This is the subhead for the blog post
I took some time away from search at the start of the summer, conveniently missing the mass migration to enhanced campaigns. Prior to that time, I worked on a single account that we had largely opted out of tablets, especially in display campaigns.
After launching the first ever display campaigns for a new client, imagine what pleasant surprises awaited me in our first placement review: tablet apps…and lots of them.
While I don’t like spending client money on stupid things (and kids playing games on iPads are clearly not our audience), our process is built to catch this thing quickly. I figured I’d find the new setting to opt us out of this very specific brand of traffic but was surprised yet again when I couldn’t find anything obvious, settings-wise. No campaign types, no category exclusions – no clear shortcut to blocking this.
Dreading having to comb reports for a group of placements I knew I’d never want to target, I dug deeper. I asked some pretty smart search folks if they’d encountered this before but didn’t find my answer until I saw this AdWords support page:
Answer in hand, I applied the change and started planning a scathing blog about the idiotic process for blocking this. I mean, if the category of placements is unique enough to have its own campaign type, why not make exclusion part of the same process? Why make it a placement exclusion to get lost in an ocean of negatives? Why mask this magic URL in placement reports? Why waste my time? Why make me do something special to opt out when I should have had a process to opt in if this was what I wanted?
But before I could get going on this, one of the same search folks I’d pinged earlier pointed me to a fantastic blog post by Bryant Garvin.
Bryant had the answer and, judging from the tweets from prominent search folks he references, it wasn’t obvious. There really wasn’t a need to blog about it.
So you might be thinking – “what are you complaining about? You asked a bunch of whys, and you got a solution. C’mon, smart SEM guy, this isn’t rocket science. Add the placement negative.”
All true. But it’s crap like this that damages the perception of Google in an advertiser’s eyes.
We’ve been fed this line that “tablets behave like desktops,” so it’s OK to auto-opt you into it. Well, that doesn’t hold much ground when we’re talking apps and not search. (Don’t get me started on the rest of display on mobile – is there an opt out for people with big fingers?)
Look, Bryant’s article is almost THREE MONTHS OLD. How can we not be cynical when something like this hasn’t been properly addressed in the campaign creation process? Yes, experts know the ropes, but what about the average advertiser who invested in display after getting bombarded by Google sales reps? This is the type of thing you should opt into, not have to opt out of.
This falls in the same category as not being able to target search partners only (yes, that’ll come, but how long have we been waiting?). So long as Google enables large-scale inefficiencies (and this represented 30%+ of our display spend before caught) in account optimization without creating obvious, simple workflows for every advertiser to improve their performance, I just can’t take them seriously anymore. It’s impossible not to pay the idiot tax when we’re all the idiots.