Paid Search Campaigns: What Makes The Heavy Lifting So Heavy?

Article written by: Erik Harbison

IT IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT of the day-to-day tasks that occur
behind the scenes of any paid search marketing campaign. It's
commonly experienced by those on the frontlines. It is a
necessary evil. It is something that does not need to be so
complex and cumbersome--but often is.

Simply put, it is customer service. But in this case it is the
engine's service of its customer--the agency.

It's only keywords and textlinks

On the surface, our clients are presented with only the end
product--neat, detailed, executive-level campaign summaries and
charts that indicate efficient search marketing performance tied
with strategic recommendations. Often these summaries validate
the need for an ongoing search marketing presence. Clients also
understand such top-level tactics as expanded keyword lists and
lowered bids for non-performing terms.

What remains hidden is the time-consuming back and forth with
each engine in order to ensure a perfect launch or retrieve
ongoing campaign updates. As much as we try to streamline our
interactions with the engines, there will always be a need for
constant conversations and confirmations. If you haven't
already today, please go thank your campaign managers for what
they frequently have to endure.

As mentioned by Gord Hotchkiss in a previous "Search Insider"
article, those not connected to our industry tend to simplify
what we do as nothing more than "typ[ing] phrases to drive ad
traffic." If only it were that simple.

The customer (agency) is always right...sometimes

Each engine has its own methodologies, terms and conditions,
processes and policies. During the course of a paid search
marketing campaign, you may very well experience one or some of
the following issues that contribute to the "heavy lifting,"
such as:

. Regardless of client pedigree and potential, you're required
to invest a monthly minimum spend threshold. Last time I
checked, there was more than one engine in the marketplace.

. The text creative that you initially submitted, following
several stakeholders' approval, has mysteriously been altered
based on what the engine "felt would perform better."

. When they were asked for explanations on what the effect of
certain engine guidelines (such as cosmetic changes in the way
a result would be listed) would mean for existing campaigns,
engine staffers simply stated that they "don't know" and they
"were not privy to that information from upper management." How
can we set our client expectations when the engines themselves
are unable to provide guidance?

. Without prior notification, your set daily spend caps are
exceeded above a normal percentage. The engine claims there was
an unforeseen "system error," and kindly apologizes for burning
through a large percent of your monthly budget.

. Somehow another advertiser is securing sponsored listings
against your client's brand name. You're aware of the engine's
policy and have taken action, yet the advertiser's listings
links to a page that is not compliant with the engine's
existing list of guidelines. Poor result relevancy is more
important than trademark infringement?

. Depending on your client's business, setting up a new
campaign requires coordination with several engine
representatives that in some way serve the same purpose or do
not effectively communicate. Remember the days of ONE engine
representative handling ALL of your paid search campaigns,
regardless of vertical?

While these issues have not affected our client's campaign
performances, because experience allows all of us to set
realistic turnaround times and expectations, they have cost us
all additional hours in dealing with the engines behind the
scenes. Maybe no one side is to blame. Maybe these are just
outcomes of our industry's tremendous growth spurt in the past
few years. Is there a fix?

Industry standards?

While all engines do their best to fix any unforeseen system
glitches, editorial oversights or overall lapses in customer
service, one question still remains--can standardization
minimize pain points and improve engine-to-agency customer
service?

Are these issues isolated incidents, or industry-wide? At a
recent conference, this was a recurring topic of discussion
among a few SEM enthusiasts. Feedback among the group was
mixed. There was no unanimous engine winner or loser. For every
account of an engine that did something great, there was a
horror story worse than any in the aforementioned list.

Thankfully, it appears that the engines are heading in a
direction of standardizing some of their offerings, including
text creative character limitations, soon-to-be-special
algorithms for determining a sponsored ad's rank, and
dayparting capabilities. This will at least allow for a common
level of expectations around process and procedures. How long
before standardized back-end financial systems, electronic
insertion orders, trademark policies and agency relationship
models follow?

Will things get worse before they get better?

We're in this together

Every day brings another announcement about an engine's new
technology, acquisition or ad management component. So, nothing
indicates that our jobs will get easier. I'm sure we can all say
that the various engines' customer service has improved over the
past few years, but it is not ideal. Agencies will continue to
offer solutions on how this can be improved. Engines will
continue to make minor improvements here and there. Our
industry will continue to evolve.

At the end of the day, our interests should be aligned with
delivering value to our clients and making the heavy lifting a
little lighter.

About The Author: Erik Harbison writes about SEO, SEM and
search engine optimization, You can contact him through
http://www.albaengine.com