A Brief History of PPC

The pay per click model came about in the late 1990s and differed from previous methods of advertising which were based on CPM (cost per thousand impressions) rather than cost per click. GoTo.com (later Overture, now part of Yahoo) were the first search engine to offer PPC in 1998.  Google were a little late to the party, adopting the PPC model in 2002.

Back in the bad old days it was literally an auction with the advertiser who was willing to pay the most per click securing the top position.

However, it quickly became obvious that this wasn’t the best model – a pretty irrelevant ad which gets only 1% of the clicks @ £10 per click generates less revenue than a relevant one which gets 10% of the clicks @ £2 per click.

As such in the mid-noughties Google introduced quality score – an algorithm which essentially ensured that most relevant ads (i.e. the ads which generated the most revenue) would get pushed to the top of the results. Yahoo and MSN later followed suit with algorithms of their own.

This changed the face of PPC – as instead of fighting an auction war, PPC-ers had to get a little bit cuter and make sure their ads were as relevant and attractive to users as possible in order to secure a decent position on the page and (potentially at least) reduce the cost they pay per click.

Quality Score Explained

Quality score is calculated every time your keyword matches a search query – that is, every time your keyword has the potential to trigger an ad.

So, how is it calculated?

Quality score on the search network is calculated based on the following metrics:

1. Historic click through rate of the keyword, ad and display URL
2. Relevancy of the keyword and ad to the term which is being searcher for
3. Relevancy of the keyword to the ad copy
4. Relevancy of the keyword to the landing page
5. Landing page quality
6. Historic account click through rate

You can read more here.

For obvious reasons Google don’t reveal quite how these factors are weighted, however it’s easy enough to guess

It’s pretty much all about click through rate.

This a nice metric as high click through rate indicates that users think that your ads are relevant/offer an attractive proposition AND of course clicks = money for Google.

Should you *always* worry about Quality Score?

Frankly, no. Whilst having a high quality scores is good from a cost per click point view (as you’re likely to be paying less per click) – you shouldn’t necessarily let it bother you overly. Obviously Google want you to play by their rules and create relevant ads that people want to click on so they can continue to rake it in; however – on some occasions you might want to bid on certain keywords, but limit the number clicks you get.

For many clients we use ad text to pre-screen clicks. For example, we may bid on a term like ‘taxi insurance’; but because our client only wants to insure taxi drivers over a certain age we might elect to run an ad like this:

Low Cost Taxi Insurance

Over 25? Compare Leading Taxi

Insurers & Find the Cheapest Quote!

TaxiInsuranceExperts.co.uk

Now here, we’re actively trying to limit the number of clicks which we’ll get – which of course may impact our quality score – however it’s far more important for us to deliver the right sort of leads to our client. So it’s not necessarily something you ought to be tyrannised by

Questions, comments, etc? Hit up the comments my dears.

Image credit KB35

For a long time, advertisers on Google AdWords have struggled to cope with the large variance of traffic volume and ROI in using Broad Match keywords versus Phrase Match or Exact

The general industry-accepted idea is that while Broad Match keywords are useful for new and old advertisers alike, there are many situations in where using them may not be in the best interests of the advertiser.

Whilst Broad Match keywords promise to give the advertiser maximum exposure, exactly how relevant that exposure is often called into question. The result is that many advertisers will get left with numerous mismatched impressions that negatively affect their campaign quality score and worse, clicks that result in no material gain; as in some instances searchers will click on these mismatched ads, but not go on to convert once on the site. Hence, the cost of that click may not be realised now or ever.

While the more restrictive Phrase Match option covers this issue to a large degree, it achieves that by compromising on ad exposure which means lower traffic and conversion volume. Increased ROI at the cost of significantly lower volume of conversions is not very appealing to businesses/marketing professionals.

The accepted norm in the search marketing community until now has been to start with Broad Match keywords with an extensive list of accompanying negative keywords to manage exposure to relevant searches. Search marketers will then identify the keywords/phrases that perform to the desirable level of ROI and subsequently move them to the stricter Phrase and Exact Match types. In all this, the start of the campaign has been most crucial and the precision and accuracy with which the initial selection of Broad Match and negative keywords work has been of great impact on the success of the campaign.

The search community has long debated over the usefulness of Broad Match and demanded an alternative for and more control over the random search queries their keywords end up getting impressions for. Google have finally answered by introducing a new match type in the arsenal. It’s called the Broad Match Modifier (BMM). Essentially, it fits somewhere between the Broad Match and Phrase Match keyword types. The object it satisfies is to stop individual words from Broad Match keyword phrases from triggering impressions on ‘deemed’ related words in user searches. Google have released the graphic below to explain exactly how BMM differs from all other match types.

Click for larger image

With Broad Match, the words ‘formal’ and ’shoes’ will both be independently considered and matched to singular/plural versions, synonyms and other related words not included in the campaign keyword. ‘Formal’ triggered impressions for ‘Evening’ and ‘Men’s Dress’, while ‘Shoes’ triggered ‘Footwear’ and ‘Wingtips’. If the advertiser earlier only wanted people searching for shoes and Phrase Matched ‘Formal Shoes’, they would lose impressions on searches like ‘Evening Shoes’ and ‘Black Dress Shoes’ because their ad will only show if the phrase ‘Formal Shoes’ was part of the search query.

However, by introducing a “+” sign just before the word shoes, they can achieve exactly what is desired, without losing on a possible load of other search queries that are not part of their campaign.

Google has reported that advertisers who used BMM during beta testing of the new match type reported seeing higher clicks and conversions than before. However, Google reported their findings from advertisers who earlier mainly used the Phrase and Exact Match types. Clearly, the increase in exposure lead them to receive more traffic, but with greater control over click-quality – this probably led to the rise in conversions. The report clearly shows the BMM as a means to entice cautious advertisers to have a more bullish approach with their marketing without losing too much control. But what does it mean for the rest of the advertising community that already uses Broad Match?

Other beta testers have independently revealed that on introducing BMM keywords into campaigns with existing Broad Match keywords, BMMs had significantly higher CTRs and conversion rates than the traditional Broad Match terms. We experienced similar results on testing the BMM with one of our clients.

Overall, we observed average conversions on BMM keywords to be double that of the Broad Match keywords.

All in all, Google seem to have hit the right note with search marketers with this release, although it will be interesting to see how keywords utilising these matching options perform in the longer term.

Please note, for now, the release has been made available to advertisers in the UK and Canada only.

Are you confused about Pay Per Click Advertising?

Don’t feel bad, whilst the overriding concept is simple, in practise PPC Campaigns can quickly become complicated.

This free whitepaper explains all the key concepts you need to understand, and provides an easy to follow guide to create your own PPC campaign.

Click here to download our Introduction to PPC whitepaper.

If you’ve any further queries or questions feel free to post them here, likewise if you’ve any feedback on this whitepaper, or suggestions for other whitepapers you’d like to see in the future we’d love to hear about them!

The seven deadly sins have been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct followers against vice. Today I’ll be using them to illustrate the potential pitfalls in paid search…

Whilst falling prey to these sins is unlikely to see you in one of Dante’s nine circles; chances are you will be adversely affecting your campaign; and so, without further ado – I give you the seven deadly sins of PPC…

Wrath

Also known as anger or rage; wrath encompasses both actions against others, and indeed self-denial. It also includes the desire to seek revenge, and generally wishing to do harm to others. In PPC such acts of wrath might include clicking on your competitors ads in order to run down their budget…

Don’t do it. Google in particular are pretty good at spotting click fraud so chances are your efforts are being wasted in any case. Your time and energy would be much better spent focusing on improving your own campaign.

Avarice

More commonly quoted as greed, avarice is an excessive pursuit of wealth – perhaps at the cost of everything else. Now in PPC terms this perhaps isn’t quite so sinful; unless of course it’s misguided. Are you so busy ensuring you’ve covered every conceivable keyword that you’ve forgotten to optimise your campaign and focus on what actually works? If you’re in e-commerce are your prices competitive? Alternatively it may be that you’ve swung the other way entirely – in your quest for a perfectly optimised campaign you’ve created a narrowly targeted campaign which works brilliantly from a cost per acquisition/sale point of view; but fails to deliver the volume you really need.

Envy

Envy can cause poor PPC management decisions. You see your competitor consistently appearing for a set of keywords (often head terms) which despite rounds and rounds of testing you’ve never managed to make work for you. You think, how are they making that work? Why is it that they can make it work and I can’t? Focus on your own campaign and your own objectives. Many companies run ‘loss leaders’ within otherwise successful PPC campaigns. Maybe those keywords are just that – loss leaders. Are they something you can afford? If not, pause them. Similarly, some go to great lengths to copy their competitors landing pages, just because they assume they will convert better; rather than checking their assumptions by split testing first.

Sloth

Sloth is the most common of PPC sins. If you want your campaign to deliver, you’ll need to work at it. You’ll need to consistently improve and refine your campaign – you can’t just set it up and let it run…

Pride

Pride is described as an excessive love of self. In PPC those who are overly proud probably think that there’s nothing left for them to learn. They believe that their PPC campaign is so well optimised that it really couldn’t be improved. I’d suggest that’s unlikely. No matter how well your campaign’s performing there’s always something which could stand to be improved, so continually test and learn.

Gluttony

This sin refers to the over-indulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste. In PPC terms this might be likened to those who regardless of the cost *want* to appear in the top spot. Appearing first isn’t always the most cost-effective place to be in terms of conversions. Sure in some instances there may be some excellent reasons for wanting to appear in the top spot; but to optimise a whole campaign with this goal in mind is wasteful in the extreme.

Lust

Ordinarily thought of as sexual in nature, I’m going to be use a little artistic license here and use Aristotle’s definition – ‘an excessive love of others’. Some believe that other people’s PPC ads are so good that all they really need to do is copy them. This is a little short-sighted – it may work in the short term, but without developing your own key selling points / benefits / points of difference etc you’re likely to fail in the long term.

Image credit Lori Greig

I’m often asked at what point I decide to pause a keyword in a PPC campaign. The truth is that when asked anything about PPC my response is always “it depends”.

But that would make for an extremely short, and frankly useless blog post, so I thought I’d note down the process I’d usually go through here. Hopefully you’ll find it useful

So, first things first – for those less than familiar with PPC what the devil am I talking about? Well, within a PPC (or Paid Search) campaign you select various keywords for which you’d like your ads to appear. So, if you sell blue widgets, you might decide to select a keyword like ‘buy blue widgets’.

Now any PPC manager worth their salt will continually test, learn and refine when tackling their campaigns. As such they will be experimenting with new keywords and measuring how effective (or otherwise) they are. Keywords which don’t perform get paused so ads no longer appear when a user types in that search query.

So, how do you decide when to pause a keyword?

Lets assume that you’ve been tracking conversions and you’ve a keyword which is either:

Before pausing a keyword* I’d consider the following:

1. Do you have sufficient data?

You won’t always be able to hold out for a ’statistically significant’ sample size before pausing a keyword, however if a keyword has had only ten clicks, the chances are that you’ve insufficient data to tell whether or not this keyword’s going to work out for you. Patience grasshopper.

2. Which actual queries is the keyword exposing you to?

Assuming the keyword in question is broad or phrase matched - have you checked out which actual queries you’re getting clicks from? It may be that the keyword itself isn’t a problem per se – it’s just that you need to add in some negative keywords to prevent ads showing for irrelevant terms. Within Google Adwords you can take a look at the actual queries which resulted in clicks from a particular keyword by clicking on the tick box next to the keyword in question, the click on ’see search terms’ and then ’selected’. You’ll then be able to see which queries users have actually typed in. If there’s something irrelevant there – add it as a negative.

3. Is your keyword in the right adgroup?

Take a little look and see whether or not the keyword in question really belongs in that adgroup. Is it really relevant? Could you write a more relevant ad? In some instances it’s worth moving the keyword (or indeed a group of themed keywords) into a separate adgroup; or even a separate campaign if you need to control the amount of budget you’re spending on it – with improved targeting you may find that results improve. 

4. How’s your quality score?

If your quality score for this keyword is poor then you’ll be paying more than you need to per click. If you’re paying more than you need to per click, then you’re also paying more than you need to per conversion.  Quality scores can be improved by making your ads and landing pages as relevant as possible to the keyword in question.

5. Have you tried tweaking your bids?

Your bid (combined with your quality score) will determine the position at which you ad appears. Average position can make a difference when it comes to conversions – if conversions are too costly when you’re appearing first experiment with different bids to see if you can get conversions at a lower cost by altering your position.

6. Are you sending the keyword traffic to the right landing page?

Double check that the landing page really is relevant. Could you send traffic from this keyword somewhere better?

It’s also worth checking out bounce rates via your analytics package – if bounces are particularly high then it may be that the landing page is the problem. If you suspect this is the case test out a different landing page.

7. Is that keyword commercially viable?

Let’s assume that we’re running a campaign for an e-commerce site – the keyword in question is ‘cheap ugg boots’. The problem is the prices on this site just aren’t very competitive. You can buy ugg boots cheaper elsewhere. In this instance unless you can get the product priced more competitively - it’s probably best to pause this one.

8. Consider user intent

Step away from those keyword tools. Yes, you. Just because a keyword tool suggested it does not make it relevant. You are a human being. Think like one. Does that keyword really express whatever product or service you’re looking to sell? Try googling it and see what other ads pop up. Now take a look at the natural results too. Now speak to some other human beings about what someone typing in that word or phrase is actually likely to be looking for. Oh and don’t just speak to people who also work in search, we’re not normal …erm, I mean representative.

*Just to be clear here - I don’t implement this process for *every* keyword… I’d go loopy…and there aren’t enough hours in the day. But I think nonetheless it’s useful to consider for higher volume keywords, and indeed those keywords that your gut tells you should work, but just don’t seem to be doing ‘the do’ right now.

So m’dears what did I miss out? If you’ve any tips of your own you’d care to share I’d love to hear them.

Image credit Valerie Everett