homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.122.86
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 112 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 112 ( 1 2 3 [4]     
Automatic Matching Beta - Ultra Broad Match
shorebreak

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 4:33 pm on Feb 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'm surprised there's no word here about the beta Automatic Matching feature Google has quietly started to propose to some advertisers/agencies. From what I'm reading on SEOFastStart blog, Google's gonna start 2/28 a beta of a feature in AdWords that finds accounts where budgets aren't being fully spent and then automatically matches ads in those accounts to whatever additional queries Google wants to in order to spend 100% of the budget.

A few AdWords advertisers in the last 48 hours have received this email from their Google account manager:

"I'm excited to tell you that you have been selected to participate in a beta for our new Automatic Matching feature which will be starting on February 28th.

Automatic Matching automatically extends your campaign's reach by using surplus budget to serve your ads on relevant search queries that are not already triggered by your keyword lists. By analyzing the structure and content of your website and AdWords campaigns, we deliver more impressions and clicks while maintaining your current CTRs and CPCs.

For example, If you sold Adidas shoes on your website, Automatic Matching would automatically crawl your landing page and target your campaigns to queries such as: "shoes" "adidas" "athletic", etc., and less obvious ones such as "slippers" that our system has determined will benefit you and likely lead to a conversion on your site.

Be assured that automatic matching will try to never exceed your budget. If you're already meeting your daily budgets, automatic matching will have a minimal effect on your account."

 

tsinoy

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 7:33 am on Mar 7, 2008 (gmt 0)

I have seen some weird clicks we couldn't track.. as all of our keywords have their own tracking destination url, my staff and myself were perplexed on where these clicks are coming from... it seems to be that when this feature is turned on they use the ad text destination url without any replacement to the {keyword} parameter...

netmeg

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 7:44 pm on Mar 7, 2008 (gmt 0)

I had a message in one of my client accounts today that the account had been selected for the beta to start March 11th, and it looked like it was going to be turned on by default, unless I went in to all 80 campaigns or so to turn them off. THAT is kind of a pain - I don't mind trying it out in some areas, but I really don't want to go through and turn them all off one by one. I do notice in my campaign settings where the box is to turn it off.

So, my intention is to turn it off completely except maybe for one or two campaigns, and see what happens. If it works, I'll run with it, if it doesn't, off with its head.

JBrown

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 8:08 pm on Mar 7, 2008 (gmt 0)

The Beta is opt-out? Ouch.

JBrown

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 5:32 pm on Mar 11, 2008 (gmt 0)

Has anyone seen any data yet? I'm curious what people have seen.

I can't imagine what this is doing to folks who don't carefully manage their campaigns and have randomly ended up in the beta.

good2go

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 8:26 pm on Mar 12, 2008 (gmt 0)

It showed up as opt-in instead of opt-out as advertised.

"I'm not going to try it. You try it. Let's get Mikey...."

netmeg

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 11:42 pm on Mar 12, 2008 (gmt 0)

It was opt-out for me for every campaign with a budget at or above Google's recommended budget.

briggidere

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 12:00 am on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Is it opt-in or opt-out? We seem to have conflicting comments, or does it depend on the account maybe?

Did you receive emails about being selected for the Beta, or did you have to log into your accounts to see the message?

If you had to log in thats going to be a pain in the rear, as I'll have lots to check every day.

mattb

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 1:34 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

The original message displayed in our Adwords account said that it was "opt-out" for the beta. I checked this morning and the campaigns have the option available but it is not turned on. So at least for now it appears to be "opt-in".

netmeg

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 1:39 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

I didn't get an email; one of my MCC accounts showed the message in the account.

When I went to check, I noted that the option was checked for every campaign where we were at or above the Google recommended budget.

For campaigns where our budget was below Google's recommendation, the box was NOT checked.

shorebreak

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 2:18 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

If the goal of this feature is to help advertisers spend unspent budgets, then why would it be opt-out for campaigns where budget's already being hit and opt-in for campaigns below budget? I would think Google would do the opposite?

DanThies

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 3:00 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

It's not where the budget's being hit, it's where you have budgeted the recommended amount or more.

netmeg

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 5:31 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Right. I have campaigns where I have to budget $1100 per day in order to actually spend $700. If I budget $700, I only end up spending around $400. Don't ask me why, that's just the way it is. I hit up a Google rep with that once, and he said it wasn't supposed to work that way, and then a bunch of people told me privately THEIRS worked that way too. But I don't have time to worry about the why, I just do what works.

So if I didn't disable the Ultra Broad Match, Google would assume it was okay to spend up to $1100 per day - and why not, that's what my budget is set to. But it's not all as simple as that.

I turned it on ONLY for a single campaign where we normally get well above 50% CTR now, we're pretty much the established industry leaders, and mainly we just want to get more eyeballs, cause most everyone looking for that product buys it from us. We'll see how it goes.

MadeWillis

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 5:39 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

I have campaigns where I have to budget $1100 per day in order to actually spend $700. If I budget $700, I only end up spending around $400.

I have the same exact issues.

ralent

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 7:14 pm on Mar 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

I have inflated budgets also just in case I get a surge of “legitimate” traffic. What Google is proposing in my opinion is not legitimate traffic.

I have to agree that the term “slippers” is not even remotely similar to “shoes” and even the term “shoes” is so broad that I hardly think someone selling “adidas shoes” would want the zillions of clicks that the term “shoes” would bring. I mean that would give you baby shoes, dress shoes, designer shoes, and who knows what else.

jim2003

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 8:04 pm on Mar 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

If an advertiser was using {keyword: Adidas Shoes} in their ad, and some one searched for "slippers" and slippers is not an advertised keyword would the ad return Adidas Shoes, or would it return Slippers? I think ultrabroad match would generate very different results for each of those scenarios.

DanThies

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 8:54 pm on Mar 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Dynamic keyword insertion would probably stick Slippers in the ad, driving even more untargeted traffic.

Tourz

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 12:23 am on Mar 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

I have to agree that the term “slippers” is not even remotely similar to “shoes” and even the term “shoes” is so broad that I hardly think someone selling “adidas shoes” would want the zillions of clicks that the term “shoes” would bring. I mean that would give you baby shoes, dress shoes, designer shoes, and who knows what else.

If your ad says "Adidas Shoes -- Seven kinds of Adidas runners, size 6-12." then you should not have problems with that kind of ultra broad match.

Your ad should keep the traffic targetted even if the search term is not an exact match. Reaching your inflated budget should bring extra profits that more than makes up for the added costs. If you guys are not seeing this there must be a problem with the landing page and/or ad text.

People who shop for slippers might also buy a pair of shoes. I know my wife doesn't stop at one thing when she's out shopping, does yours? :-)

ralent

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 3:34 pm on Mar 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

The big problem is not the clicks, it's the impressions. And if Google tries to fill out the budget with low CTR impressions, that could be a lot of them.

It would be more like the content network, which for me gives only a fraction of the CTR and almost no ROI.

skibum

WebmasterWorld Administrator skibum us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 1:48 am on Mar 16, 2008 (gmt 0)

Your ad should keep the traffic targetted even if the search term is not an exact match. Reaching your inflated budget should bring extra profits that more than makes up for the added costs. If you guys are not seeing this there must be a problem with the landing page and/or ad text.

Impressions is a big one and any incremental impressions may be really irrelvant for the merchant but seem related enough to click on from the searchers point of view.

Lets say you are selling digital cameras and in the product description and reviews on the landing page you talk about how wonderful it is for taking pictures on vacation, a review talks about how it works really well with a particular kind of computer, someone else writes about how great it is for taking product pictures for their tropical fish website.

So now you have regular broad match which already seems to show ads based on past search behavior so an ad for digital cameras may show when someone searches for web hosting if the person has previously searched for that. You have stemming so digital cameras might show if somene just searches for cameras.

Toss in this new feature and if it is working off site content your digital camera ad may be showing on searches for tropical fish, different computer models, travel and vacation related keywords and whatever else might be on the page. YOu'll probably get some non-converting traffic from these and potentially lots of impressions which will drive up your CPC and drive down the overall CTR.

If you are a big manufacturer like Olympus, maybe you want your camera ads to show when people are looking for travel and tropical fish to build exposure. If you're doing conversion tracking or managing the campaign based on how deep into the site people go this is probably going to make the campaign perform worse.

If you are a retailer selling digital cameras and working on tight margins and this goes live as opt-out, your campaign performance probably starts to tank as you start spending more money, seeing little to no increase in sales, and get more clicks.

For "branding campaigns" it could be good but how does it improve "quality" or "relevance"? It seems like it makes search more like contextual so that the ads that show might be in some way related to what the person is searching for but not really.

rsteven

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 4:15 am on Apr 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

I am very surprised by the reactions to this BETA.

It seems to me that Google are exploring a mechanism to offer "additional relevant" traffic that may not have been explored by the AdWords administrator.

Agreed we have to wait and see how accurate this is.....

- Google are a business not some fluffy research friend (yeah they exist to make money so get over it!)

- Goole are not stupid and would not "rip off" customers, that is far to short sighted

- It is up to you whether to use it. If it works use it, if it doesn't then don't.

- There is no removal of control from the current situtation. It is additional functionality.

Personally I welcome tested "working" functionality that brings more configurability to adwords.

Cheers,

Richard.

brizad

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 8:14 pm on Apr 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

I guess I've been in a cave but I just read in another WebmasterWorld thread that this started October 1st, 2003. I just found out about it this week.

I was checking my server logs and found that we had a click for a TOTALLY UNRELATED KW. I was bidding on a 2 word "website building" related KW and got a click for a 3 word gardening query. I googled the query myself and there we were.

I tried to find some "logic" to it. Had I mistakenly bid on a one word KW that could have triggered the ad? I checked and I had not.

2 of the 3 words in the gardening query that we showed up for were not even in my campaign. One kw was, but it was part of a 4 word KW phrase.

I called support and they acted like it was totally normal. Their suggestions...add more negative KWs. If they're going to pull 1 random word out of a 4 word phrase and match it to a completely unrelated query, then in theory I'd have to negative match nearly every word in the dictionary wouldn't I?

Geeze this is insane. What about all the google preaching about relevancy and tightly focused ad groups? We do that and yet they stab us in the back by showing ads for completely unrelated queries. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall them notifying me about this change.

This is as bad a yahoo's expanded match.


- It is up to you whether to use it. If it works use it, if it doesn't then don't.

How am I able to NOT use it? I can't find a way to switch it off and the google rep said you couldn't.


- There is no removal of control from the current situtation. It is additional functionality.

Are you saying that opting out of this expanded broad matching is possible if you somehow get "additional functionality"?

Thanks

DanThies

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3583381 posted 9:15 pm on Apr 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

This isn't about expanded broad match - that's old news.

This is something far worse than that, but at least you will be able to turn 'automatic matching' off.

This is Google throwing your ads in the mix when you didn't ask them to do it, just so that they can soak up unspent budget dollars.

This 112 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 112 ( 1 2 3 [4]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved