New Feature from AdWords: Automatic Matching

by Tammy Joseph

Google Adwords recently introduced a controversial new Automatic Matching feature - it’s a beta feature that you have to be invited to use.

Google are testing it out in the US and Canada for the time being and AdWords explains the new feature as follows:

“Automatic matching is an optional feature that helps your ads reach targeted traffic missed by your keyword lists. It works by analyzing the ads, keywords, and landing pages in your ad group. It then shows your ads on search queries relevant to this information.”

I would say this it sounds pretty similar to the Broad Matching option - slightly more targeted, but still getting a wider reach than phrase and exact matching options.

I think you need to be cautious when experimenting with this new feature, especially if your campaign is doing really well. If you campaign is very niche and targeted, you don’t really want irrelevant search queries messing up traffic and conversion rates. But it’s always worth testing it out first - you may possibly find high converting keywords that you thought would never work in your campaign, or you merely didn’t consider due to the relevancy factor.

I’d say if you are going to test it out you’ll need to monitor the results closely. Keep a spreadsheet of performance stats before you started using this feature (as a control) and then set a certain time period for yourself (say 1 or 2 weeks) and keep comparing the new results to the control. This way you will be able to see if there are any major glitches, or improvements in performance.

Also regularly check your search query reports (once a week, so you have enough data) and make sure the right searches are coming through for your campaign. If not, negative match those ones that aren’t relevant enough for you; or if there is just a mound of irrelevant searches, and no conversions, turn it off.

Other useful information:

You can opt in an out of it in campaign settings – since I can’t find it on any of my accounts I assume Google has to activate it first for it to appear on your account. It’s important to note here that Google automatically opts you in for this feature, and if you don’t want to use it you have to actively go and turn it off.
It doesn’t affect the Content Network, only Google and the Search Network.
Traffic accumulated by this feature doesn’t affect your keywords’ Quality Score or minimum bids.
CPC for queries triggered by Automatic Matching are approximated through the average CPC of that ad group.
Performance data appears in each ad group’s keywords tab labelled Automatic Matching Total.

Good Luck! I really look forward to hearing from anyone who has tried it out.

2008/05/27 | permalink | comments (1) | trackbacks (0)

Comments

RSS to Email

Get our latest blog posts delivered straight to your inbox.

eMarketing News

Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter which is packed with interesting eMarketing news, views and other quirky titbits.

January

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

« Dec

Feb »

Recent Comments

Kat on Engaging as a Company

I agree with you. There are some things that should ideally not be discussed by an employee in the public sphere.
Would a communications policy have stopped the said journo from speaking out? He/she must have known a huge risk was being taken? I suppose it's also an incredibly difficult thing to predict. The lack of control can be alarming.
I'm definitely interested in seeing a more specific list, so if you find it do share.
Thank you for your comments :). Here's hoping there's a good coffee shop close to you..
vincent on Engaging as a Company

I guess the mark of a well crafted brand starts at HR policy for new recruits - ensuring that they fit the brand's/corporate's persona. So in that sense yes you could argue that left to their own devices employees would, regardless of an online communications policy, communicate in a style the sponsor would approve of. Not sure if that's always the case but I'm inclined to agree with this generalization.
I think what is also important is that the individual writing within the bounds of a sponsor's site does so in a restricted locale. You can police your own domain if you're a corporate, you can't necessarily control the individuals mouth outside of it. For instance on twitter, personal blogs and forums. Owing to the nature of niche stardom you could argue that the employee comes to represent the brand, more so than that personifies the brand in organic conversation with consumers and would carry significant weight both within corporate sites and externally. Making some individuals very wary to write for their companies at all.
For instance in our not too distant past a prominent journo got the boot for publishing his gripes with his employers and their professional ability - he was promptly fired...He would no doubt have been policed on a company blog but owing to the fact that he chose to represent the company elsewhere he took his brand and the papers brand with him - dragging both through the mud as traipsed on towards epic-failuredom...
So to come back to a point, there is definitely a sense that the policies as listed above are quite ambiguous. Even you yourself suggest that requisite legalese is absent, and I have to assume that such legalese would include a fairly long list of do's and dont's. I have a list somewhere laying about which dictates in a very bland corporate fashion how to represent the brand in public - if I find it I will share it with you.
Perhaps its worthwhile to enforce points like "don't tell secrets" and my own favourite, "for the love of god don't gripe about the boss who you've publicly named online"...
That's my mental-riff for the day, I'm afraid I veered rather uncharitably off course but such is the nature of thought.
Now if only the company I worked for had some decent coffee!!
Kat on Engaging as a Company

Transparency is a key issue - as is allowing people to carve their own niche.
My thinking is that people engage with a personality - an individual personality - in conversation more than with a collective. It's just easier. A company personality surely reflects the people who work there as well as a crafted (constructed?) image that the stakeholders choose to present. While you want engagement it's not the same as speaking to an individual.
There are definite risks involved - but I would lean towards allowing people to carve a niche.
vincent on Engaging as a Company

Couldn't have said it better. Nice post, it is most certainly something corporates are going to struggle with. How much transparency is too much? Who should be allowed to represent a brand and to what extent should the individual be given the opportunity to carve their own niche rather than extol the virtues of the mother - brand?
Who knows. We shall soon see as this year pans out and we find out how the big media players tackle the rise of the cost effective digital media channel.
Kat on Engaging as a Company

It is a tough issue, and I can understand why you've never published. I would encourage you to do so though - you probably have a feeling for when your writing reflects your voice and when it doesn't - and the rewards are worth it.
Thanks for reading Wendy. :)

More photos of the QuirkStars At Play

Name:
Friends of Quirk
Websites:
www.quirk.biz

Skribit: Social Suggestions

Name:
E-mail:
Url:
Comments:
Markup guide: makes text bold // makes text italic // -- creates a link -- (two dashes, no http://)
Remember personal info?
Notify me of follow-up comments?
SPAMCHECK:
Captcha:

New Feature from AdWords: Automatic Matching

by Tammy Joseph

Comments

Subscribe

RSS to Email

eMarketing News

January

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments