Keywords are over-rated.

The vast majority of paid search marketers track clicks and results (usually conversions) and tune their keywords as a result. They bid keywords up or down, perhaps even pause or delete them, as if the keyword was responsible for the result.

But the user frequently wasn’t searching for, or thinking about, the keyword.

They were searching for, and thinking about, whatever it was they typed into the ‘Search’ box. Or something that query represents – it’s often called their ‘intent’.

To run the most effective search campaigns your goal is to get as close as possible to their intent, and to the form or details of that intent. This is where the keyword problem appears. Keywords often mask search intent and even more regularly hide form and details.

Queries reveal intent and form.

(For anyone who didn’t read the earlier posts in this series, we’re calling keywords the terms you bid on in paid-search campaigns, and queries the search phrases users type into the search engines.)

By knowing the actual queries and reviewing their relationship to your keywords you can better understand what the searchers were looking for and thereby the keyword, match type, text-ad, bid, and even landing page changes that will lower your costs and increase your revenues.

An Example

We’re bidding on the keyword ‘dog remedy’ for onlynaturalpet.com (our blogging case-study).

Via ‘Broad Match’ it gets quite a few clicks and generates sales profitably.

It’s an interesting keyword for at least three reasons

1. It’s a generic term which expresses a very broad intent.
2. When someone searches for a ‘dog pneumonia remedy’ they’re thinking about the adjective (pneumonia) not the noun (remedy). It’s a really clear case where the keyword isn’t the users chief interest or concern.
3. Isn’t remedy sort of a strange and dated word?

When we inherited the account, ‘Remedy’ was one large ad-group including keywords covering dogs, cats, pets, animals, etc. but no specific issues or ailments. Pulling a query report for the ad-group, we see a rather long list, excerpted at right.

Let’s take a look at all the changes this list suggests.

• Negatives. Many queries cover behavioral or medically severe conditions for which ONP doesn’t sell solutions. If we’re going to buy broad match there are going to be a lot of negatives.
• Ad-Groups. Breaking out ad-groups for the major market segments (dogs and cats seem obvious) and either specific or classes of ailments makes it possible to tailor text-ads and landing pages to more closely match searcher interest. It also makes it a lot easier to manage bids and thereby positions for the different segments, which very well might perform differently.
• Match-Types. Looking over the list we can adjust our keyword list to target the most common terms & phrases via exact match, common embedded combinations via phrase, and to carefully consider which broad match keywords to retain.
• Bids. Not all ailments are created, nor valued equally. With visibility into both clicks and conversions per query, we find that we make pretty good money on some remedy keywords or categories and a lot less on others. In conjunction with our keyword changes (particularly those phrase matched) we can bid rationally.
• Text-Ads. Beyond the obvious needs to match text ads to the now re-grouped keywords or the modified words and phrases, a look at the query list helps us imagine the state-of-mind or the scenario that the searcher may be in – we can use this to write and test text ads that would appeal to their emotional and intellectual state.

In another ad-group the query analysis would lead us to different conclusions, but in each by starting with what the user is trying to accomplish and both clarifying and being realistic (with ourselves) about our ability to satisfy that goal we can make very significant campaign improvements.