Google checks the keywords on which we are bidding, to ensure that someone using those words in the query is really looking for what we have on the landing page.
I think this relevancy check would be a great feature to incorporate into the "expanded broad match." EBM already makes the link between similar words, but that's all that it seems to look at - words.
If someone's bidding on "apples," EBM will likely show their ad for a search for "granny smith apples." Sure, the two are very closely related, but does EBM know if there are "granny smith apples" on the landing page?
I don't think the responsibility should fall on the advertiser in this case...he doesn't have granny smith apples, so he didn't bid on that term. Also, due to relevancy issues, if he were to bid on "granny smith apples," without actually selling them, the keyword would be rejected!
So, why is EBM allowed to do this?
So, why is EBM allowed to do this?
Because branding advertisers ask for it, they want imps galore and damn the torpedoes, full-speed ahead. However, it's not in G's long term interests to cave to large dollar folks, cuz it has the ability to foster ppc blindness.
I try to avoid broad matching wherever possible, but that doesn't solve the macro problem of others doing it, and G allowing it, and it impacting consumers views of the value of ppc.
Don't mean to sound like a victim (others lack of targeting does make my work very valuable), but if G allows too much of the untargeted tripe, ppc can catch a fever... and the cure for consumer's disinterest is never so obviously difficult to reverse as it is once you've actually caught that bug...
To the G engineers, optimizing ad income shouldn't be a bell curve where the absolute peak is sought, and sloping drop offs are on either side of optimum... it's a sawtooth waveform and getting to close to the peak means you might get shoved over the edge, falling precipitously...
