3 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
3 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

AdWords and Location

by BeckM2
2 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I'm using AdWords and I'm trying to understand the best way to combine location specific keywords with geographic targeting of my ads.

1) If my example keyword is "chemistry tutor boston ma", but I focus my AdWords location to the 5 miles around Boston, do I still need to use "boston ma" as a part of the keyword? I obviously don't want my "boston ma" ad shown to people in California, but if only people within 5 miles of Boston are going to see the ad, would it be better to just have "chemistry tutor" as the keyword? Or do still need to use the whole term to ensure success? It just seems cumbersome to add the names of local towns to every keyword that I am using. (e.g chemistry tutor boston ma, chemistry tutor local_town1, chemistry tutor local_town2)?

2) If I know for sure that I really only want to focus on a certain area to show my ads (e.g. 5 miles within Boston), so is there any disadvantage to using the geographic targeting? I'm not selling downloads so I don't mind if someone in California doesn't see me.

Along those lines, I guess the only disadvantage would be that if someone in California did do a search for "chemistry tutor boston, ma" because they were moving to Boston next week, that they wouldn't see my results because of my geo-targeting? Is that a correct assessment.

Thanks in advance for any help.
#adwords #location
  • Profile picture of the author jamesviago
    hi beck - i have found that IF you are targeting a geography, then "chemistry tutor boston ma" is generally better. why? because:
    (1) it's usually cheaper (but check this for your particular keywords) and that means higher Avg Position and/or lower conversion costs.
    (2) it's got higher relevance - but only if your landing page and AdVariants also mention boston - and so again, higher Quality Score, lower CPC and higher Avg Pos.

    and yes, that does mean creating an AdGroup for each geography (so as to match AdVariant, keywords and landing page), which is more work, so, i only do this if the improvement in QS, CPC and AP can be justified - example, if CPC drops from $1.00 to $0.07 and impressions triple (by shattering the generic group into 5-10 geographies) then it's worth it (and yes, it can make that much difference). but for $0.35 to $0.27 and a 20% increase in impressions i wouldn't bother.

    testing, of course, is key - shatter a couple of groups with decent traffic and see if it pans out.

    lastly - you are correct that targeting will stop someone outside the target from seeing the ad, even if they want to.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[601119].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Josh T.
      James,
      For large metros like Boston, you can choose the
      "metro area" as your target location. If you choose
      "chemistry tutor" and limit your geographics to
      Boston Metro, then those are the only people that
      will see it.

      As James mentioned, you may pay more per click
      for this term than "Chemistry tutor Boston", etc., but
      that is not a guarantee. There are several ways to
      test this and see which gets you the most desired
      results.

      The easiest way (provided your ad is relevant), is to
      put both keywords in the same campaign. This isn't
      too bad because one is just a variant of the other.
      When your campaign is set up (and targeted), you
      can view each keyword's performance, CPC, CTR,
      and all other data individually in the Campaign Summary.

      Give it a couple of hours, or until one gets about 30 clicks
      and make your decision. If your ad is good, then your
      cost goes down.
      Signature
      Connect With Me On ===> LinkedIn
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[601171].message }}

Trending Topics