Insertion tag for match type: broad/exact/phrase?

Has it been added?

[bcc1234]

I haven't been following on the latest with the tags, but is there a way now to determine the match type using another tag together with {keyword}?

Or is it still the same thing, the only way to do it is to hard-code the info into the keyword level url?

[ThomasB]

We tried some variations, but couldn't come up with anything that was working - unfortunately.

[poster_boy]

The lack of this functionality is kind of hard to understand, IMHO. This has been a top "Feature I'd Like to See" for several years... and it seems so easy to implement with such dual-sided returns.

[beesticles]

It mystifies me why Google didn't implement this long ago. I think Microsoft Adcenter has had it since the start.

[bcc1234]

I got a reply from them. Official line is now they discourage the use of the same keyword with multiple match types.

Instead of triples of all keywords, they want advertisers to go from "broad" to "narrow" (in their words).

It actually makes sense to some degree. But I'm guessing they are trying to cut down on the total number of keywords in their system. I imagine with millions of advertisers, and lots of them uploading hundreds of thousands of keywords in dozens of accounts, it really becomes a saleability issue.

So I doubt this feature request will ever get implemented.

This is actually the first time I heard about this broad-to-narrow thing from G. Before, they didn't seem to mind (and even encouraged) using the same keyword with multiple match types.

[poster_boy]

I posted this in the "Features I'd Like to See Thread" on 5/5/07... and, no, I wasn't even close to the first one to do so.

Not a new idea, but an ability to dynamically pass the match type in default urls would be so incredibly useful. (i.e. &keyword={KeyWord}&matchtype={MatchType})

For ad groups that contain keywords on differing match types where keyword specific urls are needed (in order for internal tracking to track keywords + match types uniquely)... it's impossible to test landing pages via the ad text's default URL.

The ability to dynamically pass the match type - along with the current ability to pass the keyword - would resolve this issue.

While I've heard the Google argument that bcc1234 noted before... personally, I don't see any connection between allowing match types to be dynamically passed and some sharp increase in the number of keywords that an advertiser would bid on.

It's more so about improved usability, increased keyword grouping flexibilities and a solution to scenarios like the described: an inability to execute a fairly basic A/B test. Such tests improve conversion performance, user experience and the eCPM of each query. A win for all.

[wheel]

I imagine with millions of advertisers, and lots of them uploading hundreds of thousands of keywords in dozens of accounts, it really becomes a saleability issue.

Lack of hardware isn't much of an excuse these days, and hasn't been for years. If your system can't handle it, buy bigger computers :).

[AdWordsAdvisor]

Although I suspect that I will not be able to comment further regarding future plans, I will certainly pass along the feedback from this thread in the Advertiser Feedback Report that I'll be sending shortly. So, it will be seen by the right folks.

AWA

[skibum]

More use of match types = better relevancy, better ROI, better ad text/keyword combinations. Take away match types and campaign performance would drop precipitously. Each match type is a much different ad unit. The more crowded the marketplace gets, the more important use of match types becomes if you want to stay in business.

[tchale]

Matching option conflicts just ad noise to analysis. I avoid them.

I use exact negative matches to avoid conflicts when i do want to use a phrase or broad match for a particular reason.

-Tom Hale