<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<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>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:24:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sydneynetwork</title>
		<link>http://www.clixmarketing.com/blog/2008/01/08/stomp-the-google-adwords-expanded-broad-match-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-1351</link>
		<dc:creator>Sydneynetwork</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clixmarketing.com/blog/2008/01/08/stomp-the-google-adwords-expanded-broad-match-problem/#comment-1351</guid>
		<description>I also encountered the same issue for one of my clients. 
In our case, the client&#039;s brand term CPC shot up significantly because the brand term is triggered by irrelevant broad match keywords that are closely associated with the brand&#039;s offering.

I did pretty much the same thing as you did (ie. run regular Search Query report and add unwanted queries as negative keywords, more specifically exact negatives).

What I also did additionally were to take the top 10% converting keywords of broad matches and re-introduce them into the campaign as exact matches. I did not use any phrase matches at all. This seem to work well too.

&lt;a&gt;Sydneynetwork&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also encountered the same issue for one of my clients.<br />
In our case, the client&#8217;s brand term CPC shot up significantly because the brand term is triggered by irrelevant broad match keywords that are closely associated with the brand&#8217;s offering.</p>
<p>I did pretty much the same thing as you did (ie. run regular Search Query report and add unwanted queries as negative keywords, more specifically exact negatives).</p>
<p>What I also did additionally were to take the top 10% converting keywords of broad matches and re-introduce them into the campaign as exact matches. I did not use any phrase matches at all. This seem to work well too.</p>
<p><a>Sydneynetwork</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Szetela</title>
		<link>http://www.clixmarketing.com/blog/2008/01/08/stomp-the-google-adwords-expanded-broad-match-problem/comment-page-1/#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&#039;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 (&quot;bad matches&quot; 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 &quot;Phrase Match Two-step,&quot; 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&#039;ll email Matt and ask if he&#039;s got more.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Andrew &#8211; my data is at a rather coarse level &#8211; 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 (&#8220;bad matches&#8221; as defined by search terms that bore little or no resemblance to the campaign keywords &#8211; 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-page-1/#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&#039;d love it if you and Matt could show me clearly the impact of this &quot;ban the two-word broad match in favor of both major phrase matches&quot; 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 &#8211; 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>

