If you’ve been around the search world long enough, you’ve witnessed some great debates play out among experts who take passionate yet opposing views on strategic best practices. Some of those great debates include fundamentals like bidding on one’s own brand name, the need to bid to position, and the importance of impression share.
More recently, Single Keyword Ad Groups or SKAGs have entered the gauntlet for debate. The case for SKAGs is pretty straight forward: By separating individual keywords into specific ad groups with tailored ad copy to match, you dramatically increase relevance and quality score. A quick search for SKAGs will find many articles that claim to prove its value and a handful who make the case against it. For the purposes of this article it is not our intention to get involved in the performance value of SKAGs, afterall, there is more than enough literature on that topic. However, one area where both sides of the SKAGs debate find common ground: Implementing and maintaining Single Keyword Ad Groups is extremely difficult. Here at Fluency, we are happy to debate that claim.
When done manually, creating single keyword ad groups is massively time consuming and potentially very risky. The time consuming part is self explanatory - building out a more complex campaign structure requires more effort. If your current campaign structure consists of 2 campaigns, 6 ad groups and 18 ads and the new world consists of 2 campaigns 32 ad groups and 96 ads; it’s going to take more time to manually build, launch and maintain accounts, period.