Geo vs. Geo

A mysterious stranger offers direction on geographical targeting

The following account is a work of fiction. It is the product of too many minutes staring at a blank page, too many Triple Mochas, or perhaps both. But the points it makes about geographical targeting are real, and should be applied to your Sponsored Search account.

The assignment came in from the blog editor: Write a post that explains the differences between the use of the geo-targeting tools in a Yahoo! Search Marketing account, and using “geo-modified” keywords.

At first consideration, this task seemed simple. I was very familiar with both concepts. The geo-targeting tools, which we introduced with the “Panama” platform in 2006 (and enhanced in October 2008), let you target customers located or interested in specific geographical areas. If you want to reach all Canadians, you select Canada. Or you can narrow your geo-targeting all the way down to reach Brandon and Brenda in zip code 90210.

On the other hand, “geo-modifying” a keyword pre-dates Panama. This is where you add a geographical identifier to a search term to match to users who submit queries like “san diego dentist.”

Questions raced across my mind like signposts on a highway: Being able to use geo-targeting, should we still encourage advertisers to geo-modify? Or does that just create double the work? Is there a secret strategy for geographical targeting? And where can I find someone here in Burbank who will give me the straight answers?

The truth is out there
I first pinged a few of my friends in other departments, only to get vague, non-committal answers. Downcast, I was preparing to give my editor the bad news—there’s nothing new to say about this.

Then, upon returning from lunch one day, I spied a small note tucked under a glass paperweight on my desk. I glanced around—no one was nearby. The note read: There’s more to your geo story. Meet me on parking level 4 at 6:00 tonight and I’ll tell you anything you want to know. D.

At 6:00 sharp, I rode the elevator to its nadir. Parking Level 4 is at the bottom of a series of ramps, and eerily empty except for a stray vehicle or two. The elevator car stopped at the bottom, its bell echoing across an acre of empty concrete. I nervously stepped out. The doors slid shut behind me. I didn’t see a soul.

Slowly, I started to walk the perimeter. As I approached a dark corner near a stairwell, I heard the crisp report of a match lighting. I stopped in my tracks. A dark figure raised the match and lit a cigarette dangling from its mouth.

Talking to Daryl
“Are you ‘D’?,” I asked.

“Yes,” replied a raspy voice in a half-whisper. “You can call me Daryl. But I don’t have much time. What do you need to know about geo-targeting?”

I hadn’t imagined that a simple blog post was going to turn into a Woodward and Bernstein caper, but I was determined to get some answers. “With geo-targeting offered in their accounts, should advertisers still ‘geo-modify’ their keywords?”

“They need to do both,” Daryl replied, taking another drag on his smoke. “But in a campaign where they’re using geo-targeting, they shouldn’t modify their keywords with geographical locations. If they do…” He paused for a moment, seemingly remembering some unfortunate cases. “…bad things can happen.”

A chilly December wind suddenly gusted amongst the columns of Level 4. Then Daryl continued: “Over the years, what has proven to work best is to set up separate campaigns with the same group of keywords—one that uses geo-targeting from the user interface, and a second that adds geo-modifiers to the keywords but does not use geo-targeting. This will ensure that an advertiser receives the maximum amount of traffic.”

I was about to ask another question, but he cut me off: “You want to know why this works?” I nodded my head. “If our systems don’t know where a search user is located, they rely on the geo-modifier to match the search to a relevant ad.”

It was really so simple, I thought. One solution for one situation, a second for a different situation. “One more thing,” said Daryl. “If an advertiser is geo-modifying with a common city name…”

“Springfield,” I muttered.

“Yes,” replied Daryl. “In that situation, they should add the state abbreviation to avoid confusion and poor matches.”

Vanished
“Thank you,” I said, jotting down a few notes. “This is great advice.” But when I looked up again, the shadowy figure was gone. On the ground where he had been standing was a DVD inside a case. A simple label on the front read: “Make sure your readers see this. It reveals more secrets about geo-targeting.”

To see what Daryl left me, click here. And heed his advice, lest your potential customers wind up in a bad place—like Parking Level 4.

— Jeff Hecox

Posted by Administrator

[ Categories: Features, How To's, Tips ]

9 Comments Add your own

1. Zack | January 8th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

There seems to be a disconnect between Daryl’s words and the DVD he left for you, which says that if a user uses a geographic location in their query (e.g. Los Angeles) an ad geo-targeted to LA will show, regardless of their location. Since geo-modified ads will only show if the searcher uses a geographic indicator in their query, why do we need to do both?
2. ABrown | January 14th, 2009 at 8:31 am

Matchtypes are important with geotargeting as well. Panama has a nasty habit of completely ignoring geo modifiers seemingly at random and sending your ad out nationally for the unmodified search queries. If you geo modify keywords and use advanced match, keep a close eye on your query logs.
3. Administrator | January 16th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Zack (#1),

While it is true that our systems will attempt to match geo-targeted ads with search queries containing a geographical term (e.g., “san diego dentist”), creating keywords that use both types of Geo is our recommendation. Here’s why:

- If you only bid on the keyword “dentist” and geo-target to San Diego, you may lose some geographical precision, as your ad may appear to users interested or located in suburbs of San Diego, such as Del Mar or Imperial Beach.

- Using the explicit keyword “san diego dentist” could give you a relevance advantage over “dentist” geo-targeted to San Diego, since it would be a precise match to the user search query “san diego dentist.”

- Using the geo-modified keyword “san diego dentist” for a primary keyword like this can offer more precise control of your cost-per-click, the ads that are displayed for this keyword, and the management of your ROI.

Again, the bottom line is that for maximum traffic you should use both types of Geo, because our systems are drawing from both “pools” as they determine which ads to display.

- Jeff Hecox
4. Hunter Gatherer | January 22nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm

According to my conversations with Yahoo, their geotargeting is not geo-targeting the way any other marketer thinks of geotargeting.

You are not targeting audiences in the geo region you specify. You are are targeting those who use the geo related term in their keyword string.

In other words, you can do the same thing with your keywords.

Marketers wanting to geo-target generally mean that we want to target prospects within certain areas. Yahoo is no help in doing this, so don’t get confused.
5. The Unit | January 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Interesting, but not using this targeting at this time.
6. Gina | January 23rd, 2009 at 5:16 am

This does nothing to help web sites selling hotels and flights in other cities and countries but who want to target only people living in one city.

Why would I want to advertise a hotel in Chicago to people living in Chicago!? What if I want to target my Chicago hotel to people living in New York? The two-campaign idea wouldn’t make sense.

Yahoo! really needs to fix this issue…
7. Guy Hill | January 23rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Good article… and a funny way to bring up this topic.

This comes up a lot w/ clients, and I agree there is some confusion here. But yes, we run both types of “geo targeting” for our clients, and both have their place.

Here’s a quick simple tip we can offer:

– Watch out for the state abbreviations that are also common words. For “Indiana,” you end up w/ “in”… which makes for weird matches. “Dentist IN” looks like “Dentist in…” and can be matched to many queries, including “dentist in california” etc. There are other funny examples that come up, and are worth anticipating. “IN” is one of the most common problematic ones.

Cheers – good article!
[Guy
DroidINDUSTRIES.com
8. Guy Hill | January 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Good article… and a funny way to bring up this topic.

This comes up a lot w/ clients, and I agree there is some confusion here. But yes, we run both types of “geo targeting” for our clients, and both have their place.

Here’s a quick simple tip we can offer:

– Watch out for the state abbreviations that are also common words. For “Indiana,” you end up w/ “in”… which makes for weird matches. “Dentist IN” looks like “Dentist in…” and can be matched to many queries, including “dentist in california” etc. There are other funny examples that come up, and are worth anticipating. “IN” is one of the most common problematic ones.

Cheers – good article!
[Guy
Droid INDUSTRIES
9. unlimited | October 19th, 2009 at 6:24 am

Very good article, I like the way it is focused, not as formal as these kind of articles are used to be and not only funny, it is also helpful and contains the necessary information needed. However, I am not using geo targeting at the moment and thus I can not say if this is working fine with yahoo or is better with others like google…

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed