Ad Group Creation Strategies

This week Matt Umbro (@Matt_Umbro) came up with yet another great question set titled “Ad Group Creation Strategies.” The following is the transcribed Streamcap from the live chat:

Q1: How do you believe an ad group should be structured? Why?

  • I don’t put a limit on keywords as long as they’re all variations of the same word. – Heather Cooan (@HeatherCooan)
  • With a few, targeted keywords that match the ad copy. Sometimes 1, sometimes a handful. For analysis, so you know what’s in the ad group, so your keyword intent matches ad copy, etc. – Jeremy Brown (@JBGuru)
  • Go granular to start but don’t overdo it until you get search volume, which dictates more granularity & segmentation. – Andy Groller (@AndyGroller)
    • Great point. You can always break out more later. Don’t granulate yourself to death. – Jeremy Brown
    • In fact too granular can sometimes hurt by being tagged with low volume keywords. – Matt Umbro
    • Low Search Volume kills Granularity way too often. – James Svoboda
    • It stinks because you are trying to be as segmented as possible, but it ends up hurting you. – Matt Umbro
  • Tightly themed by keyword segments that match the LP/site content. – James Svoboda (@Realicity)
  • A general rule I follow is that DKI should work in 99% of cases (not that I generally use DKI, but it’s a good barometer). – Matt Umbro
  • I often have one ad group per campaign – because I like the campaign level settings. – Steve Cameron (@adventcom)
    • How many campaings? 100, 300, more? – James Svoboda
  • 10-20 related keywords (30 MAX!), relevant to the campaign theme, direct to relevant ad/landing page. – Margot da Cunha (@ChappyMargot)
  • (1) All KW modifiers get new AG. (2) match types get separated as much as possible so can add mirrored Negs to direct traffic. – Kirk Williams (@PPCKirk)
  • Small targeted group of keywords accompanied by (ideally) 2 ads customised to answer the searches the adgroup will address. – Roxana Hassel (@RoxanaHassel)
  • Adgroups should house closely related terms, and relevant adcopy to obtain a high QS. – Juan Restrepo (@juanrrestrepo)
  • I try to keep my ad groups tightly themed. Sometimes they grow over time and you find opportunity to divide out new ones. – Amy Bishop (@Hoffman8)
    • You’re completely right Amy, you can dissect them even further depending on their performance. – Juan Restrepo
  • SKAGs (single keyword ad groups) are my fav with the Alpha-Beta campaign structure but not always the easiest to scale. – Nicole Mintiens (@Tregesy)
  • No set rule. SKAG’s for high volume keywords, but some misspelling AG’s can reach 100s. Whatever makes sense for ad copy. – Aaron Levy (@bigalittlea)
  • Don’t forget potential for ad group-level extensions, bid modifiers, etc. Not just KWs & ads. – Robert Brady (@robert_brady)
    • Agreed! Ad extensions are a must. I also like using a mix of match types. – Margot da Cunha
  • At least 3 Ads and a group of closely related keywords sharing a common theme. – Jason James (@Jason_A_James)
  • To start Similar kw matched together with synonmous goals while making good use of phrase and broad match modified keywords. – Bryce Liggins (@BryceLiggins)
  • I totally don’t separate match types until the data tells me to. – Heather Cooan
  • Just repeating the general theme. Granular enough to write tailored ad copy for the keyword set. – Amanda Brown (@AmandaBrown_SEM)
  • Two things to consider: 1. Ad text/query match 2. Time taken to manage. – Richard Fergie (@RichardFergie)
  • Essentially, what everybody else said. No more than 10 keywords rolled around literal similarities. *Please* don’t separate Ad Groups by Match Types. Do it at the campaign level. – Leo Sussan (@lsussan)
    • Don’t completely agree, but I would not have an ad group for every match type. Let volume lead. – Jeremy Brown
  • Query mis-matches, happen too. Might need to pull certain keywords into a sep ad group so you can add a negative to another. – Amy Bishop
    • Would argue that your negative keyword strategy is even more important than your ad group structure. A proper structure is necessary, but need to implement negatives for queries to trigger correct ads. – Matt Umbro
  • The usage of negative keywords per adgroup will also allow the account to better serve ads to search queries. – Juan Restrepo
  • For eComm, ad groups that follow nav structure of site – going from general and brand terms to prod names and long tail. – Katherine Romero (@KatherineRomero)
  • I like making highly targeted ad groups and breaking them out into broad, phrase & exact once there is enough data. – Erika Schmidt (@erikapdx)
  • Think about ad group performance & ad copy mgmt. Don’t create a hundred ad groups just for the sake of it. Make it actionable! – Kim Thomas (@PPCkim)

Q2: In what scenarios would you break out keywords into their own ad groups? Why?

  • When they hog the budget and need to go to solitary. – Heather Cooan
  • Only when there is tons of traffic for the KW, or very diff performance from other KWs. – Melissa Mackey (@Mel66)
  • Only when performance dictates…and brand core. – Amanda Brown
  • If a term has a fundamentally diff meaning, it gets fundamentally diff copy. Color, size, timing etc. That and performance. – Aaron Levy
  • This doesn’t appear to be popular. But I nearly always break out Match Types. IMO future bidding gets too screwed up otherwise. – Kirk Williams
  • Performance and volume dictates segmentation – better conversion rates, CPAs, CTRs by even more specific copy & LPs. – Andy Groller
  • Testing & volume although this is also another great example of why negatives are so important. – Cassandra McClure (@imcassy)
  • You want to test the keywords with a different match type + negative keyword strategy. – Mike Gardo (@MikeGardo)
  • Low ctr. Low conv rate. Very different bid required. – Steve Gibson (@stevegibsonppc)
  • Volume. Performance. Control. – Jeremy Brown
  • Once the adgroup grows through additions from search term report that 2 more specific groups can be made. – Bryce Liggins
  • When you are experiencing high traffic volumes and you want to better restrain impressions. or keywords with much higher CTRs. – Juan Restrepo
  • In any scenario that gives me a bigger QS, more control or any other reason that increases my ROI. – Roxana Hassel
  • DSAs and Shopping campaigns are great for finding new campaigns and groups! – Matt Umbro
  • When they get a lot of clicks but not a lot of conversions and they’re still highly relevant. – Heather Cooan
  • Mainly performance base. Viewing data by several segmentations can make that decision easier. – Joe Martinez
  • For eComm, head terms w vastly varying Conv rates and/or CTRs. Usually bread & butter of revenue so test test test each element. – Katherine Romero
  • Break out ad groups for relevancy, by match type, profitability, in order to funnel traffic better & create specific messaging. – Kim Thomas
  • Very rarely break out keywords into separate ad groups, they’d need to be using up a lot of budget. – Jason James
  • If performance is substantially different but worth keeping active I would probably put it in a separate campaign entirely. – Amy Bishop
  • When they are high volume converters with low margins. – Heather Cooan
  • Also when certain keywords end up serving a different goal then others. – Margot da Cunha
  • If you’re doing your job right, you’re going to learn new things about your KWs/client that will dictate ad group changes. – Mike Gardo
  • Keywords have volume / not LSV, and Intent is different or current text ads can better match query if broken up. – Tyler Purcell (@tylerpurcelll)
  • My Strat, segment Ad Groups by messaging, by Rev or CPA targets/potential, and negative keyword targeting. – Christi Olson (@ChristiJOlson)

Q3: Do you break out your Shopping campaigns by ad group? Why or why not?

  • No don’t do this. Keep everything in one place and avoid the granularity/control you get with segmentation. – Richard Fergie
  • Yes. By using priority settings, embedded negatives and tiered bidding you can gain control over mathcing queries. – James Svoboda
  • Yes. Cuz traffic sculpting and data clarity. – Heather Cooan
  • Sometimes. To use negatives to show only certain product types. – Amanda Brown
  • Yes, if the volume dictates it. Also, it’s great to have a separate All Products campaign for most accounts. – Jeremy Brown
  • Yes: (1) To organize account for easier mgmt (2) to logically separate product groups so can use neg KWs for traffic control. – Kirk Williams
  • Yes it offers clarity and control. – Jonathan Ng (@ThankYouJon)
  • Yes, gives more control over priority bidding, negatives, etc. – Andy Groller
  • And for the Shopping RLSA beta (sshhhhh!!) ad group segmentation is preferred for better audience segmentation. – Matt Umbro
  • YES! By product for bidding, ROI, and brand positioning reasons. – Katherine Romero
  • Yes, better high-level view of health along w/ helps me to make quicker decisions around high & low performing product groups. – Cassandra McClure
  • Haven’t really found much need to break out Ad Groups in shopping campaigns with Product Groups available here. – Jason James
  • Yes mainly to also compare performance. Different creative for different keywords. – Geoffrey Colon (@djgeoffe)

Q4: Why should advertisers break out their ad groups by match type? Why shouldn’t they?

  • I rec breaking out by match type if you need a negative keyword strategy (for brand/products) at the ad group level. Otherwise it can be cumbersome to breakout for the sake of breaking out. Only do it if needed for control. – Christi Olson
  • When volume dictates. Let volume guide you. Same rule for when creating exact-only campaigns. – Jeremy Brown
  • I’ve only done match type breakouts for very high traffic campaigns. Easier to control bids, saved time on negative KW research. – Joe Martinez (@MilwaukeePPC)
  • Query mapping! Exact should be your good stuff, broad should be research stuff. Breaking it out = easier control. – Aaron Levy
  • Can be helpful in accounts where mapping is an issue, so to strengthen the negative strategy. – Amy Bishop
  • I tend to do it because broad usually has a different ROI. – Steve Gibson
  • Google “should” always default to the most restrictive match type… not sure if this happens. – Steve Cameron
  • By breaking the in match type they can better serve ads to each individual search,it will also allow them to better control bids. – Juan Restrepo
  • I have never seen the need to segment ad groups by match type, and I review SQRs CONSTANTLY. Having said that, I’m also very strict about ad group and campaign level negatives and generally only use exact and mod broad. – Matt Umbro
  • Queries w/ different levels of specificity have different ROI’s. Breaking out ad groups by match type helps you find the ROIs. – Mike Gardo
  • I’m typically on the negative side of this – increases mgmt time w/o as much of benefit so negative ROI for us folks. That said, I have used in very specific situations where I absolutely need control because of stray impressions / clicks. – Andy Groller
  • Broad mapping can be crazy but I still want to mine for new keywords. – Amanda Brown
  • I use when I want to funnel traffic better (using neg. kws), or use bid adjustments that might not work at a blanketed approach. – Kim Thomas
  • I usually don’t do this b/c bid management tools will manage bids accordingly. Can be good for high volume though. – Melissa Mackey
  • And finding the ROIs helps you determine which types of customers to go after. – Mike Gardo
  • Break out for control. High converting/volume KWs should be grouped in a highly relevant exact match group. – Bryce Liggins
  • Yes. Bid most on exact, then phrase, lowest on broad. Force ads to show on exact. Use other 2 for kw prospecting. – Katherine Romero
  • Most already know my answer to this I use SKAGS when I really want to try & affect QS/CTR on specific queries w/ competition. – Bryant Garvin (@BryantGarvin)
  • Outside vol mgmt & testing, haven’t found match type segs more insightful that my tightly-themed ad groups don’t already cover. – Cassandra McClure
  • Positives: Segmentation can lead to higher conv rates at lower CPAs. E & P groups for conversions. B groups for testing. – Erika Schmidt
  • Breaking down ad groups by match type just seems like work. Bid higher the more restrictive you get, and set negatives. – Margot da Cunha
  • Oh, having a B group for testing is also good for finding converting search queries to add to your P & E groups. – Erika Schmidt
  • Don’t see the need to break out by Match Type when intent is the same. – Tyler Purcell
  • Segment at campaign, ad group, and kw level by match type = killer ROAS (great CPCs, CTRs, CRs). But resource intensive. – Katherine Romero
  • Only reason I can think to seperate ad groups by match type is if you don’t trust your negative keyword research. – Tyler Purcell
  • I break out by match type for various reasons. Most common one is volume–break out hi-volume to test better ads. – Theresa Zook (@I_Marketer)
  • It’s not all or nothing. Let volume dictate when you do breakouts of any kind (ad group, campaign). – Jeremy Brown

Q5: Does campaign structure define your ad groups or do ad groups define your campaign structure? Why?

  • I think it varies client by client and how they are using search to support their business. – Amanda Brown
  • Client goals definite structure – usually determine campaign segments first and then ad groups within. – Amy Bishop
  • Certain campagins are cleaned up and left alone. Others are built out from scratch. Volume is key. – Jeremy Brown
  • Ad groups define my campaign structure…because I iterate and build out which means constant re-arranging. – Heather Cooan
  • Client verticals define # of camp & ad grps inside them. – Theresa Zook
  • Campaign themes come first, then ad groups fall under those sooo the first option I suppose?- Margot da Cunha
  • Website comes first – what have we got to work with? – Steve Cameron
  • Campaign structure is built around biz goals, so that always comes first for me. – Katherine Romero
  • Ad group performance can define campaign strucutre if need to budget/optimize differently based on performance. – Kim Thomas
  • Campaigns define ad groups based on goals. More important goals = greater budget share. – Bryce Liggins
  • Website, biz goals, budget allocations for campaign structure. – Michael Knight (@MichaelAKnight)
  • I think it has to be a Funnel of sorts. Start with campaign them and segment on down. – Tyler Purcell
  • Client objectives dictate campaign structure, closely related keyword themes dictate ad group structure for me. – Jason James
  • I always determine my campaign themes based on budget allocation, then ad groups relevant to each theme fall under the campaign. – Margot da Cunha
  • Content/Product defines Keywords, which define Ad Groups, which defiine Campaign structure. – James Svoboda

PPCChat Sponsored by

CallRail is a call tracking platform that brings enterprise-level call analytics to businesses and agencies. CallRail makes it easy to track which marketing sources and keywords make your phone ring. We provide call tracking, recording, and analytics for PPC, SEO, web, and offline marketing campaigns. With CallRail, you can create tracking phone numbers instantly, get reports in real time, and increase your advertising ROI by learning which campaigns and keywords deliver valuable phone leads.

CallRail

Resources

More PPCChats

Don’t forget to stay tuned for the next #PPCchat on Tuesday at 12 noon Eastern, 9 am Pacific and 5pm in the UK. Same Chat time, same Chat channel.

Participants

Check out the PPCChat Twitter list to see and connect with all current and prior participants.

• Matt Umbro (@Matt_Umbro)
• James Svoboda (@Realicity)
• Paul Kragthorpe (@PaulKragthorpe)
• Aaron Levy (@bigalittlea)
• Amanda Brown (@AmandaBrown_SEM)
• Amy Bishop (@Hoffman8)
• Andy Groller (@AndyGroller)
• Bryant Garvin (@BryantGarvin)
• Bryce Liggins (@BryceLiggins)
• Cassandra McClure (@imcassy)
• Christi Olson (@ChristiJOlson)
• Erika Schmidt (@erikapdx)
• Geoffrey Colon (@djgeoffe)
• Heather Cooan (@HeatherCooan)
• Jason James (@Jason_A_James)
• Jeremy Brown (@JBGuru)
• Joe Martinez (@MilwaukeePPC)
• Jonathan Ng (@ThankYouJon)
• Juan Restrepo (@juanrrestrepo)
• Katherine Romero (@KatherineRomero)
• Kim Thomas (@PPCkim)
• Kirk Williams (@PPCKirk)
• Leo Sussan (@lsussan)
• Margot da Cunha (@ChappyMargot)
• Melissa Mackey (@Mel66)
• Michael Knight (@MichaelAKnight)
• Mike Gardo (@MikeGardo)
• Nicole Mintiens (@Tregesy)
• Richard Fergie (@RichardFergie)
• Robert Brady (@robert_brady)
• Roxana Hassel (@RoxanaHassel)
• Steve Cameron (@adventcom)
• Steve Gibson (@stevegibsonppc)
• Theresa Zook (@I_Marketer)
• Tyler Purcell (@tylerpurcell)
 

Streamcap Creation Strategies

This is a guest post by Paul Kragthorpe; works at WebRanking in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Connect with Paul @PaulKragthorpe, and Google Plus.

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: , ,

One Response to Ad Group Creation Strategies

  1. […] If you pay any attention to PPCChat, you probably saw a good debate going on over there last Tuesday: Ad Group Creation Strategies. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored By

Recent Tweets



I am speaking at SMX East
PPCChat.co was rated one of the Best PPC Blogs by Boost CTR