<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How Low is &#8220;Low Search Volume&#8221;?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:20:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-11305</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 08:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-11305</guid>
		<description>I guess knowing which long-tail keywords are worth having in your account and which are simply too obscure comes down to experience. Unless there is a valid reason for doing so, I would tend to avoid bidding on keywords of greater than 5 words.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess knowing which long-tail keywords are worth having in your account and which are simply too obscure comes down to experience. Unless there is a valid reason for doing so, I would tend to avoid bidding on keywords of greater than 5 words.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Algarve Property Management</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-9579</link>
		<dc:creator>Algarve Property Management</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-9579</guid>
		<description>The problem is to know which keywords to go after and which ones you should stay away. 
573 searches is not that bad, but for what i understand it is labeled as &quot;low search volume&quot; just like the other 8064 keywords. 
What signs could we possibly use to know that my keyword is that specific &quot;573&quot; and not the zeros? I know, intuition and experience will help, but is there any other way?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem is to know which keywords to go after and which ones you should stay away.<br />
573 searches is not that bad, but for what i understand it is labeled as &#8220;low search volume&#8221; just like the other 8064 keywords.<br />
What signs could we possibly use to know that my keyword is that specific &#8220;573&#8243; and not the zeros? I know, intuition and experience will help, but is there any other way?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-900</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 23:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-900</guid>
		<description>Hi Matt,

I think since Low Search Volume is more of signal that an account contains far too many tong-tail kewords to be practical, rather than an absolute measure of search volume, you&#039;re probably right that it can change over time within account of between accounts.

I would tend to ignore these warnings - as long as your keyword strategy is not too over the top (i.e. bidding for keywords such as &#039;cheap long distance flights to Australia with hotel package deals&#039; then you should be the judge of which keywords should remain in your account.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Matt,</p>
<p>I think since Low Search Volume is more of signal that an account contains far too many tong-tail kewords to be practical, rather than an absolute measure of search volume, you&#8217;re probably right that it can change over time within account of between accounts.</p>
<p>I would tend to ignore these warnings &#8211; as long as your keyword strategy is not too over the top (i.e. bidding for keywords such as &#8216;cheap long distance flights to Australia with hotel package deals&#8217; then you should be the judge of which keywords should remain in your account.</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Alan</p>
<p>Alan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matt</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-894</link>
		<dc:creator>matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 05:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-894</guid>
		<description>The Low Search Volume warnings are different for different accounts. I used to get the warning for many keywords but then it stopped giving those warnings completely after a few months and some decent spend. A few days ago  I had to open a new account because it got full of keywords and now the NEW account gives those warnings all the time but it won&#039;t if I add the same keywords on the more experienced account.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Low Search Volume warnings are different for different accounts. I used to get the warning for many keywords but then it stopped giving those warnings completely after a few months and some decent spend. A few days ago  I had to open a new account because it got full of keywords and now the NEW account gives those warnings all the time but it won&#8217;t if I add the same keywords on the more experienced account.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-703</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-703</guid>
		<description>@ Olaf

You could be right, if each AdWords account had 500,000 obscure keywords it will start to become inefficient. I think it&#039;s also to help reduce AdWords spam, as its impractical for Google to monitor quality for so many keywords, even with bots, but I don&#039;t think they&#039;ve taken the right approach.

I just hope deactivating low searched for keywords doesn&#039;t remove opportunities for small businesses, who can&#039;t afford to compete with big advertisers on expensive generic keywords, to target highly-qualified small niches and get real value from paid search.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Olaf</p>
<p>You could be right, if each AdWords account had 500,000 obscure keywords it will start to become inefficient. I think it&#8217;s also to help reduce AdWords spam, as its impractical for Google to monitor quality for so many keywords, even with bots, but I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;ve taken the right approach.</p>
<p>I just hope deactivating low searched for keywords doesn&#8217;t remove opportunities for small businesses, who can&#8217;t afford to compete with big advertisers on expensive generic keywords, to target highly-qualified small niches and get real value from paid search.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olaf</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-702</link>
		<dc:creator>Olaf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:51:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-702</guid>
		<description>Hi Alan,

Great blog and very good PPC and Adwords Articles. I think Google has another intention behind the warning. They want to reduce the number of keywords, because it costs them server capacity.

Greetz from Germany</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Alan,</p>
<p>Great blog and very good PPC and Adwords Articles. I think Google has another intention behind the warning. They want to reduce the number of keywords, because it costs them server capacity.</p>
<p>Greetz from Germany</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-515</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:57:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-515</guid>
		<description>Hi Eliezer,

Thanks for your question.

Search engines use keywords to determine what ads are showed on their search result pages, whereas content networks instead use &#039;themes&#039;. 

When you create an ad group with a bunch of keywords for the content network, it isn&#039;t your keywords which are being assessed individually, but instead the overall theme of all your keywords in the ad group. For that reason - and also that there is generally no &#039;search volume&#039; on the content network - low search volume doens&#039;t apply for the content network.

Hope this helps,
Alan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Eliezer,</p>
<p>Thanks for your question.</p>
<p>Search engines use keywords to determine what ads are showed on their search result pages, whereas content networks instead use &#8216;themes&#8217;. </p>
<p>When you create an ad group with a bunch of keywords for the content network, it isn&#8217;t your keywords which are being assessed individually, but instead the overall theme of all your keywords in the ad group. For that reason &#8211; and also that there is generally no &#8216;search volume&#8217; on the content network &#8211; low search volume doens&#8217;t apply for the content network.</p>
<p>Hope this helps,<br />
Alan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eliezer</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-488</link>
		<dc:creator>Eliezer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:50:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-488</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your great content.
I was wondering if in content marketing, google would show ads for low search volume keywords? I&#039;ve tried to test it out with using gmail as the content site and none of my keywords showed any of my ads.
Any advice?
Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your great content.<br />
I was wondering if in content marketing, google would show ads for low search volume keywords? I&#8217;ve tried to test it out with using gmail as the content site and none of my keywords showed any of my ads.<br />
Any advice?<br />
Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Walt Monk</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-126</link>
		<dc:creator>Walt Monk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-126</guid>
		<description>@Alan
Thanks...your answer Is what I was hoping was the case.

 BTW I think your content here is excellent!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Alan<br />
Thanks&#8230;your answer Is what I was hoping was the case.</p>
<p> BTW I think your content here is excellent!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:20:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-121</guid>
		<description>@Walt

Thanks for your question. Keywords marked as &#039;low search volume&#039; will still show, it&#039;s just a warning from Google not to expect many clicks.

I guess it&#039;s just a way for Google to scare advertisers away from the cheaper, long-tail keywords, and towards the more expensive, generic keywords.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Walt</p>
<p>Thanks for your question. Keywords marked as &#8216;low search volume&#8217; will still show, it&#8217;s just a warning from Google not to expect many clicks.</p>
<p>I guess it&#8217;s just a way for Google to scare advertisers away from the cheaper, long-tail keywords, and towards the more expensive, generic keywords.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Walt Monk</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator>Walt Monk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-118</guid>
		<description>A better way of phrasing my question is this: 

Does &quot;Low Search Volume&quot; mean NO Adwords ads using this keyword will be shown...or is this just a warning from Google not to expect many clicks?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A better way of phrasing my question is this: </p>
<p>Does &#8220;Low Search Volume&#8221; mean NO Adwords ads using this keyword will be shown&#8230;or is this just a warning from Google not to expect many clicks?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Walt Monk</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-78</link>
		<dc:creator>Walt Monk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-78</guid>
		<description>Alan,
Thanks for this article! I was searching for exactly this answer...but now it leads to another conundrum.  

 If Google says that due to “low search volume” your ads were not showing...then how did you arrive at the Impressions and CTR numbers from ads that did not show? 

Sounds like a great deal, get clicks from ads that were never shown.  What am I missing?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan,<br />
Thanks for this article! I was searching for exactly this answer&#8230;but now it leads to another conundrum.  </p>
<p> If Google says that due to “low search volume” your ads were not showing&#8230;then how did you arrive at the Impressions and CTR numbers from ads that did not show? </p>
<p>Sounds like a great deal, get clicks from ads that were never shown.  What am I missing?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Atlanta Real Estate</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Atlanta Real Estate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-73</guid>
		<description>Alan,

Great, well written article. I have discovered the same in my Adwords experience. 

I have a pretty large adword campaign with maybe 5k terms, ALL longtails, 55+ landing pages and corresponding Ads.

It delivers like MAD and costs hardly anything.

If I go into my account it too shows the low volume warnings everywhere, but I just ignore them.

I’m paying about $0.20 per CT in a ultra competitive market here, Atlanta Real Estate, and getting lots of leads. 

Rob for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.atlantarealestateinfo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Atlanta Real Estate&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan,</p>
<p>Great, well written article. I have discovered the same in my Adwords experience. </p>
<p>I have a pretty large adword campaign with maybe 5k terms, ALL longtails, 55+ landing pages and corresponding Ads.</p>
<p>It delivers like MAD and costs hardly anything.</p>
<p>If I go into my account it too shows the low volume warnings everywhere, but I just ignore them.</p>
<p>I’m paying about $0.20 per CT in a ultra competitive market here, Atlanta Real Estate, and getting lots of leads. </p>
<p>Rob for <a href="http://www.atlantarealestateinfo.com/" rel="nofollow">Atlanta Real Estate</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Chen</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-43</link>
		<dc:creator>John Chen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:17:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-43</guid>
		<description>Thanks Alan, I&#039;m still learning the ins and outs of AdWords. your blog was recommenced by @jaaved .

Looking forward to reading more posts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Alan, I&#8217;m still learning the ins and outs of AdWords. your blog was recommenced by @jaaved .</p>
<p>Looking forward to reading more posts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.calculatemarketing.com/blog/techniques/how-low-is-low-search-volume/comment-page-1/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alanmitchell.com.au/?p=641#comment-41</guid>
		<description>@John

Thanks for commenting. The 804 were those LSV keywords which were shown, so all 804 received at least one impression. But if we look at those keywords which failed to show...well, the account had 8,064 keywords, of which 2,823 (35%) appeared at least once. This leaves 5,241 (65%) of keywords which did not.

Unsurprisingly, every one of these 5,241 keywords were marked as &quot;low search volume&quot;. So out of 6,045 (5,241+804) LSV keywords, 840 (13%) received at least one impression.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@John</p>
<p>Thanks for commenting. The 804 were those LSV keywords which were shown, so all 804 received at least one impression. But if we look at those keywords which failed to show&#8230;well, the account had 8,064 keywords, of which 2,823 (35%) appeared at least once. This leaves 5,241 (65%) of keywords which did not.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, every one of these 5,241 keywords were marked as &#8220;low search volume&#8221;. So out of 6,045 (5,241+804) LSV keywords, 840 (13%) received at least one impression.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: www.calculatemarketing.com @ 2012-02-06 05:18:27 -->
