Google AdWords: Exact Isn't Always....Well...Exact

If you've been using Google's AdWords and/or Analytics products for any length of time, you must be aware that the numbers don't always add up. In fact, they don't add up at a sometimes alarming frequency. That is to say, the reported numbers either don't match up to what you know must be reality, or they are not consistent. Needless to say, this realization can be a little disconcerting, considering the amount and level of detail Google provides.

I ran across yet another curious example of this the other day. One of the features in the new AdWords interface about which I was most excited was the in-line "see search terms" button in the keywords tab of ad groups. The button pops up a quick report that promises to show you the most frequent search entries that actually resulted in displays of your ads for selected keyword(s) or the entire group. This information was available before, but only by going several keystrokes and screens away into a formal report. The ability to pop this information up while still in my keywords list--and even add any newly-discovered keywords right from the list--seemed to me revolutionary.

My thinking was that this listing would be most valuable in discovering exact match keywords I should be bidding on. For example, let's say I have a phrase match keyword "rugby shirts" that my keywords tab shows as performing at a low but reasonable CTR. The "see search terms" report reveals that this keyword has generated lots of impressions for all kinds of related phrases ("izod rugby shirts," "boy's rugby shirts" etc.). But most interestingly, it seems to reveal that the keyword "rugby shirts" as an exact match (i.e., the person searching entered the words "rugby shirts" and only those words) generates a hugely higher CTR than the average for the phrase keyword over all. It seems to be a no-brainer that I should create an exact match for that keyword, and bid it higher as it is more productive (in terms of CTR, but not actual click-quantity, of course).

This I've been doing for over a month now, but my new-found joy was tarnished a bit recently by a couple of discoveries. First, I noticed that in some cases, the newly-created exact match didn't perform anywhere near as well as might be predicted from the "see search terms" report. I chalked this up to the occasional anomaly, and kept in mind that "past performance does not guarantee future results." But then came the second blow. Yesterday I happened to run the "see search terms" report with one of my recently-created exact matches as the only selection, just out of curiosity. In the ad group keyword list, it showed 2 clicks with 16 impressions (a CTR of 12.50%). But when I went into the "see search terms" report, the exact match row for this keyword showed 2 clicks with 3 impressions, a CTR of 66.67%! Then in the standard "other search terms" row below that, it showed 0 clicks with 13 impressions. Now together those add up to the the 2/16 numbers shown in the ad group keyword list.

OK, but here's the question: Why would the report relegate a significant percentage of the impressions for the exact match to the "other search terms" row? There is no other search term for an exact match. I put that question to an AdWords rep in a chat, and he told me he'd need to talk to someone in "technical" and get back to me. Today he responded. Seems that the report is "unreliable" for exact matches. He assured me that all of the 16 impressions were legitimately for display of the exact match, yet could not explain why the search terms report dumps 13 of them into "other search terms."

This would all be academic, were it not for the discouraging implication: the "see search terms" report can't be relied upon to consistently point out high-performing exact matches. The CTR it reports for exact matches is often (always?) going to be inflated, because a significant number of the impressions have been inexplicably peeled off into the "other search terms" row. I'm still going to use the tool for exact match discovery (many of the ones I have tried have performed very well, if not up to the level of the report), but with a much more jaundiced eye.

The more important--and jarring--lesson is that Google's reports and stats probably have far more squirmy-wormy room in them than those of us who depend upon them to do our jobs well would like to believe.

When Auto-Tweeting Fails

I'm a huge fan of the Tour de France; love to know what's happening over there as it's happening. Downside of "over there" though is that most of the happening happens while I'm at work "over here." So I was looking forward to this year's race, sure that Twitter would come to my rescue.

And it did. Sort of. Yes, the official Tour de France site did include a "live as-it-happens" Twitter feed this year (http://twitter.com/tdf_updates), and yes, to some extent that feed feeds my hunger, with "turn-by-turn" news from the peloton. But here's the fail: the tweets turn out to be auto-generated from the headlines of their real-time news on the actual site. Nothing wrong with that in itself; smart use of the technology. However, many of the most interesting headlines are teasers for mini-articles ("List of all crashed riders in 2nd stage"), but the tweeted version contains no link to the article.

This is fail on two levels:

1. The user (me) obviously misses out on the information, making the tweet useless.
2. The site loses the opportunity to draw me to their site. Huge miss for them; the tweet alone does nothing for their visitor count or advertising revnue; does nothing to draw me to their other content.

Moral: Auto-tweeting headlines from your blog or site is fine, but always include the link!

Twitter "Improves" Following/Follower UI by Making It Worse

When it comes to user interfaces (UI), the "U" should also stand for "useful." Flashy is no substitute.

When I heard yesterday that Twitter had "upgraded" the UI for both "Following" and "Follow" pages for users logged in at twitter.com, I assumed this would mean an improvement in usability and usefulness. 

At first glance, the new Following/Followers pages certainly look better, and seem to have added features:

1. You can choose between "Expanded" and "List" views. List give you just the Twitter ID and "actual" names, while Expanded adds location and the most recent tweet.
2. Two new buttons to the right of each follower: "Follow" and and options button with drop down choices to reply, direct message, follow, or block the follower.

So everything looks nicer now, but is it more useful?

No. In fact, it's less useful! Here are things we lose with the new interface:

1. Blocking a user now takes two clicks instead of one.
2. You can no longer easily see who is following you back (used to be indicated by a Direct Message link next to the name).
3. Seeing the most recent Tweet is nice, but would be more useful to see the user's bio. Now have to click through to their page to see that.

Thankfully, all these functions and more are handled (and handled well, in most cases) by third-party Twitter applications. The best I've run across for the functions mentioned above is Refollow.com. Please let me know of others you like in the comments.

Sadly, the new additions at Twitter.com do have one useful function: good teaching example of what happens when "new feature" means more flash but less usefulness.

Another Facebook Fail for Marketing

I have previously written about "Three No-Brainers that are No-Shows on Facebook Pages for Internet Marketing." In that post I detailed some aspects of Facebook Pages that limit the feature's utility for effective social web marketing. 

Mashable's post "Facebook Needs Its Own Version of the Twitter Retweet" points out another area where Facebook lacks the viral power needed before marketers or message spreaders can consider it a serious tool for their needs: there is no way on Facebook to easily share content posted by a friend. Sure, you could copy and paste it into your own status message, but that's so 1990s. Plus even if you do that, unless you make the extra effort, there is no credit back to the original poster. Twitter's RT (ReTweet) convention (where you begin a share of someone else's content with "RT @usrname" with "usrname" being the Twitter ID of the original poster) is one of the most effective way to build interested followers. I know of many cases where present followers followed one of my accounts because of something of mine ReTweeted by one of their friends. And most Twitter clients make posting a RT a one-click process.

While Facebook may be sensitive right now to the accusations that it is trying too hard to be like Twitter, this is one function they simply can't ignore if they want to achieve their goal of being replacing Google as the center of the web universe. 

Maybe You Should NOT Use Social Media for Your Marketing

A co-worker pulled me in on a phone consultation with a client yesterday. The client wanted to know if they should be on Twitter, and my associate told them I was our "Twitter guy." 

I only got one sentence into my pitch--"Successful marketing on Twitter works best with a commitment to interacting with your customers or prospects"--when the client interrupted: "Wait a minute! Interacting with customers? That will take time. Twitter ain't for us!"

I happily left the conversation. He was so right. If he had let me continue (he immediately changed the subject), I would have advised him not to waste his time with Twitter or any other social media.

See, though I'm a huge advocate for incorporating social media into one's overall Internet marketing plan, I recognize that it's not for everyone. Those still marketing with the mindset of throwing heaps of spaghetti at the wall in the hopes that some will stick (and with little concern if any of the spaghetti stays or returns after it sticks once) should stay away from Twitter and its cousins.

I'm getting enough spam on those channels as it is. I don't need to encourage any!

Three No-Brainers that Are No-Shows on Facebook Pages for Internet Marketing

As a Facebook user for several years now I've become pretty numb to the hysteria that greets each new major change of the user interface. I suppose all the "1,000,000 Strong Against the New Facebook" groups gave people a cause to live for for a while. I usually try to assume the best about a new interface on a major on a major application or site, believing that there is too much at stake for the developers to put a major screw-up out live. Sure, there will always be bumps and mistakes, but for the most part I see each of Facebook's upgrades as adding value to the site.

So I was pretty excited earlier this year when Facebook announced that its Pages feature was getting a similar major overhaul. First peeks at the new Pages interface did not disappoint. Pages now worked more like personal Facebook profiles, with the Wall feed front and center. Best of all, from a marketing standpoint, Wall content would now be pushed out automatically to all fans of the page, meaning it would appear on their newsfeeds as well, increasing the chance that new potential fans would see it. Brilliant!

Well...while sitting today having my mind numbed by a "Facebook for Business" webinar I'd signed up for*, listening to the presenter get all bubbly about the positives I'd mentioned above, I found myself thinking, "Yeah, but..." every few minutes. Here are some of the Yeah Buts I've discovered about Facebook Pages:

1. The templates are way too limiting, especially in the blanks for "info." For one client I signed up for a "non-profit/charity" page. The only contact info allowed in the form was a street address and web page URL. No email address?!? Is this 1982? Wait....1982 is too contemporary; there's no place to enter a telephone number.
2. While putting the Wall front and center was a good move, there is little else you can do to the front page, other than place some apps in the left sidebar. I blessed the day I found the Notices - FBML app so I could finally post a campaign ad for the organization next to the Wall where it might actually be seen. You should be able to place customized content on your front page without having to install a third-party app.
3. This I think might be the worst: There is no benefit to your page whatsoever if someone "shares" something you posted on your Wall. Facebook seriously needs its own version of the ReTweet for its Pages. As it stands, if someone shares something you posted, it appears on their wall as if they found it and posted it themselves.
4. UPDATE: Just thought of this one - Facebook is much more "closed in" than other social web sites (FriendFeed, for example). It doesn't encourage sharing outside its own network. How much is that a hurt to the usefulness of Pages for marketing?

Have those of you who have been using the new Pages for these past few months found any other no-brainers that are no-shows on your Pages?

*    *    *    *    *    *

For intelligent SEO/SEM: www.virante.com

*Aside rant: I want to shoot my brains out over how many social media webinars or presentations I've sat through where three-quarters of the time is spent on noobie basics. "Now, to sign up for your Facebook account, type your name where it says, 'Your Name:'" Just shoot me now. Post a link to a Facebook or Twitter or Whatever 101 page for the noobies and get to the announced topic!