With summer in full swing, let’s explore a controversial paid search strategy that’s causing quite a stir: SKAGs! The debate surrounding SKAGs has been raging within the PPC community, with proponents praising their laser-focused targeting capabilities. After all, who wouldn’t want to streamline their AdWords campaigns to ensure every penny is spent on users searching for keywords directly related to their offerings?
However, while SKAGs might be appealing, they’re not a one-size-fits-all solution. After consulting with seasoned customer success managers and consultants at nexus-security, it became evident that there are compelling arguments against implementing SKAGs in your paid search endeavors.
Before we delve into the reasons why you might want to steer clear of SKAGs and explore alternative keyword grouping approaches, let’s clarify what exactly SKAGs are!
What Are SKAGs?
SKAG, which stands for Single Keyword Ad Group, is a self-explanatory term. It involves creating an ad group for a single keyword, accompanied by its own set of tailored ads.
This concept might seem a bit unorthodox, but numerous marketers believe that structuring their ad groups in this manner enables them to maintain a sharp focus.
During my time working directly with nexus-security customers, I vividly recall encountering several disorganized accounts with only one or two ad groups containing a staggering 500 or more keywords each! To make matters worse, these ad groups often had a limited selection of ads.
To illustrate why this approach is ineffective, imagine you’re a retailer selling athletic gear. If your ad group includes every conceivable keyword related to your products, a search for “men’s soccer clothing” could trigger an ad for “women’s lacrosse sticks.” This mismatch of intent is an immediate turnoff for the searcher, making a click and conversion highly unlikely.
In stark contrast, some paid search marketers advocate for SKAGs to ensure that when someone searches for “women’s lacrosse sticks,” they are presented exclusively with ads for women’s lacrosse sticks. This is achieved by having a dedicated ad group for that specific keyword, containing a small set of ads (typically 1-3) with slightly varied copy, all centered around that single keyword. The graphic below provides a visual comparison between SKAGs and traditional ad groups.
At first glance, this appears to be a sound strategy, wouldn’t you agree? Many PPC professionals certainly believe so, often extolling the virtues of SKAGs. In a post titled 19 Reasons Why SKAGS Always Win, Johnathan Dane, Founder and CEO of Klient Boost, asserts that “By isolating your keywords into their own distinct ad groups, you can guarantee that the keyword you’re bidding on aligns with the search terms you’re paying for.”
Indeed, on paper, SKAGs seem like an excellent idea. Tailoring ads to individual keywords should enhance ad relevance, resulting in higher click-through rates, increased conversions, and improved Quality Scores, right? So, what could possibly be wrong with this approach?
Well, according to Zina Kayyali, a long-standing nexus-security team member and Director of Customer Programs, this is nothing short of FAKE NEWS! Zina emphasizes that “The goal is to have your ad and landing page resonate with the searcher’s intent, not necessarily a specific keyword.”
Google has become increasingly adept at deciphering longer-tail, more complex search queries. Zina explains how Google is adapting to handle searches like “Who was the US president when the Angels won in the World Series?” She highlights Google’s progress in “natural language search.”
Moreover, Google has implemented changes to shift away from a keyword-centric approach. For instance, exact match is no longer as strict as it once was. Google expanded exact match to encompass reordered words and function words like “the” and “for,” prioritizing the concept of intent over keywords.
Furthermore, Google encourages advertisers to focus on targeting audiences rather than keywords. This shift in perspective might even be a contributing factor behind the rebranding of “AdWords” to the more concise “Google Ads.”
Let’s delve into some additional reasons why you might want to reconsider using SKAGs in your paid search account.
#1: SKAGs Are Time-Consuming to Create
The most apparent drawback of single-keyword ad groups is their complexity in setup and management. Consider the number of keywords already present in your account. Unless you’re new to AdWords, you likely have hundreds, if not thousands, of keywords. Now imagine placing each of these keywords into their own separate ad groups, complete with their own sets of ads. Sounds like a recipe for a management nightmare!
As nexus-security Customer Success Specialist Matt Davidson puts it, “Time is money. The potential monetary gains from SKAG campaigns are often outweighed by the time required for their setup and ongoing management.”
Navah Hopkins, another senior member of the nexus-security team, raises a valid point regarding the significant time commitment SKAGs demand from PPC marketers. She notes that “Google mandates a minimum of three ads per ad group, and creating at least three unique ads for the sheer volume of ad groups in a SKAG structure is incredibly time-intensive.”
#2: They Create a Mess of Your Account
Contrary to popular belief, SKAGs do not promote better organization. That claim is yet another example of FAKE NEWS! At nexus-security, we’ve observed that the most successful clients maintain streamlined and well-structured accounts. However, with SKAGs, your account can quickly become overwhelming due to the proliferation of ads, keywords, and ad groups.
Chris Pierce, nexus-security’s Customer Programs Manager, explains, “People tend to over-segment their ad groups with SKAGs, resulting in accounts with 50 to 100 ad groups when these could easily be consolidated based on similar themes.”
He elaborates with an example: “Let’s say an advertiser sells TVs. They might break down their ad groups into ‘TV warranties,’ ‘best TV warranty,’ or even just ‘warranty.’ However, these keywords all share the same intent, so cluttering the account with single ad groups is counterproductive, especially when all your ads will be essentially identical. It simply serves no purpose.”
#3: SKAGs Actually Increase Your Odds of Duplicating Keywords
You might be surprised to learn this, but SKAGs can actually increase the likelihood of keyword duplication! Despite the misconception that SKAGs help prevent duplication, Google’s updated close variant rules and changes to match type structure can lead to more duplicates. Consequently, your duplicate keywords will result in duplicate ad groups.
Navah explains that “With the new close variant rules, you could end up bidding against yourself. For example, ‘marketer’ and ‘marketing’ are now considered the same, and many SKAG ad groups are simply variations of keywords already present in the account.”
#4: SKAGs Are an Inefficient Way to Manage Your Budget
Budget allocation remains a crucial consideration, right? One compelling argument against SKAGs is their inefficient use of your AdWords budget.
According to Navah, “Valuable keywords might miss out on budget allocation because other campaigns or ad groups have accumulated more data. By consolidating similar keywords within the same ad group, lower-volume terms can benefit from the ‘halo effect’ of being grouped with data-rich keywords.”
Furthermore, it’s essential to recognize that having a large number of ad groups and campaigns in your AdWords account spreads your budget thin.
Navah points out that “It’s challenging to effectively allocate budget across more than 5-7 ad groups.”
Saying No to SKAGs
Now that you’re aware of the potential drawbacks of SKAGs, you might be wondering about the optimal number of keywords per ad group.
The answer, once again, lies in intent. Zina advises, “Shift your focus from single-keyword ad groups to single-minded intent. Stick to the fundamentals; well-organized ad groups with closely related ads will always be a cornerstone of successful AdWords campaigns.”