruitful for us. Additionally, I'd exclude very small Metros, say the ones below 0.5M pop.
SF-Oakland-San Jose Metro proved a better geotarget than any of the individual cities. NY Metro proved better than NYC. Denver Metro proved better for our purposes than Denver City, etc.
On a related note, the clients intention was (and *is*) to cover the entire US. The real question in our case was where we should be starting so as expenses won't sky-rocket and so as we could accrue some extra capital before widening our geo-targets.