We use cookies. You have options. Cookies help us keep the site running smoothly and inform some of our advertising, but if you’d like to make adjustments, you can visit our Cookie Notice page for more information.
We’d like to use cookies on your device. Cookies help us keep the site running smoothly and inform some of our advertising, but how we use them is entirely up to you. Accept our recommended settings or customise them to your wishes.

Reports of Bid Management's Death Are an Exaggeration

Craig Danuloff just put out a provocative post on the ClickEquations blog titled Bid Management Is Dead.  Is it really? I certainly agree that paid search management goes far beyond setting bids, but I respectfully take issue with some of the finer points Craig makes in building that case. From the post:
...bids actually cannot be reasonably be calculated for keywords that are not haven’t already been properly tuned in terms of organization and negatives and match types and ad copy. The data surrounding these keywords is garbage data – putting that into even a very clever bid algorithm or calculation results in a garbage bid suggestion.
Paid search management is a process, not an end goal.  At no point will a PPC program be perfect, nor can it be given the changing landscape outside of our control.  Just because a keyword hasn't been given an ideal (or nearly so) set of "tunings" (negatives/ad copy/etc.) doesn't mean we can't calculate it's current value to the program and save some money for our clients in the process.  As we discover means to improve the performance of that keyword over time we will be able to adjust its bid accordingly. Craig does have a good point though in that if a keyword is effectively turned off permanently by an overzealous bidding system without ever getting a chance to succeed following optimizations, you are likely limiting the future potential of your program. For new clients at RKG we will generally advise them that we need to collect data on the order of weeks before our bid management platform can begin fully optimizing bids.  During that period we are also working hard to improve the quality of the program outside of bidding. For more established programs, testing becomes increasingly critical and it is important to ensure that keywords with changes applied to them get exposure under the new settings.  A keyword may not perform well enough on broad match to guarantee first page placement, but switching it to phrase or exact may just provide enough of a performance boost to justify that minimum bid.  However, a flexible bidding system should allow you to give that keyword a higher bid with minimal effort or even recognize the higher conversion potential automatically, so it is not a prerequisite to determine a keyword's optimal matchtype before applying proper bids for current performance. From the post:
The idea that paid search success is driven by keywords and bids hasn’t been true for many years... For most paid search advertisers, bidding isn’t that important.
I think Craig is just being intentionally provocative here as his follow up comments on his post suggest.  Still, I feel compelled to point out that even if you have a nearly perfectly tuned program (outside of bidding) , if you are only running 1/10 or 1/2 of the keywords you should be, you are probably going to take in fewer dollars at the same efficiency than even an averagely tuned program with 2 to 10X your keyword list.  Sure, high keyword counts don't mean much if it is all bloat, but you can't generate a sale from a keyword you don't have. Ultimately, bid management is critical to the success and scale of a paid search program (it's one of just three components highlighted in the initial graphic on ClickEquations' home page), but it's not the only thing and Craig is right to point that out.  Bids can account for, but cannot overcome bad or broken landing pages, poor query matching by the engines, unappealing and vague copy and a whole host of other issues that may get short shrift if bidding is difficult or given undue attention. I'm looking forward to Craig's follow up post on this topic and I hope he doesn't mind this friendly response to the first!
Join the Discussion