Advertising

Here's The Real Reason Google Changed Its Mobile Search Rules

Read in app
Larry Page Google
Google CEO Larry Page 

Yesterday, we noted that a bunch of advertisers were unhappy about Google's changes to its Adwords search advertising product, which will allegedly increase prices for advertisers.

Today, let's hear from one of their competitors who says they're wrong, and who believes that Google got this right.

The new ad buying interface will consolidate buying so that ads are placed on both mobile and desktop devices at once. The system will be simpler, but it will be harder for advertisers to compare the performance of campaigns targeting different mobile devices, especially tablets.

Critics say this will raise the cost-per-click of ads that run on mobile devices; mobile ads are generally cheaper than desktop ads when bought separately. At the same time, performance may go down. And advertisers won't be able to buy separate campaigns on tablets to compare performance on those devices with others.

Larry Kim, the CTO of search ad agency Wordstream, worked with Google on the changes. He says those who are complaining about the end of separate device-specific campaign buys are full of it. "I’m thrilled that it’s going away because it was so complicated that almost nobody used it (around 5%)," he tells us.

adwords enhanced campaigns google
Google

The reason it was rarely used is because it's so convoluted: "It looks like some kind of complicated nuclear submarine control panel – there are so many different device and network combinations."

Here's a screengrab (at right, click to enlarge).

The world of devices is only going to get bigger and more complicated. (Is a Microsoft Surface a laptop or a tablet?) Most advertisers simply won't want to run 100 different campaigns on 100 different devices.

Kim notes that the people who are complaining the loudest — like Adobe — are the tiny number of elite advertisers who have big budgets and sophisticated operations.

They spend so much that incremental differences between tablet and laptop performance might be meaningful.

larry kim
Wordstream's Larry Kim  Larry Kim

But most Google advertisers aren't those kind of clients, he says.

"The companies who are most likely to get the most from mobile search are local businesses (like dentists, or restaurants, car dealerships, etc.). [They] happen to be the least sophisticated advertisers, yet in the old Adwords system, the mobile search options were the most complicated things to properly implement."

For those advertisers, tablets and laptops are pretty much the same thing, Kim believes. "Tablet searches are largely a replacement for searches that would have otherwise been conducted in the home on a laptop/desktop. Since the search intent is similar, then the need for tablet-specific ad targeting is lessened."

It's also worth noting that although the new Adwords will lump desktop and mobile buying together, clients can still buy mobile-only, or desktop-only, campaigns. If they move the mobile/desktop weighting to -100 percent, for instance, campaigns won't run on any mobile devices.

Kim does, however, agree with one point Google's critics make: Prices will likely go up for Google's advertisers. "Yes, certain targeting options are going away, and mobile CPC’s are likely going up. No push-back there. I can certainly understand the anxiety from the elite [pay-per-click] marketers out there," but, he says, "My bottom line: The vast majority of advertisers are more likely to see positive ROI from mobile search than before."

Read next

Jim is the former editor-in-chief of Insider's news division.Previously he was the founding editor of Business Insider UK.He has also been managing editor at Adweek, an advertising columnist at CBS Interactive, and a Knight-Bagehot Fellow at Columbia Business School. His work has appeared in Slate, Salon, The Independent, MTV, The Nation and AOL.His investigative journalism changed the law in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S. v. Kravetz), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (North Jersey Media v. Ashcroft), New Jersey (In Re El-Atriss), and New York State (Mosallem v. Berenson).The US Supreme Court cited his work on the death penalty in the concurrence to Baze v. Rees, on the issue of whether lethal injection is cruel or unusual.He won the Neal award for business journalism in 2005 for a series investigating bribes and kickbacks in the advertising business.Here's a selection of his past stories:   • The alleged betrayal in these photos, texts, and emails cost Snapchat $158 million   • Inside the conspiracy that forced Dov Charney out of American Apparel   • The Evolution of Ev: The creator of Twitter, Blogger, and Medium has a plan to fix the mess he made of the internet   • THE "KNOCK-IN SHORT": Nigel Farage and the massive bet against the pound on the night of the Brexit vote   • eBay worked with the FBI to put its top affiliate marketer in prison   • How Dunkin Donuts ended up hiring a psychotic credit card thief as director of communications   • BEJEWELED: The definitive, illustrated history of the most underrated game ever   • The CEO of Publicis told us how he stared down a furious internal rebellion to bet the future of his $11 billion company on artificial intelligence   • FBX: The billion-dollar Facebook business that never happened   • The €150 million check-kiting scam that bankrupted Leo Burnett in Greece   • My Polaroids of the September 11 attacks led me into America's secret court system for terrorist suspects   • YouTube deleted 130 rap videos to help police fight street gangs responsible for thousands of stabbingsDisclosure: I own shares of Twitter (TWTR).