• Luke

    Once you look past the nicely worded posts from Google, using “improvements”, “enhancements”, etc. all you see is $$$. Just another way for Google to squeeze more money out of their advertisers.

  • Josh Finkelstein

    I personally hate this. From someone who segments ad-groups by match-type to create a bidding tier geared towards QS optimization, this screws things up.

    Effectively exact match becomes broad match (WTF?). There are a bunch of implications here in terms of advertisers being able to attract only the qualified clicks (you mentioned a few good ones). Another that comes to mind is ROLEX on exact match… will that match a query for FOLEX? All of a sudden, people selling high-priced watches may start receiving clicks for people searching for low-priced watches.

    I see what the goal is here, make it easier for smaller advertisers who don’t necessarily want to build out long-tail variants. The problem is, it degrades the quality of the adwords “product” and the net effect will be more money for Google as ad-matching rules are relaxed.

  • Aaron Levy

    @Luke Hey, they gotta pay for Larry’s yacht somehow :)

    @Josh I don’t think I hate it, largely because its not a truly forced change. At least they’re giving us the option to opt out (even if they auto-opt you in).

    Definitely agree with you on their ability to segment out typos and “near matches” vs. full blown “they meant something else.” I’m sure like all things Google it will evolve as they test it more.

  • Chris

    Great post Aaron. Great food for thought as we approach mid-May. To your example: “What about [shutters], [shudders] and [stutters]; are they the same too”. I would like to add [shitters] to your list. The “I” is next to the “U” on the keyboard. Will I see ads for Shutters when I am actually looking for porta-johns? #peskytouchscreens.