Thank you for the video, John. I have a question: Does setting an individual ad group's target ROAS then isolate it from the campaign's target ROAS bidding calculations? For example, if I set an ad group to a lower target ROAS and it achieves that ROAS, bringing the campaign's overall ROAS lower than the campaing's ROAS target, will that mean the bidding strategy will have to be less aggressive on other ad groups in order to hit the campaign's ROAS target?
Let met get this straight at 06:15.. In order to make the Conditioners ad group more active, you lowered the Conditioners' tROAS below the tROAS of Shampoo to use more of the campaign's budget on the conditioners' ad group instead of the Shampoos' ad group. Would this imply also imply that, in case an ad group is spending too much in comparison to other ad groups in the same campaign, increasing the tROAS will result in a less active ad group? I hope i've worded my question right!
Great Video. It confirms my thinking. Would you go as far as agreeing that contrary to recent popular belief, it would therefore make sense to go back to SKAGS + match type segmentation (instead of consolidating) so as to somehow regain some of the control and granularity that has slowly been taken way from us? Essentially, bid adjusting the tCPA/ROAS as you would the CPC under manual bidding? If not, why so? What would be the cons of the above strategy?
Well since Google is ignoring match types more and more and matching the keyword to more broader terms, you would first have to ensure that the search term for that singular keyword is matching only for the search term you wanted. I think Google is moving away from being able to perform SKAG like we used to, but, if you exact match or phrase match is matching really well, and doesnt deteriorate, then, yes it's a good idea. I just dont think its moving in that direction anymore.
It depends what the goal of your campaign is. Generally speaking, tCPA is for lead gen campaigns but tROAS is for ecomm campaigns. Thanks for watching!
At 6:52 you say "I am going to set a lower ROAS goal to see if I can get more impressions, clicks, and search impression share." Wouldn't that have the reverse effect? A lower ROAS goal equates to less aggressive bidding.
Not really, actually the opposite. A lower Return On Ad Spend means that you're willing to get less money in return on your ad spend. This way the bid strategy can bid more aggressively.
Thank you for the video, John. I have a question:
Does setting an individual ad group's target ROAS then isolate it from the campaign's target ROAS bidding calculations? For example, if I set an ad group to a lower target ROAS and it achieves that ROAS, bringing the campaign's overall ROAS lower than the campaing's ROAS target, will that mean the bidding strategy will have to be less aggressive on other ad groups in order to hit the campaign's ROAS target?
Let met get this straight at 06:15.. In order to make the Conditioners ad group more active, you lowered the Conditioners' tROAS below the tROAS of Shampoo to use more of the campaign's budget on the conditioners' ad group instead of the Shampoos' ad group.
Would this imply also imply that, in case an ad group is spending too much in comparison to other ad groups in the same campaign, increasing the tROAS will result in a less active ad group?
I hope i've worded my question right!
Great Video. It confirms my thinking. Would you go as far as agreeing that contrary to recent popular belief, it would therefore make sense to go back to SKAGS + match type segmentation (instead of consolidating) so as to somehow regain some of the control and granularity that has slowly been taken way from us? Essentially, bid adjusting the tCPA/ROAS as you would the CPC under manual bidding? If not, why so? What would be the cons of the above strategy?
Well since Google is ignoring match types more and more and matching the keyword to more broader terms, you would first have to ensure that the search term for that singular keyword is matching only for the search term you wanted. I think Google is moving away from being able to perform SKAG like we used to, but, if you exact match or phrase match is matching really well, and doesnt deteriorate, then, yes it's a good idea. I just dont think its moving in that direction anymore.
Thanks for watching Michael!
What is a close rate on google ads?
Why does everyone talk so much about tCPA and not ROAS campaigns? Should I not do ROAS or how do i know which to choose?
It depends what the goal of your campaign is. Generally speaking, tCPA is for lead gen campaigns but tROAS is for ecomm campaigns. Thanks for watching!
At 6:52 you say "I am going to set a lower ROAS goal to see if I can get more impressions, clicks, and search impression share." Wouldn't that have the reverse effect? A lower ROAS goal equates to less aggressive bidding.
Not really, actually the opposite. A lower Return On Ad Spend means that you're willing to get less money in return on your ad spend. This way the bid strategy can bid more aggressively.
What is a close rate on google ads?