It's all about keywords

[arpan911]

A great deal of research has been performed related to the expansion of a keyword list and making sure that all types of keyword, from brand related terms through industry specific to generic, are used. The question this article raises is to the validity of having too many keywords and where the ‘true’ value lies within a portfolio.

If keywords are assessed as to their designated purpose then there are three distinct types that exist. Branded terms are specific to a company’s brand name or product names (e.g. Sony), generic terms are those generic to an industry (e.g. Digital Camera) and specific terms are those that are related to a particular product or service (e.g. Cyber-shot® DSC-H1 Digital Camera). It is, through the understanding of the properties of each of these keyword types that the value of a list can be identified.

Branded terms are, for many, a bone of contention and the argument is often related to the validity of purchasing terms that ‘should’ be free via organic listings. As much as this debate rages on the upshot is that most companies do engage in purchasing their names as the accountability and return on investment is often too good to ignore and the added screen real estate (i.e. an organic listing and a paid listing) is often not easy to pass up by marketers. The key to branded term success has been discussed in previous articles so for the purposes of this article these will not be discussed further.

The issue with most portfolios is in the development of generic and specific keywords. This is where the skill of making search work really lies and these two keyword types hold the most potential for both success and failure.

The advancement of the PPC market over the past 2-3 years has resulted in rising costs and competition. Additionally advertisers haven’t tracked any return on investment variables (just traffic) on their campaigns, let alone keywords, and used unwise bidding rules (see related article). This has resulted in an approach used by many to add keywords in an effort to find ‘cheaper’ terms that have less competition. These keywords typically have far less click potential so the number of new and additional terms often moves into the thousands, tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands if not more!

The large scale adoption of this approach indicates that many feel this is the correct way to manage a search campaign, however, upon review, the additional burden placed upon the management of a large number of keywords is often dramatic and often warrants far more attention, be it from technology and / or human interaction, than is necessary or cost effective.

More importantly a recent study by ComScore and Overture (now Yahoo!) indicated that it is the expensive generic phrases that account for the majority of conversions online, some 60% (Relates to the consumer electronics (CE) category as part of the study – may not be applicable to other industries). With this being the case, and with the exception of branded terms (of which the Comscore report stated are 30 times more likely to convert than any other type) the question exists as to can you afford to buy these terms, and more importantly can you afford not to?

The key to answering these questions is in calculating return on investment. While generic keywords may yield the highest number of conversions, they also drive the most traffic. The more traffic there is, especially on the higher CPC terms, the higher the overall expenditure is on the phrases. This is where the major risk lies: the risk being defined as to whether these keywords should or shouldn’t be purchased. If the equation is broken down (revenue divided by costs equalling return) the variable that holds the key to eliminating risk is cost and as such if the number of conversions could be maintained yet the traffic or costs decreased then this would be the answer.

The issue is how? The solution has to come from two distinct areas; the first is the use of bid management technologies that allow for detailed keyword day parting. This mechanism allows the user and technology to determine the best positions (obviously lower positions deem lower costs) and prices for each hour of the day to get the best return. In other words if there is a slot of time on Monday at 10am to 12pm when conversions are most likely then paying more for a higher position makes sense. In the complete opposite if there is a time when the keyword stands little chance of converting but drives large volumes of traffic then reducing the position and price makes sense and thus controls cost. The second area of optimizing and controlling cost must come from testing and using the most appropriate terms. Keywords can’t be left for prolonged periods of time unmanaged and a carefully controlled campaign must have keywords in constant testing. Whether the decisions to keep, delete or add new words are driven by marketer analysis or technology, both being valid techniques, a keyword portfolio must maintain a dynamic quality.

In summary, the expression ‘quality not quantity’ is most appropriate for building and optimizing a keyword list. It is fair to say that a good mix of generic, specific and branded phrases will yield the most success and this article does not in anyway dismiss the value of specific terms. It does, however, attempt to provoke second guessing of the approach of ignoring expensive generic keywords and building large quantities of low volume terms that in many cases result in complicated and time consuming management.

By: James Colborn

[mini_0]

yes , its all about keywords , from starting till the end , what people search will be seen and what people search sells . But common keywords are becoming expensive day by day and what I have seen is that someone with a low budget and wanting to sell money making products wont go down well withh the adwords campaign . They dont start a campaign until and unless you are ready to pay atleast 5 $ per click , even if it is there your ads hardly get shown witha low budget.