Including every possible matchning option for kw

A good idea?

[genem]

Do you think that doing all matches on all kws is good?
For example,
blue widget
"blue widget"
[blue widget]

And so forth for every kw you have.

I think it is and I am going to experiment with my account to see if it is so.

[jbischke]

I don't follow why you would want to do this? The first is a broad match so it will include the phrase match and exact match anyway. Unless you're bidding different amounts for the different phrases?

I'm new to AdWords so if I'm missing something please let me know.

[genem]

What I learned is that if there are both broad mathc and, say, exact match kws, and the query matches both exactly, the system will give preference to the exact match, since it is more relevant, (matches the user query 100%).
The broad match is there to catch all other possible combinations that you could not think of.

[JKelly]

I have always been curious about this also. Unless I am missing something here, it seems like a way to reap the benefits from the high CTR on the exact matches without losing out on the traffic broad matches could provide. One might also save money if the more restrictive match types end up with lower CPC as those might otherwise been shown as broad matches with a higher CPC.

[hooloovoo22]

That's generally considered good practice. You'll get a better idea of what is actually being searched and can target creative and landing pages more specifically for more keywords.

In practice what I've been finding is when I split up a broad matched kw my total impressions for all the variations are actually less than what I was getting before - this was a confirmed issue by my rep - who I feel is actually a good one. Not only that, but my overall cpc is up, presumably since the broad match kws now have worse performance due to removing the exact or phrase match. In theory it should be a zero sum gain I'd think, but I've experienced different. I'd like to hear some other opinions

[genem]

My thoughts exactly, JKelly.
Using all matchtypes should give you more flexibility with CPC pricing. I suppose this is what all the successful adwrods advertisers are doing.

[genem]

After about 3 weeks into the expanded campaign, the adwords traffic about doubled, but so did the cost per conversion. What do you suggest about this? Refine the keywords slightly to weed out the big spenders?

The good thing so far is that I am receiving some conversions from the newly added keywords.

I also have very low ad positions for the new exact matches and very high CPC for them. I guess this tells me how much I've been missing by doing broadmatch only, correct?

[silverbytes]

Am I missing somehting or you can add both:

widgets
[widgets]

and [widgets] should perform better because it's more precise (for users searching widgets of course)
?

[genem]

Yes, you can do both
"widgets"
and
[widgets].

And [widgets], in my case at least, become more expensive because more people are bidding on the exact term.

[exmoorbeast]

Absolutely critical. Pricing varies enormously.

[genem]

Thanks for confirming this, exmoorbeast. Any tips on decreasing the cost per conversion;-)?

[smeyler07]

Always a good idea to use all matches for popular one or two word terms if you are using a system to track conversions by match type (many systems don't, and many advertisers don't bother to separate them either).

I have found that pricing can vary, CTR can help (on Google) with pricing, and conversion varies greatly.

Many people believe that you can only choose one match type. Not true.