A better example would be if the car repair shop gave you (and charged you for) the deed and title to an igloo. Meanwhile, you live in New Mexico where it's 80 degrees in December.

At least the transmission has some value for your car, however small or unnecessary.

Although it is abundantly true that expanded broad match deserves the bashing it's getting here, the conversation should be focused on answering AWA's question:

Broad match is configured (and documented) to work in a particular way, which includes 'expansions'. Given that this is so, why do advertisers who genuinely hate broad match because of the 'expansions' continue to use it - when 'exact match' is an option which would give them complete control, and when 'phrase match' is less 'exclusive' than exact, but is not expanded?

IOW: Given the horrible problems caused by expanded broad match, why do we persist in using it?

AWA,

Our experiences:

We noticed a significant spike up in traffic at the beginning of this year and a plunge in ROI. At the time we were exclusively Broad Match. We ended up pulling all of the Broad Match and converting to Phrase and Exact. Later we created new Ad Groups for Broad Match and set the bid at 60% of Phrase/Exact. We then started entering negative keywords. It's been alot of work but our ROI is now much, much better.

I would suggest the ability to easily bid lower on Broad Match instead of pulling them into a new adgroup. Also, show us all the actual search phrases in the report. Plus improve Analytics so that it doesn't lump phrase, exact, and broad key words into the same key word.

@cline: Why do we continue to use Broad Match? Personally, I use it (sparingly) because it still serves as a good way to mine for tail terms. I guess one could say that we need to take the good with the bad, knowing we can be matched on strange and potentially irrelevant terms as well as good tail terms, and I agree with that. However, this is counter to Google's repeated insistence on a "good user experience," especially in view of the recent announcement about types of sites that are, in Google's opinion, poor user experiences. This leaves us to ask, "which is it?" Some of the expanded match examples in this thread illustrate a very poor user experience imho.

In the current situation, it's necessary to bid lower on broad match terms, and watch our reports for negatives to add and/or keywords that just plain shouldn't be run as broad match. However, it would be preferable to have the old broad match as an option.

My $0.02.

Melissa

Given the horrible problems caused by expanded broad match, why do we persist in using it?

The reasons are that their system has limits placed on us at the other end of the "use broad or not" question, including:
limited number of ad groups
limited number of campaigns
limited number of keywords per ad group
low volume keywords get sent to "low volume, so not showing" bucket.

Remove those limits and there will be fewer people feeling forced, at times, into using broad matching.

Some will use broad cuz they're lazy or don't care about margins. In those cases (a bulldozer ads shown for a sandals search), G's relevancy needs to be stricter (not expanded) so the rest of us aren't punished by ensuing ppc blindness consumer's will catch.

So the bashing BM is very relevant - I can't stop other users from using expanded broad match - but I sure can encourage G to curtail it in their own self-interest (and mine, and humorously, that'd also be in the best interest of the one's using EBM as well!).

[edited by: RhinoFish at 3:31 pm (utc) on Sep. 27, 2007]

The reasons are that their system has limits placed on us at the other end of the "use broad or not" question, including:
limited number of ad groups
limited number of campaigns
limited number of keywords per ad group

Yea, but all those things can be raised if you ask.

If they artificial limits, they should be removed.

And I assume that not everyone who asks, gets.

Rules, guidelines determine how people behave. If broad is less desired by G (it should be), then create guidelines and rules consistent with that.

Yes, I know they can be raised, but most don't.

Plus, you skipped the low volume one - that one cannot be skirted. The most important one to me, by far.

Many thanks for the feedback in this thread. Very much appreciated.

I have just now quoted several of you in the Advertiser Feedback Report which goes out tonight, and have also linked to the thread itself.

As was mentioned previously, I'll also take the feedback and talk directly to the right folks. So please know that your comments will be heard.

AWA

Thank you AWA!

Another thing that's particularly aggravating is when expanded mismatch decides to match on a keyword that already exists in the campaign -- but, of course at a higher bid.

For example, Adgroup 1 contains the keyword "cheap widgets" bid at $0.20. Adgroup 2 contains the broadmatch keyword "expensive widgets" bid at $1.00. Expanded mismatch decides that Adgroup 2 should deliver impressions on "cheap widgets" and that the bid for this should be $1.00, so it's okay to charge the advertiser $0.98 for those clicks -- even though the advertiser has specified that they are willing to bid only $0.10 for "cheap widgets".

I call that theft.

I've written a blog posting about this:

[searchgain.com...]

For example, Adgroup 1 contains the keyword "cheap widgets" bid at $0.20. Adgroup 2 contains the broadmatch keyword "expensive widgets" bid at $1.00. Expanded mismatch decides that Adgroup 2 should deliver impressions on "cheap widgets" and that the bid for this should be $1.00, so it's okay to charge the advertiser $0.98 for those clicks -- even though the advertiser has specified that they are willing to bid only $0.10 for "cheap widgets".

I call that theft.

Expanded broad match = click fraud on a massive scale!

dnathan - we don't post specific links here or promote actual sites, so if you don't remove it from your post, it'll probably be removed for you.

I'm trying to remove the post but "Allowable time to edit post has past." Sorry to all - no offense intended.

Another reason to use broad match and take the risk of the dreaded expanded mismatch is that in certain parts of the world certain trademarks cannot be keyword targeted. If you're trying to target brand X widget accessories you may not use "brand x" as part of your keyword. If you want a match on "brand x widget accessories" you have to broad match "widget accessories".

Another reason related to the one above is for keywords associated with trademarks the keyword tool is blacked out on. Basically one just has to make an educated guess about what keywords are being used in search. That's a bit difficult to exact match on, especially since Adwords doesn't like us filling the accounts with keywords that get no impressions.

Would love to hear more feedback from AWA on this, now that our comments have been presented to internal AdWords teams.

Back to the original post...

Today I was doing some SEO research and searching for a huge variety of unrelated 2 word key phrases. I noticed the phenomenon the OP is talking about once I started looking at some ads.

For example I search for something like fishing boats and then atlanta colleges and I see ads for atlanta fishing boats and atlanta boat tours...

They get an A for effort but a D- for execution.