Connect with us


Google keyword match type tournament: Place your bets on Exact



Deciding which match type works per keyword is an age-old Google Ads question. After the latest exact match update, it’s in every paid search marketer’s interest to answer it. So we did.

On Sept. 6, Google informed the search community that the meaning of “exact match” would be open for interpretation from search engines. Ginny Marvin reported on the update explaining that aside from close variants like plurals and misspellings, exact match keywords would now also include synonyms and paraphrases. Google’s decision was reacting in part to the fact that people can search for something as simple as deodorant 150,000 unique ways.

Photo credit: Google

These changes are intended to be positive for advertisers who can have their ads show up for more terms without having to perform exhaustive keyword research (although it puts greater pressure on campaign managers to audit search terms reports). The extent of how this update has impacted Google search campaigns at large has yet to be measured.

But with exact match keywords now showing up for so many paraphrases and related queries, why bother with other match types at all? Before doing away with broad and phrase match however, we as a search community needed to actually sit down and prove it to ourselves. We set out to measure and analyze exactly how the same keyword with two different match types would perform. The battle unfolds below, but first let’s visit how this complex analysis went down.

What and how were match types measured?

Currently there are four different match types offered inside Google Ads:

  1. Exact
  2. Phrase
  3. Broad
  4. Modified Broad Match (MBM)

To measure the impact of the exact match relative to other match types we had to put them all under a microscope for the analysis. Aside from match types, we also focused our research on accounts in our database using Acquisio Turing machine learning (my employer) since its campaign level bidding data is unbiased to bids set for different match types of the same keyword.

Between January and October of 2018 there were 978,358 keywords that had at least 2 different match types among the machine learning-managed accounts.* (see research notes below) To make a valid comparison between different match types of the same keyword, they had to be used in pairs on the same day with the exact same bid. Filtering for this constraint reduced the number of candidates to 477,935 keywords.

Since a typical keyword has very little traffic on any given day, many of the keyword match type pairs had statistics on multiple days, which were combined to get a more robust measure. If the same keyword (e.g. “dog”) appeared with different match types in multiple different campaigns, those were considered as individual entries because their bids and other settings could have been very different.

It was observed generally that across the 470k+ keywords, people used mostly exact, phrase and modified broad match types. Broad match was used much less frequently on accounts inside our database.

Match-type showdown

Choosing a match type is the subject for PPC debates nationwide, leading us to this very showdown. Here to finally put some numbers to the conversation, in the midst of industry changes, is the match-type battle. First, we’ll announce the match type teams:

Place your bets and let the games begin!

Round 1: Broad vs. Modified Broad

There was a total of 19,182 keywords that had both broad and modified broad match types assigned (again pairs with the same bid on the same day).

  • Broad match keywords had a very similar average position to modified broad match
  • Broad match keywords had a 16 percent lower CTR than modified broad match
  • They had practically identical CPCs
  • Broad match keywords had 23 percent worse CVR
  • Broad match keywords had 33 percent higher CPA

Round 2: Phrase vs. Modified Broad

There was a total of 146,698 keywords that had both phrases and modified broad match types assigned. Here’s how they performed in the SERPs:

  • Phrase match keywords had a similar average position as modified broad match
  • Phrase match keywords had an 8 percent higher CTR than modified broad match
  • They had practically identical CPCs
  • Phrase match keywords had 6 percent higher CVR
  • Phrase match keywords had 9 percent lower CPA

Round 3: Exact vs. Modified Broad

There was a total of 149,355 keywords that had both exact and modified broad match types assigned. Here’s how they performed in the SERPs:

  • Exact match keywords had a similar average position to modified broad match
  • Exact match keywords had an 18 percent higher CTR than modified broad match
  • They had very similar CPCs
  • Exact match keywords had 10% higher CVR
  • Exact matched keywords had 22 percent lower CPA

Semi-final conclusions

After three intense match type battles we concluded that the only time MBM wins is when it’s up against broad. Otherwise, phrase match or exact match win, knocking MBM out of the competition.

Final competitor rounds

With MBM out of the competition, the final competitor rounds focused on unmodified match types.

Round 4: Broad vs. Exact

There was a total of 23,012 keywords that had both broad and exact match types assigned (again pairs with same bid on the same day). Here’s how they performed in the SERPs:

  • Broad match keywords were placed in 5 percent better position than exact match
  • Broad match keywords had a 40 percent lower CTR than exact match
  • Broad match keywords had slightly higher CPC
  • Broad match keywords had 15 percent lower CVR
  • Broad match keywords had 40 percent higher CPA

When Broad match went up against Exact match, it lost big time! While broad match keywords had better ad placement overall, this is likely an artifact of the bidding algorithm because having the same bid for both match types can put the less expensive match type in a better position.

Aside from ad position though, broad match keywords were more expensive and performed worse than exact match keywords.

Round 5: Broad vs. Phrase

There was a total of 18,325 keywords that had both broad and phrase match types assigned. Here’s how they performed in the SERPs:

  • Broad match keywords had very similar average position to phrase match
  • Broad match keywords had a 23 percent worse CTR than phrase match
  • CPC between broad and phrase match was very similar
  • Broad match keywords had 17 percent lower CVR
  • Broad match keywords had 27 percent higher CPA

When broad match went up against phrase match it also lost pretty bad. While average position and CPC was similar, phrase match came out on top with better CTR and conversion rates at lower prices.

Round 6: Phrase vs. Exact

There was a total of 121,363 keywords that had both phrase and exact match types assigned. Here’s how they performed in the SERPs:

  • Phrase match keywords had very similar average position to exact match
  • Phrase match keywords had a 9 percent lower CTR than exact matched
  • Phrase match keywords had slightly higher CPC
  • Phrase match keywords had 4 percent lower CVR
  • Phrase match keywords had 20 percent higher CPA

While exact match and phrase match won their individual battles against broad match, when they went head-to-head exact match was a clear winner. With lower costs to advertise and better performance exact match is the way to go.

After three intense match type battles we concluded that the only time MBM wins is when it’s up against broad. Otherwise, phrase match or exact match win, knocking MBM out of the competition.

After the semi-final and final match type battles, there was a clear winner that will be announced in the next section. However, the tournament also surfaced another conclusion. It’s safe to say broad match is the least used match type and the lowest performer. However broad match can be good for discovery, effectively populating search query reports with potential keyword opportunities.

While the broad match type team lost, there was one match type that stood out above the rest in this tournament.

Use exact match for best performance at lowest cost

The data is in, the bets have been settled. According to our findings, the cheapest and best-performing match type is exact every time!

The latest exact match update from Google looks promising for search marketers who are hoping to capture more relevant traffic, but hesitant to switch away from phrase or broad match keywords. But if the update hasn’t inspired you to get more granular on match-types than hopefully the data presented here has. Even before the update, exact match keywords were performing better than every other match type and costing campaign managers less

The one caveat with exact match is low volume, despite impressive ROI. It can be hard (i.e., impossible) to scale your campaigns when you’re cherry picking only the very best queries using exact match.

While broad match should be used for discovery, phrase match and MBM can also generate decent quality results – and yet exact match came out on top in this analysis based on costs and performance. The key lies in understanding the role of each match type and using them strategically to scale and maintain profitability.

TLDR summary: Exact match FTW!

All graphics made by Acquisio.

*Researcher Notes: The results are based upon the median value of the comparison statistics. The comparison for different metrics narrows the initial numbers further. Average position only requires impressions, CTR and CPC further requires having clicks, and CPA and CVR conversions as well.


Opinions expressed in this article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.

About The Author

Marc was co-founder and CEO of Acquisio until it was acquired by in 2017. He is now Senior VP at where he continues to lead Acquisio as well as other advertising related efforts within He’s been named one of the top 25 most influential Marketing Technology experts, has contributed to industry publications like Ad Age, and can also be found speaking at industry events like SMX and Hero Conf.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply


Google Search Console image search reporting bug June 5-7



Google posted a notice that between the dates of June 5 through June 7, it was unable to capture data around image search traffic. This is just a reporting bug and did not impact actual search traffic, but the Search Console performance report may show drops in image search traffic in that date range.

The notice. The notice read, “June 5-7: Some image search statistics were not captured during this period due to an internal issue. Because of this, you may see a drop in your image search statistics during this period. The change did not affect user Search results, only the data reporting.”

How do I see this? If you login to Google Search Console, click into your performance report and then filter by clicking on the “search type” filter. You can then select image from the filters.

Here is a screen shot of this filter:

How To Filter By Image Traffic in Google Search Console

Why we should care. If your site gets a lot of Google Image search traffic, you may notice a dip in your traffic reporting within Google Search Console. You may have not noticed a similar dip in your other analytics tools. That being said, Google said this is only a reporting glitch within Google Search Console and did not impact your actual traffic to your web site.

About The Author

Barry Schwartz is Search Engine Land’s News Editor and owns RustyBrick, a NY based web consulting firm. He also runs Search Engine Roundtable, a popular search blog on SEM topics.

Continue Reading


Facebook Changes Reach of Comments in News Feed



Facebook announced a change to it’s algorithms that will affect the reach of comments on a post. Comments that have specific quality signals will  be highly ranked. Low quality comment practices may result in less reach.

Comment Ranking in News Feeds

Facebook noted that not only are posts ranked in news feeds but comments are also ranked as well.

Posts with comments that have positive quality signals will be seen by more people. Posts with low quality signals will have their news feed reach reduced.

Facebook Comment-Quality Signals

Facebook noted that their updated comment algorithm has four features:

  1. Integrity signals
  2. User indicated preferences
  3. User interaction signals
  4. Moderation signals

Integrity Signals

Integrity Signals are a measure of authenticity. Comments that violate community standards or fall into engagement-bait are negative signals. Violations of community standards are said to be removed.

Engagement Bait

Facebook engagement bait is a practice that has four features:

1. React Baiting

Encouraging users to react to your post

2. Follow and Share Baiting

This is described as telling visitors to like, share or subscribe.

3. Comment Baiting

Encouraging users to comment with a letter or number are given as examples.

. Monetization Baiting

This is described as asking for “stars” in exchange for something else, which could include something trivial like “doing push ups.”

User Indicated Preferences

This is a reference to user polls that Facebook conducts in order to understand what users say they wish to see in comments.

User Interaction Signals

These are signals related to whether users interact with a post.

Moderation Signals

This is a reference to how users hide or delete comments made in their posts.

Here is how Facebook describes it:

“People can moderate the comments on their post by hiding, deleting, or engaging with comments.

Ranking is on by default for Pages and people with a a lot of followers, but Pages and people with a lot of followers can choose to turn off comment ranking.

People who don’t have as many followers will not have comment ranking turned on automatically since there are less comments overall, but any person can decide to enable comment ranking by going to their settings. (See more details here.) “

Facebook Targeting Low Quality Comments

One of the stated goals of this update is to hide low quality posts from people’s Facebook feeds and to promote high quality posts by people you might know.

This is how Facebook described it:

“To improve relevance and quality, we’ll start showing comments on public posts more prominently when:

  • The comments have interactions from the Page or person who originally posted; or
  • The comments or reactions are from friends of the person who posted.”

Read Facebook’s announcement here: Making Public Comments More Meaningful

Images by Shutterstock, Modified by Author


Continue Reading


Build your PPC campaigns with this mini campaign builder script for Google Ads



Need to quickly build a campaign or add keywords to an existing one? This script will do the work for you!

All you need to do is input a few keywords and headlines in a spreadsheet and BAM! You’ve got yourself the beginnings of a great campaign.

I’m a firm believer in Single Keyword per Ad Group (SKAG) structure – it increases ad/keyword relevance and therefore improves quality score, makes CPCs cheaper, gets you a higher ad rank and a better CTR.

Sadly, building out SKAG structures is a pretty time-consuming endeavor. You can’t implement millions of keywords and ads without PPC tech powering your builds.

But if a client just needs a couple of new keywords after updating their site with new content, this script is a quick and easy solution.

And that’s exactly what I love about PPC. There’s a special place in my heart for simple scripts anyone can use to achieve tasks that are otherwise repetitive or near-impossible.

What does the script do?

This tool will save a lot of time with small-scale builds where you know exactly which keywords and ad copy you need, for example when you’re adding a few keywords to an existing campaign.

You input your campaign name, keywords, headlines, descriptions, paths and final URL, and it will output three tabs for you: one with keyword combinations, one with negatives, and ads to upload to Google Ads Editor.

It creates one exact and one broad match modifier campaign and creates a list of keywords as exact negatives in the broad campaign to make sure that search terms that match exactly will go through the exact keyword.

I’m sure you’re dying to give it a whirl, so let’s get cracking!

How do you use it?

Make a copy of this spreadsheet (note: you’ll need to authorize the script to run). You’ll find all the instructions there as a future reminder.

Once you’ve got the spreadsheet ready, input the following:

  • The campaign name
  • The campaign name delimiter to distinguish between broad and exact campaigns
  • Headline 1 (if this cell is not specified, then it will be the same as the keyword)
  • Headline 2
  • Optionally, headline 3
  • Description 1
  • Optionally, description 2
  • Optionally, path 1 and path 2
  • The final URL
  • The keywords (you can keep going outside of the box with these!)

You’ll see a handy character counter which will go red if you exceed the character limit. Bear in mind that this tool will assume that you’re using it correctly and so you’ll need to make sure that you’re staying within the limit!

You can also optionally create a second ad variant by choosing the part of your text you want to vary (e.g., headline 2 or description 2) and inputting the copy. Otherwise, just select “None” from the dropdown menu.

Once you’re done, click the gigantic “Go!” Button, and wait for the magic to happen.

It will generate three tabs labelled “Keywords,” “Negatives” and “Ads.” If you want to run the script again with different keywords, make sure you save these tabs elsewhere or rename them to prevent the script from overriding them.

Finally, you can paste these tabs into Editor and update all the relevant settings and adjustments. Job done!

DOWNLOAD: You’ll need to authorize the script to run after you make a copy of this spreadsheet.

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.

About The Author

Daniel Gilbert is the CEO at Brainlabs, the best paid media agency in the world (self-declared). He has started and invested in a number of big data and technology startups since leaving Google in 2010.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2019 Plolu.