New Approaches to Google Ads Campaign Structure

Google Ads has made a number of updates to their platform over the past 18 months, and one of the biggest changes is the expansion of close variant matching.

Under close variants, keywords now match to searches that include abbreviations, implied words, synonyms, and more, as long as Google views the intent behind the search as being the same as the intent of the keyword. This differs from the previous behavior, when keywords were matched to searches based on the words explicitly provided by advertisers.

As a result, digital marketers have to face the reality that some of the previous best practices for campaign structure are now irrelevant.

RIP SKAGs

A common strategy that advertisers used to leverage for campaign structure was creating Single Keyword Ad Groups (SKAGs). There are slightly different ways to approach SKAGs, but in general this strategy involves segmenting ad groups by keyword and/or matchtype. For example:

The problem with the SKAG approach is that now close variant matching leads to significant overlap between ad groups. You will most likely see searches for “software” in the Tool ad group (and vice versa). You can negate “software” to try and keep the matching clean in the Tool ad groups, but “software” is still a relevant term overall for ads to show on and advertisers might be hesitant to do that.

Shifting to Thematic Ad Groups

The other common strategy for campaign structure, and Google’s recommended approach, is to segment based on the overall theme/intent of your keywords. For example:

Close variant matching may still lead to some overlap between campaigns/ad groups, but there won’t be as much as using a SKAG approach.

What About Synonyms?

We can now accept that SKAGs are a thing of the past. Advertisers need to lean into ad group themes. But how should we handle synonyms?

Let’s say you want to target the keywords “project management software”, “project management platform”, and “project management tool” to account for variations in how people search. The options for your campaign structure are:

1. Segment keywords into different ad groups within the same campaign

2. Consolidate keywords into the same ad group

3. Consolidate even further down to just 1 or 2 keywords and then account for the other variations in your ad copy

Option 1 is similar to a SKAG approach, which will lead to heavy overlap and muddy Search Terms Reports.

Option 2 will feature the most keywords per ad group (Google recommends keeping ad groups to under 20), but there won’t be as much overlap in the Search Terms Report and Responsive Search Ads can help you cater to Quality Score.

Option 3 relies heavily on Google matching your keywords to close variants, so there might be some gaps in your overall coverage.

Summary

Based on the scenario outlined above, consolidating keywords into the same ad group (Option 2) is likely the best bet. This structure allows advertisers to account for synonyms in ad copy and maximize the Ad Relevance factor of Quality Score, while not being over-segmented and competing against any other keywords in the ad auctions.

• Note – This is especially true with the rollout of Performance Max (PMax) campaigns. If you run both PMax and Search campaigns, Google prioritizes serving PMax ads on the Search Network (instead of your Search keywords) unless your keyword is identical to a user’s search. To future-proof your Search campaigns for if/when you test PMax, make sure to include the most important keywords to your business in the campaign structure.

Have another strategy? Reach out on Twitter to tell us how you approach campaign structure

Need help managing your accounts with this new change? See how our Paid Media Team can optimize your performance across Google Ads and other channels!