Long Tail Keywords

Profitable...If Google Doesn't Shut Them Off

[PayMePerClick]

One of most any good agency's selling points used to be based on the fact that they went after all the long tail keywords most people/competitors don't. They're extremely inexpensive and very relevant/profitable.

I'm sure many of you run your campaigns the same way, but I'd like to know how you're combating Google's relatively new stance on shutting off keywords that don't get searched very often (long tail keywords). For example, if I own an electronics store in Denver and sell voice activated small GPS systems (no clue if those exist), and I want to bid on "small voice activated GPS device retailers in denver colorado" I would probably be up the creek since more than likely Google would not show our ads for this keyword because it isn't "searched enough". But this search ix EXTREMELY relevant and isn't really hurting anyone (including Google) having it in one of my ad groups. Obviously this is not the actual search in question but you understand where I'm coming from.

Anyone?

[AdWordsAdvisor]

[...] But this search ix EXTREMELY relevant and isn't really hurting anyone (including Google) having it in one of my ad groups. [...]

Welcome to WebmasterWorld, PayMePerClick - you've landed in a great place!

That said, though, I can't help but wonder how you can speak for Google with such assurance, heheh. :)

There actually is a good reason to not use up computing computing resources supporting keywords that get no traffic in a system in which hundreds of millions searches are done every day. Please keep in mind that there are many tens of thousands of advertisers, and deadwood keywords can add up rather quickly.

I've excerpted some info from the AdWords Help Center - and bolded two key parts that I hope will set your mind a bit at ease.

[...]

Keeping these keywords out of the ad auction helps AdWords serve ads more efficiently and reduces the volume of keywords on our system. Before stopping a keyword from joining the auction, our system evaluates the number of searches on a given keyword worldwide over the past twelve months. It takes very little search traffic for a keyword to be unsuspended, and for business practice reasons we don't disclose our keyword traffic thresholds.

This state is only temporary, and these keywords will be reactivated automatically if we find that they could start delivering traffic. Therefore, they'll always appear as 'Active' within your account. It will take one to two days for a keyword to begin receiving impressions again once our system sees searches occur for the keyword.

[...]

Excerpted from:

What are 'low-traffic keywords'?
[adwords.google.com...]

AWA

[PayMePerClick]

So the years leading up to this past year we were able to capitalize on these long tail keywords. Now it's simply because there are too many advertisers with too many keywords? I guess one of my Adwords wishes then would be for Adwords to be able to handle the ever increasing amount of keywords within advertisers' accounts. The only benefit I see is from Google's stand point in which they receive more $ because we now have to bid on broader keywords whose CPCs are much higher.

I'd also like to hear from people who are having success with long tail keywords and if they've run into any similar problems and how they are getting around it without having to switch to a broader focus.

[netmeg]

For one thing, I don't think it's very "new"; Google has been doing this for years.

Judging from the search query reports and my analytics filters that extract actual keywords, it looks like I'm picking up a fair amount of those very long tail search strings with broad match on my shorter keyword phrases.

I for one don't *want* huge numbers of keywords that rarely if ever get a search. Hard enough to manage the tens of thousands of keywords I've got that do.

[PayMePerClick]

I can only speak for our team, but we have only been shut off for long tail keywords in the past year or so, maybe a little more. Your feelings about not wanting to manage more keywords is understandable. Using our conversion tracking software, our clients and I would like to see which keyword, exactly, is leading to a conversion without running separate reports like search query reports. But is what I'm hearing from you, that you think it's a better strategy to have shorter keyword lists in broad match instead of longer more granular tracking using phrase or exact match?

[netmeg]

Works for me.

[buckworks]

Broad match would certainly be worth testing, but careful use of phrase match would likely achieve most of what you want with better control than broad match.

The example you gave "small voice activated GPS device retailers in denver colorado" could be triggered by several shorter phrases, each of which would make good sense on its own.

An ad group populated with savvy phrase matches would catch the vast majority of relevant long tail searches, without requiring insane levels of micromanagement.

[netmeg]

Yep.

[PayMePerClick]

I know some people here think Google can do no wrong but give me a break. Long tail keywords were VERY important to a good amount of advertisers and for Google to all of a sudden take this option away from advertisers after years of allowing it is absurd. C'mon, anyone can implement Analytics and put together a few ad groups with broad keywords (no offense to those who do for good reason). Reputable agencies have sold clients on being able to go after these long tail keywords that most competitors don't go after, and because of the low cost our ROI's would be higher than their competitors...but now what? Say we can write better ads? Done. Say we can optimize our landing pages better? Done. Give us back the ability to bid on these keywords!

It's a pity it can cost a lot to house so many keywords but you're Google, please figure something out and maybe give advertisers a hint that you aren't always looking out for what's going to make you the most money which is tons of advertisers bidding on the same 1-3 word broad terms in an over-saturated market.

I still love you, Google.

<3,
PMPC

[buckworks]

There comes a point where it makes no sense to keep creating new long-tail phrases when the the ad would already be triggered by a shorter phrase within the query.

widgets
purple widgets
fuzzy purple widgets
cheap fuzzy purple widgets
buy cheap fuzzy purple widgets
buy cheap fuzzy purple widgets in winnipeg
buy cheap fuzzy purple widgets in winnipeg manitoba
buy cheap fuzzy purple widgets in winnipeg manitoba canada
buy cheap fuzzy purple widgets in winnipeg manitoba canada north america
buy cheap fuzzy purple widgets in winnipeg manitoba canada north america earth

At what point does it become reasonable for Google to say "Enough already?"

[Sujan]

What if Google Adwords decides it's enough on the "widgets" level?

- J

[PayMePerClick]

Again, similar to my first example, if I own store in Denver and sell cheap transistor radios and I want to bid on a "where to buy cheap transistor radios in denver" then I think I should be able to do just that. Could this be triggered by "radios in denver" in broad match? Absolutely...but that's a cop out in my mind, and absurd that I'd have to pay up to $2 per click for this broad match term (not this exact search but for my actual keywords)when I really want the person searching for that long tail keyword which would only cost me $.10 per click if I was permitted to bid on it and have my ads show up. Like I said in my last post, anyone can throw 10 related/themed broad match keywords together and have success but we wanted to be more concise and granular. If we can do that and not say "boo hoo it's too much time for me to manage" than I think we should able to do it.

[netmeg]

But, you can't. Take what you want to do times millions and billions and trillions of keywords, and probably won't earn anywhere near enough to be worth it to Google. I don't see that changing in the near future.

(That was nicely done @buckworks; hope you mostly cut and pasted)

[buckworks]

if I want to bid on a "where to buy cheap transistor radios in denver" then I think I should be able to do just that.

If such a phrase gets enough real searches, you CAN bid on it.

If such a phrase gets too few searches, Google says "enough already", but you can still cover the possibility by skillful use of shorter phrases. You can approach it by using broad match or phrase match or both.

[Sujan]

If such a phrase gets enough real searches [...]

1 impression per month, 1 click, 100% click-through-rate, 100% conversion for some thousend dollars - why shouldn't this be enough?

[edited by: Sujan at 8:33 pm (utc) on Mar. 6, 2009]

[netmeg]

I think that's been answered. The accrued clicks from these very low impression searches is not enough to make it worthwhile for Google to employ the extra resources required to serve and track them. It might be worth it to YOU, but it's not worth it to Google. It's a business decision that they are entitled to make, and they made it.