-
Who’s right: my boss or me ?
So we're making an ad campaign for an internet provider.
I grouped words based on their intent. ( For example : I grouped keywords "best home internet" and ' home wifi providers" because they have the same intent and also both of these keywords refer to exactly the same service our client provides.
My boss insisted that people want to see wifi instead of internet in the ad copy if they search for it and I have to make 2 separate groups.
The problem is that our client's company's located in a small island in Europe and all these keywords are low in search volume ( 10-100) max.
And it doesn't make sense to me why I would separate 3 keywords with a search volume of 30 searches ( some ad groups won't get even that)
I told my boss I wanted to include only 10-20 keywords max. But he said : how do you know how much you're gonna pay for being shown for close variant keywords.
Because I'm new to Google ads, I didn't know how to answer.
I will do the job anyways, but I'd like to know your opinion on this. -
1 Reply
-
You are correct. Explaining that to your boss may be a challenge, but you are right
-
Your boss is thinking in the mindset of SKAG and not STAG —-this is key. Under Single Topic Ad Group you can easily group-in more combinations such as the 3 to 30 you mentioned as they all meant the same thing. You would then pull a Search Term report to see what was used and yielded conversions. SKAG or single keyword ad group you would target individual KWs like he mentioned. Broad KW, machine learning and smart bidding is closing the door on that approach.
-
There’s no right or wrong, only testing. Stick them in an RSA and let them fight it out.
-
Totally get where you’re coming from. Given that your keywords have super low search volume, separating them into different ad groups might not make much sense. Combining similar keywords into one ad group is a good way to keep things manageable and optimize your budget.
Your boss is thinking about the idea that specific keywords might require tailored ad copy to match user intent. And while that’s a valid point, with such low search volumes, it’s a bit of overkill to split hairs like that. You might end up with ad groups that don’t get enough impressions to make any meaningful data out of.
As for your boss’s concern about paying for close variant keywords, Google Ads usually adjusts your bids for close variants automatically, so you don’t need to stress too much about separate bids. It’s often better to keep things simple, especially when dealing with low search volumes.
In short, your approach makes sense for the situation, but it’s also good to consider your boss’s perspective. Maybe you could compromise by starting with combined ad groups and then split them later if you find the performance warrants it.
-
you are not wrong, grouping keywords with similar intent in a single ad group makes a lot of sense. Especially when you have low search volume. To satisfy your boss and the Google algorithm for relevant ad copy, you can use Dynamic Keyword Instertion in some of your headlines (that makes them include your keyword).
Also, as a response to your boss’ question on paying more for close variants, you can use my script to monitor the performance of close variants –>
https://nilsrooijmans.com/effortlessly-monitor-close-variants-with-this-google-ads-script/ -
It wont really matter if you’ve got two adgroups instead of 1 or even if the keywords are that low a Search volume, but spread out.
All separate adgroups (or campaigns) practically do is give you more granular budget/bidding/ad creative control if you want it.
Your boss is telling you to make tighter themes to get the ad copy aligned and he’s right.
Despite being able to look at the SQRs, adding more keywords initially (despite low volume) is also right because it makes it easier to view and report on performance in the interface.
For an account this size, I’d mine the hell out of the available keywords and chuck em all in with some super tightly themed RSAs with campaign level bid strats.
The bulk of the work for that size of account is probably out of the way after that and I can spend the rest of my time just learning the behaviour of the small flow of data and seeing if there’s any budget/ranking issues for any of the more granular themes (you don’t get IS data on search queries IIRC).
-
Test and learn. My thought – WiFi and Internet are synonyms. Use both in your ad copy with RSAs. Only separate the ad groups if your landing page is different. (Even then you could set the landing page at the keyword level)
-
I would agree with your boss, two adgroups for the different wording. Write the ads then create the keyword lists around the ads, not the other way around.
If someone searches “best home internet” and your ad reads “best home WiFi” there is mixed messaging. Whilst the service is technically the same, not everyone will view it that way.
Personally, if I think of “best home internet” I think of a provider. If I think of “best home WiFi” I think of signal strength.
-
Add a dynamic keyword insertion – this will solve your issue. Literally inserts a headline based on the keyword that was triggered from the search. Will also increase your ctr
Log in to reply.