Adwords advertising, remove content match?

[cgchris99]

I have some ads using Adwords. A lot of them do very well. However, I have been doing some homework and notice one of them, the conversions are very low.

The clicks are very high but conversions are low. So it is costing more to have the ad then what we are making. I am thinking it is the content ads that are causing the problem.

As a general rule, do I turn off the content match?

Thanks for any info

[DavidDeprice]

Some of our best conversions come from context.

Well, why don't you spill the beans. Let me help you. This is how it goes
"We sell high definition television sets. For one keyword that is a brand name of a manufacturer we have about 700 searches performed a month, the conversion rate is 1.7%. We also run a context ad campaign and the conversion rate for the same and and the same keyword is 1.9%"
That's what I am talking about and I've NEVER heard of anybody who had that.
I do know of successful and profitable content ad campaigns. I also know when content campaign have higher ROI, but it's never the same keyword.
There is an example - it's one of the techniques all experience marketers use (it's a real example, too).
The term "PPC" is very expensive sometimes up to $5 per click. As of this morning, top three bids for "PPC" in Overture were $3.99, $2.22, $2.00
Obviously, running a true search campaign for this keyword is expensive and all similar terms are equally expensive (top three bids for "pay per click" are $4.31, $4.29, $4.05).
You can run a content ad campaign, but this this instance the STUPIDEST thing you can do is to bid on "PPC" or "pay per click". A buddy of mine has an ad running for his PPC consultance service, but it's triggered by HTML related terms and names of internet marketers like Corey Rudl. He never bids more than 5 or 6 cents and because his lists has hundreds of terms, the traffic is very good. The approach works very well, because the ad works as a pre-qualifier. No one knows that a PPC ad was not triggered by "PPC" or "Pay Per Click", but by "CSS" or "H1 tag". They read the ad and click only if they are interested. And because the list related to webmasters and internet marketers, it works. In this particular instance the ROI for context ad campaign is MUCH higher, but the keywords are DIFFERENT and much more important 20-100 times CHEAPER.
So please, don't say "David, you are wrong". I've been wrong on many ocassions, but I'd like to be proven wrong with this one. I don't want to read that there are some industries or somekeywords where it does not apply - give me one keyword and I'll be happy to admit that I am a pompos baboon ass

[Jon_King]

DD, While I won't get into a keyword discussion, maybe considering content ads to lead generation can help you see its application in certain marketing mixes.

I have a client whose minimum machine sale is $350,000 in industrial markets (orders are often above a million). It does not matter one bit whether it costs $5.00 or $.05 to generate that lead. The whole of Google advertising, content or search, is ridiculously cost effective in this and many similar cases. Comparing ROI between $5.00 and $.05 in these cases is not applicable. It's a real bargain no matter how you look at it.

[DavidDeprice]

So basically we are back to "general". Well, in "general", true search is much more profitable. And in
"general" content ads aren't profitable at all due to very poor conversion rates, with several notable expeptions
a. when content is the only way to get traffic (little searching for the keyword of interest).
b. when the margin is high.

I am no adsense-hater and I do know of instances when context ads work, all I am saying is that true search is incredibly more effective and profitable in most cases (stopped short of saying almost always". And, from what I gathered so far, on a keyword basis, no one knows of a single instance when conversion for a keyword is higher for context than for true search.

[Jon_King]

>>So basically we are back to "general".
That is the challenge of a quality forum, you have to know your subject's major objectives and talk in generalities/anologies, that's the way it is.

>>no one knows of a single instance when conversion for a keyword is higher for context than for true search.

So what. It's cost per lead compared to all other forms of advertising a particular customer is using thats important. Some are better than others, Google can out perform all others, search or content.

The argument is not Google Content compared to Google Search but rather to all forms of promotion i.e. trade shows, industry pub advertising, directories etc. The question is what performs the best compared to all avenues... There are times when I cannot find anything close to Google, either search or content leads. They can be the least expensive and the best ROI. IMHO

[eWhisper]

I can list several areas that are mainstream (at least $10k/month in PPC) where content converts better than search.

I don't want to list specifics on a very public forum - but they are there. It's not uncommon for advertisers to ask how to get more content impressions/clicks.

Content doesn't work for everyone, but for some, it is incredibly effective.

[DavidDeprice]

Ok, let's all agree on what we are talking about first, when we say "content better than search".
I know of areas where content works better than search - like a $300 info product on helping pizza shop owners run their joints better. Self-help is another area where content works OK. There are niches where there is very little searches done and content works fine. If you have high margins, content will work fine. But that's not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is that if you take the same keyword or the same set of keywords and run true search vs. AdSense, true search will beat AdSense every time on a conversion basis. You may argue that you have campaigns when conent ads deliver more revenue, but that's because there isn't much searching going on. So let's stop saying general stuff here. If you know of a singe keyword that converts better from conent than from search (i.e. 1.9% vs. 0.8%), just say "I have such a keyword". And if you don't want to name it, just say something like this "it's a brand name for a company that creates parts for Ford Mustang". I'm not going to steal it, as far as I know such a keyword doesn't even exists because on a percentage basis true search always beats content.

[Steve6]

David, this may be just a little off topic, but do you have an opinion of the Search partners?

Since you sell discounted software, you have probably looked at software download sites like download.com, where a typical visitor will look mostly for free software. If you do a search, it shows all the free stuff you can download from that site, but scroll way down in the results page and you'll see some Google AdSense links, which I assume are considered "Search Partners" in your AdWords account, and whose CTR is not included in the bidding.

Do you have any experience in the conversion rates from these sites? I don't hear much about them here in this forum.

[spaceylacie]

There's a company that runs an extensive Adwords campaign throughout one of my sites. Their site is a free club, related to my niche. People click over and sign up for the free membership. Nothing is for sale immediately, just later when they start receiving the club's newsletter(which also includes free stuff).

I just don't see them doing better with search. Nobody searches for clubs like theirs, it's something that visitors happen across and respond to...

[eWhisper]

I know of such a keyword.

Just one of many examples I could show.
One adgroup for one month:

..............Clicks Impr. CTR CPC Cost Avg. Pos Conv. Rate Cost/Conv. 
Search Total 3,041 51,165 5.9% $1.07 $3,253.19 1.4 9.10% $11.79 
Content Total 2,255 204,179 1.1% $0.81 $1,820.58 2.0 11.30% $7.02 

Both cost per conversion and cost per conversion are lower on content. The volume isn't what I consider 'niche' since it's 51k searches in a month.

[DavidDeprice]

eWisper - come one, dude! You have people clicking search 5 times more than a content ad, guessing from your example! If your conversion for content is higher, what does it mean? Means you are making major marketing mistakes with that keyword. Just think about it.
I am assuming that everything else is (landing page and the ad) the same. Means you are either misleading searchers or not using appropriate negative keywords.
People who search for "keyword" come to your website and are 5 times LESS likely than some random clickers who saw your ad. Thanks for your example, because it proves me wrong, but you are wasting money on your true search, driving ton of UNQUALIFIED traffic to your site.

[eWhisper]

If a 9% conversion rate on this product means I'm wasting money - I'll happily be wrong all day.

[europeforvisitors]

People who search for "keyword" come to your website and are 5 times LESS likely than some random clickers who saw your ad. Thanks for your example, because it proves me wrong, but you are wasting money on your true search, driving ton of UNQUALIFIED traffic to your site.

You're ignoring the likelihood that many of those clickers have arrived at the content site through search. If those searchers then click on an ad after reading the information they were looking for, they're prequalified prospects.

This can be important for some topics. Let's say you're a travel agent who's selling $700-per-day (per person) luxury voyages on Platinum Cruises. Would you rather pay for clicks from just anyone, or would you rather pay for clicks from prospects who know (because they've just read a cruise review) that a a 10-day Platinum cruise costs $14,000 for a couple?

Of course, there is one fly in this particular ointment, and that's the fact that Google forces you to take all or nothing when you buy CPC ads on the content network. The person who sees an ad for Platinum Cruises on a cruising or travel site may be an excellent prospect, but the person who sees the same ad on a scraper site or gmail may be just as clueless as the person who typed "Platinum Cruises" on a search page. Fortunately, site-targeted CPM ads will soon be available to offer the kind of advertiser control that's missing with CPC ads. (And even with CPC ads, content ads may work well for a given advertiser; it's easy enough to find out by testing.)

[DavidDeprice]

No, 9% conversion is very impressive. It's just that numbers look really weird. My guess is that it's not a strict match (i.e. keyword vs. [keyword]).
Let's say you bid on the term "photographs". Your ad may read somthing like "Look at the quality of these photographs. Let pros reach you tricks of the trade".
For content ads that would be displayed at photography related sites, it would be obvious that the product sold is photography related. What about search? If you did not set strict match [photographs], people will search for Lolita photographs, Britney Spears photographs, etc., etc. They may click the ad (especially if it's ambiguous) and then click the back button right away.
If that's the case, then you can't say that you have a keyword that converts for content better than search, because you'd be comparing "bla-bla-bla one, two and three photographs" to "photographs".
Still, the 11% conversion rate for contextual ads looks very impressive to me - that's simply amazing.