Initial Google Keyword Quality Scores May Be Inaccurate

Search engine marketers who have done their research know the elements that compose a good through excellent Quality Score.  In our previous post, we summed up Google’s Quality Score stating that it is mainly based off of the relevancy between your keywords, ad groups, text ads, landing page quality and load time, historical click through rate and overall account history.

So, why do our keywords end up with terrible quality scores after putting together such a well-rounded account?  It may seem a bit confusing at first, but, don’t lose hope just yet!

Brad Geddes teaches us how to overcome this barrier and turn initial keyword quality scores into a very useful measuring tool against competition.

Geddes explains that when a keyword is added into an account, that keyword is given a quality score, but this is not the “actual” keyword or landing page quality score.

Geddes clarifies by stating, “the initial quality score is a default quality score for everyone who has used this word before you. That’s an important benchmark as you can compare your quality score to your overall competition.  After you add several keywords, run a keyword report and save the quality score info for those new keywords.”

The question is, how do we know when we get our real quality scores?

“After the new keywords added (the ones with the poor quality scores) have accrued enough data for Google to make a statically significant decision about what your actual quality score is (which could be a day to a few weeks depending on how many impressions, clicks, and when Google crawls your landing page) then your keywords are updated with your actual quality score.

Run another keyword report on your actual quality score.

Compare this data to the original quality score.”

It all makes sense now.  A simple comparison within a month’s time could possibly differentiate us from our competitors.

A search engine marketing firm is able to handle all of these updates and comparisons for you, especially if you start with higher quality scores and then see them drop to lower scores down the road.

Is Google Adwords Quality Score Exaggerated?

PPC Management companies are always talking about it, always fearing it and always wondering what the next change will be.  Of course, I am referring to Google Adwords Quality Score.  Advertisers may very well be starting to see Google Adwords as a rival instead of a profitable advertising platform.

To sum it up, Google Adwords Quality Scored is mainly based off of the relevancy between your keywords, ad groups, text ads, landing page quality and load time, historical click through rate and overall account history.  Every advertiser will have their own success rates and opinions on quality score, but I truly believe that overall account history is the prime factor.

I read an interesting and I may even call it a brave article written by guest blogger, Shawn Livengood, on ppchero.com.

In the article, Livengood refers to Google’s Quality Score as “overhyped” and claims that “the reality is that if you’re running a relevant, well organized PPC campaign, you shouldn’t even have to think about your quality score.”

Livengood also claims that his theory on Google’s Quality Score is that “it’s slightly comforting to get a “grade” on how you’re doing in your AdWords account.  With so many different numbers and statistics flying around in your account, it’s easy to focus on one specific number to determine how things are going.  The only real “score” you need is one (or all) of these three: total conversions, conversion rate, and cost per conversion.”

Livengood is basically stating that if people want your product or service and you are targeting them appropriately, then you’ll convert them.  If people don’t find what they are looking for, then they’re simply not going to convert.

I think that Livengood makes a valid point, conversions don’t lie, but in today’s world competition is more fierce than ever.  Whether we like it or not, we are not going to get our ads ranking with our competitors if Google is ranking us in the “poor” category.  I found it a bit contradictory that Livengood praised a strong, well-structured, relevant pay per click campaign, yet also stated that Quality Score is “overhyped”.

In my experience, the only times I have seen an online marketing campaigns perform with success that have not been structured around Google’s Quality Score are when the campaigns have so much history that it almost seems to wipe everything else out completely. I feel as if you can put together a beautifully structured and relevant campaign, but click history is the element that is missing in new campaigns and the piece of the Quality Score puzzle that we strive for to complete the package.

Microsoft adCenter Supplies Advertisers with New Conversion Tracking Options

Microsoft adCenter is arguably the most advantageous paid search engine as compared to its main competitors, Google and Yahoo.  What is this argument based on?  Well, one example is in regards to advertising costs.  Google is by far is the most popular search engine of our time, but when you spend a certain amount of money on Google, you can rest assure you will more than likely be spending less than half of that amount on MSN (and from personal search data, most likely for equal or more conversions).

If you are looking to increase visibility but you don’t exactly have the advertising dollars to fit expensive clicks, then advertising on MSN is commonly known as a worthwhile expansion for your search engine marketing campaigns.

As advertising on the internet becomes more and more competitive, we do need the research tools and advantages to help our campaigns grow continuously.  adCenter may be known to some advertisers as an economical benefit, but the tools for growth are limited in comparison to search engines like Google, for example.

After reading an article written by Microsoft adCenter’s Traffic Quality Programme Manager, Brandon Kitts, the good news is that adCenter is on its way toward an even more efficient paid search platform.  Kitts posted an in depth explanation on Microsoft adCenter’s blog about the new conversion tracking options that will be provided to advertisers.

Mr. Kitts says, “In order to achieve the most meaningful conversion counts possible, adCenter is releasing a package of new Conversion counting controls which allows you to specify how you want your events counted. We are offering three options from which you can pick what works best for you”.

Kitts then goes on to explain the options, stating that Conversion Counter Option 1 “will only count the first conversion that occurs after the click.”  Any following conversions will not be counted unless they are a result from a new or alternate click.

Kitts explains Conversion Counter Option 2 as a more “complicated” approach to conversion tracking, but also a more effective approach.  This second option counts one conversion per unique URL.  He says, “This allows users to synchronize adCenter’s conversion counts very closely to their own system.  It does not matter what this conversion page is, what the transaction is, etc. It only matters that the page is unique, so that we can then count it uniquely and not count duplicates.This technique allows you to lock-in the adCenter conversion counting system to your internal definition of the conversion.”

Conversion Counter Option 3 is also known as the “default” version of the bunch since it is equal to the tracking that has always been provided by adCenter.  This option tracks all conversions that result.  Kitts explains this option to be most beneficial for advertisers who “want all of the events to be reported, and they already have sites that are designed to eliminate repeat-visit problems. This option ensures that all conversion events are reported.”

A search engine marketing firm should be able to handle all of these advanced conversion tracking options for you.

I believe that this is a huge step in the right direction for adCenter. These conversion tracking options are some great renovations and will definitely help with campaign improvements. I do, however, agree with the common feedback posted on adCenter’s blog and hope that being able to track revenue will be an option in the near future.

Longtail Keywords Help Advertisers Break into Crowded Search Marketing Niche

I read an article that’s extremely useful for new campaigns in competitive industries.

Even in today’s economy, search engine marketing is proven to be the marketing medium with the lowest cost per acquisition.  This may seem hard to believe for newer advertisers launching off into the pay per click world.  There are certain industries that seem to be impossible to break into.  Let’s face it, no one is exactly keen on the idea of paying $5 plus per click.

Sometimes special offers and incentives can’t even save you because they become so repetitive.  According to Brick Marketing’s post, “The surest way to break into an overcrowded niche is to focus on the long tail. Your click bids will cost less, you’ll be able to make more budget stretch longer, and you’re more likely to reach a hungry market that is ready to buy right now - if you have the right product. Think about it: Many online marketers have been at it for 10 years or more. How many special offers do you think consumers have seen in that time?”

I agree that long tail keywords are the best way to go. With internet marketing expanding more and more each day, being specific and targeting your audience with long tail keywords is sure to eliminate the waste of clicks that come from less targeted keywords and are sure to have higher click through rates. Long tail keywords coincide with targeted ad copy and great landing pages.

Display URLs ‘important’ for PPC online marketing ads

I read an interesting article on Click Through Marketing about the impact on Display URLs in PPC Marketing:

Internet marketers are being urged not to overlook the importance of display URLs when using pay per click services.

According to Randy Pickard, vice-president for product innovation at research firm User Centric, display URLs are an important component of pay per click (PPC) ads.

Writing on the SEOmoz blog, he said that studies show they capture “a significant proportion of the gaze time” allocated to paid-for advertisements.

With this in mind, marketers should alter display URLs in order to attract more clickthroughs, adding descriptive keywords to the end of the domain name.

He acknowledged that this tactic may not work in all cases, as “stuffing in” keywords could reduce the branding value of a PPC ad.

However, he stated: “The potential long-term benefit of acting upon a successful test can easily outweigh the short-term cost of a failed one. Thus, for many PPC advertisers, a closely monitored display URL test is likely a worthwhile effort.”

I do agree that a display URL that matches the keyword being searched does add to the overall Click Rate for a search listing.  The URL will be bolded to help it stand out, creating an instant showing of relevancy.

CSS/XHTML vs. Regular HTML for Landing Page Quality Score

Although we have not been able to find documentation on this, it seems that Google Adwords tends to favor regular (basic) HTML landing pages vs. modern CSS/XHTML landing pages. We have done tests where the exact same META data and content in a landing page will have a range of Poor (CSS/XHTML version) to Great (basic HTML version) quality scores. Considering this can make or break a campaign, try experimenting a bit. If you have a modern site, you may want to try to build a separate folder for basic HTML landing pages and see how those fare vs. your regular site pages.

A search marketing firm should be able to handle all of this in house for you.

Jury Maintains Legality of Pay-Per-Click Bids on Trademarks

There was an interesting story posted by PRweb in regards to the legality of PPC Bids on Trademarked names.  Here is a snipit:

In Civil Action case No. A-07-Ca-615-LY of The College Network Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishing Inc., jurors rejected the argument that pay-per-click bidding on registered trademarks constitutes infringement. The College Network alleged that the defendant, doing business as iStudySmart.com, was infringing upon their registered trademark by placing pay-per-click bids on the words “college” and “network”.

Arguing before the United States District Court, Western District in Austin, The College Network sought $150,000 in lost profits, claiming the defendant’s pay-per-click advertising practices gave them an undue advantage and lured away customers.

“Bidding on a competitor’s registered trademark has become common practice in the search engine marketing (SEM) industry,” said Troy Perkins, founder of Totus Internet Visibility Agency, San Antonio TX. Providing testimony as an objective, expert witness, Perkins gave an online demonstration to show the jury how keyword bidding enables companies to gain first page ranking with companies of like products.

This keeps bidding on competitor company names fair game.  This is usually a great way to get inexpensive targeted clicks.