<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stomp the Google AdWords Expanded Broad Match Problem</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clixmarketing.com/blog/2008/01/08/stomp-the-google-adwords-expanded-broad-match-problem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clixmarketing.com/blog/2008/01/08/stomp-the-google-adwords-expanded-broad-match-problem/</link>
	<description>Tips and Thoughts on Google AdWords, Yahoo! Search Marketing, Microsoft adCenter and All Things PPC</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: David Szetela</title>
		<link>http://www.clixmarketing.com/blog/2008/01/08/stomp-the-google-adwords-expanded-broad-match-problem/#comment-426</link>
		<dc:creator>David Szetela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clixmarketing.com/blog/2008/01/08/stomp-the-google-adwords-expanded-broad-match-problem/#comment-426</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Andrew - my data is at a rather coarse level - Matt's may be more refined: for the Clix client affected worst by EBM, ad spend increased over $7,000 the month we detected the issue. We spent a few weeks running Search Query reports and pouring negative keywords into the campaign, but every few days additional bad matches would pop up ("bad matches" as defined by search terms that bore little or no resemblance to the campaign keywords - but garnered clicks and few or no conversions). Once we employed the "Phrase Match Two-step," the number of bad matches dropped precipitously, and spending and conversions came  back in line with the previous month. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I'll email Matt and ask if he's got more.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Andrew - my data is at a rather coarse level - Matt&#8217;s may be more refined: for the Clix client affected worst by EBM, ad spend increased over $7,000 the month we detected the issue. We spent a few weeks running Search Query reports and pouring negative keywords into the campaign, but every few days additional bad matches would pop up (&#8221;bad matches&#8221; as defined by search terms that bore little or no resemblance to the campaign keywords - but garnered clicks and few or no conversions). Once we employed the &#8220;Phrase Match Two-step,&#8221; the number of bad matches dropped precipitously, and spending and conversions came  back in line with the previous month. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ll email Matt and ask if he&#8217;s got more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Goodman</title>
		<link>http://www.clixmarketing.com/blog/2008/01/08/stomp-the-google-adwords-expanded-broad-match-problem/#comment-424</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Goodman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:31:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clixmarketing.com/blog/2008/01/08/stomp-the-google-adwords-expanded-broad-match-problem/#comment-424</guid>
		<description>I'd love it if you and Matt could show me clearly the impact of this "ban the two-word broad match in favor of both major phrase matches" change - in terms of overall click and sales volume. Depending on the account, my sense is that the broad matches, and the expanded broad matching, are generating a lot of volume (albeit, not always good volume). Seems like it is a bit of a tightrope...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d love it if you and Matt could show me clearly the impact of this &#8220;ban the two-word broad match in favor of both major phrase matches&#8221; change - in terms of overall click and sales volume. Depending on the account, my sense is that the broad matches, and the expanded broad matching, are generating a lot of volume (albeit, not always good volume). Seems like it is a bit of a tightrope&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
