Problems With Google Adwords

Everyday I read about mixed experiences with Google Adwords. Professional marketers rave about its innovative method of determining ad relevance by factoring in click-through rates, while beginners complain that they can’t get a functioning account up and running. Let the truth about the Google Adwords system be told: using click-through rates to gauge performance and determine pricing helps automate the editorial process and maximize profits, but it does not increase the relevance of site listings to user queries.
As is often the case, Google’s logic is incorrect. To determine whether a site is relevant to the keyphrases being bid on, it is not enough to measure the rate at which users click on a listing. This is because an ad listing does not have to be an accurate indicator of a site’s content. The most obvious examples of this are listings that appear for a trademarked name. When a user searches for “GreenPath Debt Solutions” he/she is searching for that particular company. Other companies that offer similar services are not relevant to that query, but other companies dominate the search results. To a great extent, ads can mislead the user, and advertisers take advantage of this fact.
It is even debatable whether high click-through rates indicate that a listing is relevant to a user’s query. This is because click-through rates increase dramatically for higher rankings or for ad text that repeats a user’s query. Consider an ad that moves from the number one position to the number eight position. Its click-through rate will certainly decrease, but the ad text cannot be less relevant because it is exactly the same as it was before. Consider an ad that has a synonym for a user’s query written in the text. If you change the synonym to the exact query, it will show up in boldface type, and its click-through rate will increase. But the meaning of its content is the same, so it can’t be more relevant. If changes that don’t alter the meaning of an ad’s text can impact click-through rates, an ad’s CTR must not be a good indicator of an ad’s relevance to a user query.
Adwords’ system does have advantages, mostly for advertisers and for Google. Listings become active faster, and ad text is easy to change. Google’s system is more instantaneous, but it all comes at a price. Adwords is more complicated and difficult to manage in-house without a crash-course, largely because of quirks that surface due to the CTR factor. In addition, keyphrase hijacking and spam impressions are starting to become a concern. Despite its advantages, the CTR system causes problems for advertisers and problems for Google.
But what I want to do, what nobody else has seriously done, is look at the system from the point of view of the user. The fact is this: for each business related query there are usually tons of company sites that are all equally relevant – Adwords can’t miss on these queries. But when it comes to more specific queries — queries where there aren’t as many relevant sites — Adwords’ system doesn’t deliver good results. My favorite query is “national debt.” You will be happy to know that you can find “new and used National Debt” on E-bay or “Find the Inside Scoop on Debt Consolidation Loans & Credit Cards” on inside-tips.com. When it comes to very general queries – queries where an extremely large number of sites are relevant – Adwords’ system once again does not deliver good results. Click-through rates are too low to sustain these types of keyphrases. Adwords treats general queries as if nothing is relevant to them, when the opposite is true. Here we have two important cases when Adwords doesn’t deliver good results — two important arguments for the use of human editors.
From the point of view of the user, Google’s search engine system continues to range from mediocre to poor. Its worst features generate the most profits. Advertisers, marketers, and investors applaud as Google drives down the quality of the user’s internet experience. Adwords bidding system is one example; I’ll discuss more in the future.