All-Time
24 Clicks
2063 Impressions
1.1 CTR
3.3 Avg Position
Last 7 Days
7 Clicks
748 Impressions
0.9% CTR
3.1 Avg Position
Today
2 Clicks
67 Impressions
2.9% CTR
3.8 Avg Position
I have no idea whatsoever as to why it would be telling me I am at risk. I have no other ads running with this keyword. Makes no sense - I'm rather confused as I thought I was above the minimum CTR.
Rather frustrating.
Google only takes into account the CTR on Google.com when determing if your ads are getting the minimum CTR needed. For better or worse, this appears to be the only way all ads can be held to the same standards for click-through rate.
We have a number of general terms that all have a CTR of over 1% (month to date) however are "at risk".
From this I assume that the Google only results are closer to .05% - therefore the "at risk" designation.
The conversion on these ads are very high which means that the people that are clicking on them are motivated towards the particular service we offer. However as these are general terms not all searchers are looking for the same thing.
It may well be that the Google searchers only represent .05% of our market whereas the partners traffic represents 1.5%.
Why can't Goggle figure out a way to include these partner's numbers in the formula?
While we are very happy with the results these general terms bring in we are constantly threatened with having them turned off.
Not a very good business decision IMHO!
Have you tried adding negative keywords to get the CTR out of the danger zone on these general terms or are they already phrase or exact matched?
Have you tried adding negative keywords to get the CTR out of the danger zone on these general terms or are they already phrase or exact matched?
These are single word bracketed terms [exact match] that people who are inexperienced searchers (or just lazy) would type in. Negative words don't help here. On more specific broad terms we have close to 400 negative words and get over 3% CTR.
There's some great business coming from these terms and I can think of no other way to approach a single word general term. Our ads are very specific as to what we offer - that's why we get good conversion. The problem is that only a small percentage of the searchers who type in this multiple meaning word are looking for us. If we were below the threshold overall I could understand it.
However with the partner's results (no content ads) we are over 1%. We should not be "at risk"
What is the proper way to enter them? Suppose you are selling Albums, but don't want to show for "baby albums". How would you enter the negative word of "baby"?
The CTR shows the performance on all search queries (Google + partner sites). At risk tells you about Google alone. That's the only one that counts. The required minimum CTR depends on your ad's position - higher if your ads are higher positioned.
(This is all hear say from Google reps but it's not always logically deducted from your stats).
-baby (anything baby) or
-"baby albums" (anything with "baby albums" in it - don't foget to include "baby album" as well or
-[baby albums] (idem, but combinations will show)
whichever is more appropriate for your situarion.
There's some great business coming from these terms and I can think of no other way to approach a single word general term.
I agree that this is a problem. There is no way to use a negative KW for an exact match term, and yet many of these 1-2 word phrases can be quite profitable. Maybe if Google personalized search is fully implemented, we could use negative preferences. (There's a fun targeting model to dwell upon).
There aren't many options, but one I've used is to add a high CTR ad (with ad optimizing turned off) to the group of ads that are shown. It isn't as qualified as the others, the conversion rate is lower than the qualified ads, however, its CTR is high enough that it keeps the 1 word exact match KWs out of the 'at risk/slowed' categories.
Because I only want this ad to show enough times to keep my CTR out of 'at risk/slowed' category, I'll make enough qualified ads for for this adgroup so I can determine how often it needs to be shown (i.e. if the CTR ad needs to be shown 20% of the time, you have one high CTR ad and 4 qualified ones).
The problem for the most important of these terms is that it has a double meaning.
On the one hand it is the name of a very popular drink. On the other hand it is the one word term for our area (an Island). See our profile website for an idea (this is not the site for our AdWords).
I have no idea how many people type in this one word for a drink recipe as opposed to information on our area however we start off on unequal ground.
Let's assume it's 50/50. We have to run at a CTR of 2% to get 1%. Makes it kind of tough when we also are promoting a business that will only appeal to a small percentage of the searchers for our area.
Anyway we've managed to hang on for some time now so we'll just keep our fingers crossed and if we get disabled we'll try another tactic.
I have no idea how many people type in this one word for a drink recipe as opposed to information on our area however we start off on unequal ground.Let's assume it's 50/50. We have to run at a CTR of 2% to get 1%. Makes it kind of tough when we also are promoting a business that will only appeal to a small percentage of the searchers for our area.
Tropical Island - given the above scenario, I wonder what would happen if you were to change the keyword from exact to phrase, and then gave it one of the world's most finest list of negative keywords?
(Or create another Ad Group in which you do this as an experiment, then pause the original Ad Group.)
Just a thought. I wouldn't be suprised if you've already tried this.
In either case, I wish you success.
AWA
I have in fact tried everything to keep this term alive.
Other than the fact that it continues "at risk" and the fact that I cover every other conceivable search prhrase using this word with broad match and negative terms (where we get over 3% CTR) we seem to hang on.
Today, for example, the results so far are a CTR of 1.2% for this single word. How much of that is only Google is anyone's guess. Really don't want to lose the people who only type in this one word.
Maybe, as has been suggested in past posts, we could get the numbers seperated so we would at least know how close to the line we are.
Is Google telling us they can't count clicks from AOL. Give me a break! They MUST count clicks from AOL as they pay them a share of revenue generated by the clicks. When any monies are involved between companies it MUST be AUDITABLE.
I would love to know what the real reasons are. No way is it technical.
No way is it technical.
The reason Google only results are used (as I understand it) is to keep an even playing field for those who choose Google only impressions against those who choose the partner sites.
I can't believe that with all those computer science PHD's they couldn't figure out a way to factor in partner results rather that losing the income stream from the disabled terms.
The reason Google only results are used (as I understand it) is to keep an even playing field for those who choose Google only impressions against those who choose the partner sites.
If that is the case then it is very misguided. The ONLY level playing field is based on eyeballs.
CTR = Clicks divided by eyeballs multiplied by 100.
If ya alter that ya alter the ball game. If ya alter the ball game ya gets anomalies. If ya gets anomalies ya gets many very unhappy campers.
I used to like camping at Adwords, now I loathe it.
I used to like camping at Adwords, now I loathe it.
Not me. I love AdWords. It's the only game around that allows us to cover a huge number of keywords for a REASONABLE cost. I like the interface, the unlimited negative keywords, the ability to pick and choose countries and the volume of searchers.
Just great. Of course in every program there will always be little problems however I can live with those with AW.
Now if you want to talk about some of the others like Overture we can go down to the other forum.
I DON'T. I developed my own products and sell my own products in a very NARROW area.
In October last year when Adwords went to broad match and became much more strict in choping legs from under ads I lost over 50% of my income. I used to have 1% CTR for a very important word and was happy. Now I get chopped for 3% for that keyword. I still have not found a way to compensate for the lost eyeballs. A LOT of my sales came from AOL. Now I am not visible 'cause they don't count AOL clicks in CTR.
Yes there are a lot of good things about Adwords but those
little problemsare very SERIOUS problems to me and many other advertisers. The 'many other advertisers' comment comes from the many discussions in OCT, NOV, DEC last year etc. that occurred in this forum.
I have never heard a rational explanation for excluding non-Google clicks, neither from the technical aspect, nor from a business aspect.
If someone has offered it and I have missed it and someone points me to it, then I will wholeheartedly embrace it. I don't hang onto ideas just for the sake of defending a position that I have taken in order to save face.
I wonder why the heck AOL doesn't do a 'AOLwords'. I have a feeling they're asleep at the wheel.
