3 of the biggest mistakes in setting up Google AdWords
Setting up effective contextual advertising is a very time-consuming process, and if you delve into its subtleties, you can get a good result at the output, which will entail a good flow of targeted traffic.
Very often, clients whose accounts are configured incorrectly come to the audit.
So, as you already understood, we’ll talk about the topic of errors in the settings of accounts and advertising campaigns. The article contains the most common errors and ways to fix them.
Mistake No. 1 “One group – a million keywords”
Probably 95% of the accounts that I had to do audits contained this typical mistake. For example, in the RK there are 5 groups, in each group there are at least 50 keywords of various variations and 1 text ad. Such a structure of the Republic of Kazakhstan can hardly be called effective.
One of the most important and necessary points when setting up an account is the breakdown of keywords into groups. Moreover, each group should contain the most similar keywords. In the next paragraph I will explain in more detail why this should be done, and now I will show the filling of one group with keywords from the audit:
The screenshot shows that the group has a hodgepodge of keywords. Here you will find gyms, aerobics, fitness, and a trainer. In general, it is clear that nothing is clear. What logic should be followed when distributing the COP in groups? First you need to find the common root of the keywords that carry the main meaning of the services provided. Next, identify auxiliary words that carry additional semantic load. Thus, if you have the keys “buy fitness subscription” and “fitness subscription”, then they must be in different groups, because their root is the same, but in the first COP there is the word “buy”. The following screenshot shows which CSs need to be placed in separate groups.
Error No. 2 “Announcements”
The next common mistake is in group ads.
For some reason, many advertisers naively believe that one ad per ad group, which consists of a large number of diverse cs, is the norm. But this is not so. There should be at least two ads in each group, and at least one should have a dynamic keyword insertion. What is it for?
Try to enter in Google the query you are interested in, aimed at buying something. You will see an ad unit. But which ad will you click on? Most likely, the one whose text you like best. What is the logic? It consists in the fact that you need to play with the texts of ads, to make them diverse within the same group. This approach will allow you to collect statistics for each ad and in a couple of months you will see which texts are the most attractive from the user’s point of view and which ones should be changed.
What is dynamic keyword insertion for? It will allow you to use the key from the group in the text of the ad itself at the moment when the user enters a query matching the keyword from the group. He will see exactly what he was looking for in the text and click on your ad.
Here is an example of how not to do it. There are 4 active ads in the group. There is a positive point in the form of the presence of a dynamic insertion of the COP. But the description is absolutely identical in all ads, and the second heading is also duplicated:
And now back to the error number 1. Earlier, I already said that the COP should be divided as accurately and fractionally into groups. This is necessary for each group to be written ads relevant to the keywords. That is, if in your group there will be CSs of the type “legal work in Poland for Ukrainians”, then it is advisable to use all the words that are in the keyword in the ad. This will also help to attract customers, because they will be shown an ad with the same words as they have in the request.
Mistake No. 3 “Modified Accurate”
What I just did not see when conducting audits of advertising campaigns. KS in phrase or exact correspondence with the broad modifier, classmates in wide (not branded) or with the modifier (it didn’t save the situation), the KS in the English layout, i.e. you understand what it looks like:
CS are often found with spelling errors. No, I understand that such CSs can sometimes slip through when you collect requests, if you have more than 500 of them accumulated in a couple of days, and the time for everything is about 30 minutes. But when the percentage of COP with errors just rolls over, then you need to think about it. Some advertisers follow the logic: the more words – it doesn’t matter if there are errors or not – the better. It’s a delusion. Yes, it’s good, of course, when you have a large number of cops in your arsenal, but you need to know the measure. Think about it, today you have collected 200 cops from queries, 30% of which contain spelling errors. You have dynamic keyword insertion in your ads. Tomorrow, for example, a competent user will want to find the product that you are selling. Enters a request, accidentally makes a mistake with the letter (and you already have such a key with the same error).