Domain and Error Page ad’s workaround
To follow-up on a recent post about domain and error page exclusion ability, we think we have a possible workaround that will enable us to bid on content, domain ads and error ads separately.
We have enough evidence to suggest that the conversion rate on these items are vastly different, and also are susceptible to fraud on different levels as well. As part of our philosophy we always want to bid on the lowest common denominator whenever possible. Match types are in different campaigns, almost all keywords are in their own adgroup etc.
We just put this live so I cannot guarantee that it works, and in fact am sure that Google’s screwy content system is likely to mess it up in some way, but in theory this will work.
We start with adwords editor and copy and paste the enitre content account into a spreadsheet. We then alter the URLs (that is our tracking mechanism) and upload the account twice into campaigns called error ads and domain ads. At this point we have 3 identical campaigns with same bids, ad copy etc.
We then turn off domain and error ads in the original campaign so that it is now content only. In the domain group we turn off error ads so that it is content and Domain ads. Similarly we turn off domain ads in the error ads group leaving it with just Error ads and content.
At this stage we need to eliminate the possibility of content ads showing in the 2 new adgroups. The way we accomplish this is by running a performance placement report and then negative matching every domain that shows up in both the error and domain groups.
This leaves us with 3 campaigns, one that is content only, another that is Domain ads only and a 3rd that is Error ads only. I can now adjust bids and monitor performance for each type of ad and bid according to the return I am seeing from these different tranches of content.
LIke I said it just went live and is not fully battle tested, but on paper it should work.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:21 am
How ridiculous, the work you’ll have to go through, when all they need to do is add two little check boxes for your convenience. The worst part is, you know they will do this eventually, in the meantime you have to resort to this.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
What is the purpose behind separating match types by campaign, is that easier for you to manage? I am missing the benefit over just having the three versions of a keyword in one ad group and pricing them appropriately.
The workaround is smart, I’m very interested in knowing how it works out for you.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I believe he is separating by match type for content, because you can’t tell which of the three you are actually getting clicks for on the content side. I don’t believe this applies necessarily to search.
November 18th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Actually the reason is for bidding and tracking purposes. The exact match often converts better, the broad is a mixed bag, and the phrase is someimtes a negative.
By breaking them out it makes them easier to identify and monitor. We name adgroups in a way that it is very easy to identify what is what. Yes the interface would allow you to use keyword specific URL’s and bids, but that is easily screwed up and is less than ideal in the system we use.
Lastly, we can use broad match keywords with the -[keyword] so that we only get broad matched keywords in those groups and exact match in those groups. Enables us to break down performance on a keyword match level and generally results in higher reutns than doing it the way G described.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
That last part makes perfect sense, I need to start separating match type now. Thanks for replying Diorex.
November 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
We’ve done the same method, and it will work for a little while, but then you’ll probably start seeing “bleed-through” across the different accounts, as Google tries to “Smart Match” which basically ingnores your negatives in Content Match in lots of scenarios. We also found that new (very similiar looking) URL’s pop up in the Content Partners, and you can’t keep up with adding them to negative match.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Smart strategy - really impressed. Have you got an update for us on this and how it worked out in the end? Was ZC right/wrong?