Ad Words That Work: What You’re Paying For

Ad words, in the paid search sense, are the keywords you bid on to place your ads in front of people actively searching for something. In the broader strategic sense, they are something more interesting: the words your business chooses to compete on, and what that choice reveals about how well you understand your market.

Most companies treat keyword selection as a technical exercise. Set a budget, pick terms with search volume, watch the clicks come in. But the decisions made at the keyword level shape everything downstream: who sees your ads, what they expect when they arrive, and whether the business grows or just spins.

Why Ad Words Strategy Starts Before You Open the Platform

I spent a long stretch of my career watching performance budgets get allocated almost entirely to branded and high-intent terms. The logic was always the same: these convert, so we invest here. What nobody was asking was whether those conversions would have happened anyway.

When I ran agency teams managing significant search budgets across retail, financial services, and travel, the pattern was consistent. Lower-funnel keywords produced metrics that looked excellent in isolation. Cost per acquisition was manageable. Conversion rates were strong. Everyone was pleased. But when we pressure-tested the incrementality, asking what would have happened without the ads, the picture changed. A meaningful share of those converters were already in-market, already brand-aware, already close to buying. The ad captured the credit. It did not create the demand.

This is not an argument against lower-funnel keywords. It is an argument for understanding what they actually do. Paid search on high-intent terms is a demand capture tool. It is efficient and necessary. But if that is where the entire budget sits, the business is not growing its addressable audience. It is competing for a fixed pool of people who were already on their way.

Ad words strategy, done properly, maps keyword selection to the full shape of demand: people who are ready to buy, people who are evaluating options, and people who do not yet know they have a problem worth solving. Each group requires different terms, different creative, and different expectations about what the click will produce. If you want a broader view of how keyword decisions fit inside a growth strategy, the articles at The Marketing Juice Go-To-Market and Growth Strategy hub cover the surrounding context in detail.

What Match Types Actually Control

Match types are one of the most misunderstood mechanics in paid search. They determine which searches trigger your ads, and getting them wrong is one of the fastest ways to burn budget on traffic that was never going to convert.

Broad match gives Google the widest discretion. Your ad can appear for searches that share a theme with your keyword, which sounds useful until you realise how liberally that discretion gets applied. Phrase match is more controlled: your ad appears when the search contains the meaning of your keyword phrase, in order. Exact match is the tightest: your ad appears when the search matches your keyword closely, with minimal variation permitted.

The practical problem is that broad match, combined with Smart Bidding, has become the default recommendation from Google’s own tools. There are situations where it performs well. There are many others where it quietly routes budget toward tangentially related queries that look plausible in the search terms report but convert at a fraction of the rate of tightly matched traffic.

Negative keywords are the corrective mechanism. They tell the platform which searches should not trigger your ads. A business selling premium software should probably exclude terms like “free”, “cheap”, and “open source”. A B2B company selling to enterprise clients should exclude searches that indicate a consumer or small-business intent. Negative keyword lists are not a one-time task. They require regular review, because search behaviour evolves and the platform’s matching logic changes without much notice.

The combination of match type strategy and negative keyword hygiene determines whether your budget reaches the audience you intended to reach. It is unglamorous work. It is also where a significant portion of wasted spend is recovered.

How Quality Score Changes the Economics

Quality Score is Google’s rating of the relevance and quality of your keywords, ads, and landing pages. It runs from one to ten. A higher score means your ad is considered more relevant to the searcher, which results in lower costs per click and better ad positions relative to competitors bidding the same amount.

The three components are expected click-through rate, ad relevance, and landing page experience. Each is assessed relative to other advertisers targeting the same keyword. A score of seven or above generally indicates your setup is working. Below five, and you are paying a premium to show ads that the platform considers a weaker match for the query.

What Quality Score rewards is coherence. The keyword, the ad copy, and the landing page need to form a connected experience. If someone searches for “enterprise project management software” and your ad headline says “Project Tools for Teams” and your landing page opens with a generic product overview, the relevance chain breaks at every step. Google notices. So does the person who clicked.

I have seen accounts where improving Quality Score across a core set of keywords reduced cost per click by 30 percent or more, without changing the bid strategy or the budget. The saving came entirely from tightening the message-to-keyword alignment. That is not a small operational detail. It is a structural cost advantage that compounds over time.

The implication is that ad words strategy cannot be separated from creative strategy or landing page strategy. They are the same problem. Treating them as separate workstreams, which is common in larger organisations where paid search sits in one team and web sits in another, is where coherence breaks down and Quality Score suffers.

The Intent Ladder and Where Businesses Get It Wrong

Search intent is the reason behind a query. It is the most important variable in keyword selection and the one most frequently oversimplified.

There is a useful way to think about intent as a ladder. At the top are navigational queries, where someone already knows where they want to go and is using search to get there. Below that are transactional queries, where someone is ready to act and searching for the best option. Below that are commercial investigation queries, where someone is evaluating options and comparing. At the bottom are informational queries, where someone is learning about a topic without a clear purchase intent yet.

Most paid search budgets concentrate at the top of that ladder. Transactional and navigational terms get the spend because they convert. Informational terms get ignored because they do not convert immediately. The problem is that the people at the bottom of the ladder today are the buyers at the top of the ladder in three months. Ignoring them entirely means your brand is absent when they are forming preferences, and present only when they are ready to buy from whoever they already have in mind.

This connects to something I observed when I was earlier in my career and overvalued lower-funnel performance. The metrics looked strong because we were capturing people who were already warm. What we were not doing was creating the conditions for new demand. Think of it like a clothes shop: someone who tries something on is far more likely to buy than someone who walks past the window. But if you never get people through the door, you are only ever selling to the ones who already decided to come in. Paid search that only covers transactional terms is the equivalent of standing at the till and ignoring the shop floor.

The fix is not to abandon high-intent terms. It is to build keyword coverage across the ladder, with realistic expectations about what each tier produces. Informational terms drive awareness and early preference. Commercial investigation terms drive consideration. Transactional terms close. Each layer does a different job, and measuring all of them by the same conversion metric is how budgets get cut from the wrong places. SEMrush’s overview of market penetration strategy covers the growth mechanics that make this kind of full-funnel thinking necessary.

Branded vs Non-Branded: The Budget Allocation Question

Branded keywords, terms that include your company or product name, are the most efficient spend in most accounts. Conversion rates are high because the person searching already knows you. Cost per click is usually low because competition is limited. Every metric looks good.

The question worth asking is how much of that performance is genuinely incremental. If someone searches your brand name, they are already aware of you. They were probably going to find you through organic search or direct navigation if the paid ad were not there. Bidding on your own brand name is sometimes necessary, particularly when competitors are targeting it or when you need to control the messaging in the results. But treating branded keyword performance as evidence that paid search is working is a measurement problem dressed up as a success story.

Non-branded keywords are where the growth work happens. These are the terms where people are searching for a solution without a specific brand in mind. This is where you reach people who do not yet know you exist. The conversion rates are lower. The cost per click is higher. The path from click to customer is longer. And the potential audience is orders of magnitude larger than the audience already searching for your brand.

A balanced keyword portfolio allocates enough to branded terms to protect and capture existing demand, and enough to non-branded terms to build the pipeline of future demand. The exact ratio depends on category maturity, competitive pressure, and where the business is in its growth cycle. There is no universal answer. But defaulting to branded-heavy allocation because it produces better-looking metrics is a way of optimising for the report rather than the business.

Competitor Keywords: When It Makes Sense and When It Wastes Money

Bidding on competitor brand names is a common tactic. The logic is straightforward: someone searching for a competitor is in-market, and if you can get in front of them with a compelling alternative, you might win the business.

In practice, the results are mixed. Conversion rates on competitor terms are typically lower than on your own non-branded terms, because the searcher has a brand in mind and you are asking them to reconsider. Quality Score tends to be poor because your ad and landing page cannot easily match the specific keyword. And the cost per click can be high because competitors often bid on their own brand name defensively, which drives up auction prices.

There are situations where competitor bidding makes sense. If a competitor is in a public crisis, has discontinued a product, or has a well-known weakness your product addresses, the conditions for switching intent exist. If you are a challenger brand in a market where the category leader has high awareness but mixed satisfaction, competitor terms can surface your alternative at the right moment.

What rarely works is blanket competitor bidding as a volume play. Paying a premium to reach people who are actively searching for someone else, with no particular reason to switch, produces expensive clicks and thin conversion rates. The budget usually performs better allocated to non-branded category terms where intent is present but brand preference has not yet formed.

The Landing Page Problem That Keyword Strategy Cannot Solve

I have sat in enough account reviews to know that keyword strategy gets scrutinised far more closely than landing page performance. The keyword list is visible, measurable, and easy to debate. The landing page is someone else’s problem, usually in a different team with a different roadmap and a different set of priorities.

This is where paid search accounts lose performance that no amount of bid optimisation can recover. You can have the right keyword, the right match type, a strong Quality Score, and a well-written ad, and then send the click to a page that does not reflect what the ad promised. The conversion rate tanks. The cost per acquisition rises. The account looks like it is underperforming on keywords when the actual problem is downstream.

The principle is simple: the landing page needs to continue the conversation the ad started. If the ad promises a specific solution to a specific problem, the landing page needs to deliver on that promise immediately, without requiring the visitor to search for the relevant information. Generic homepages, category pages, or product listings that do not match the ad’s specific claim create friction that most visitors will not push through.

Dedicated landing pages for specific keyword groups, sometimes called ad-specific or campaign-specific landing pages, consistently outperform generic destinations. They are more work to build and maintain. They require coordination between paid search teams and web teams. But they are one of the highest-return investments in a paid search programme. Vidyard’s research on why go-to-market execution has become harder touches on the coordination challenges that make this kind of cross-functional alignment difficult in practice.

How Smart Bidding Changes What Keyword Strategy Means

Automated bidding has changed the mechanics of paid search substantially. Target CPA, Target ROAS, and Maximise Conversions strategies hand bid-level decisions to Google’s machine learning, which adjusts bids in real time based on signals that no human optimiser can process at the same speed or scale.

What this means for keyword strategy is that the human decisions that still matter most are the ones that happen before the algorithm takes over: which keywords to include, which to exclude, how to structure campaigns, what conversion events to optimise toward, and how to set realistic targets. The algorithm is powerful within the parameters you set. If those parameters are wrong, the algorithm optimises toward the wrong outcome with considerable efficiency.

A common failure mode is setting a Target CPA that is too aggressive for the current account state. Smart Bidding needs sufficient conversion data to function well. Accounts with thin conversion volume, or campaigns targeting keywords with low search frequency, often do not provide the data density the algorithm needs. In those cases, manual or enhanced CPC bidding frequently outperforms fully automated strategies, at least until the account generates enough conversion history to train the model properly.

The other failure mode is optimising toward the wrong conversion event. If the algorithm is trained on micro-conversions, newsletter signups or page views, rather than genuine business outcomes like qualified leads or purchases, it will optimise toward the micro-conversion with no regard for whether those actions lead to revenue. Conversion tracking architecture is a strategic decision, not a technical one. SEMrush’s examples of growth tactics illustrate how measurement choices shape the outcomes businesses actually achieve.

What Ad Words Reveals About Your Market Understanding

Early in my time running agency teams, I noticed that the quality of a client’s keyword strategy was a reliable indicator of how well they understood their own market. Clients who had done genuine audience research, who knew how their customers described their problems, who understood the language of their category at different stages of the buying process, built keyword lists that looked different from clients who had reverse-engineered the strategy from competitor ads and keyword tool suggestions.

The difference was not just in the terms themselves. It was in the coverage. Clients with real market understanding included terms that reflected how people actually searched, including the imprecise, colloquial, and sometimes grammatically questionable ways that real people describe real problems. Clients who relied on keyword tools alone tended to produce lists that covered the obvious terms well and missed the edges where less competition and more genuine intent often lives.

This is where customer interviews, support ticket analysis, and sales call recordings become keyword research tools. The language your customers use when they describe their problems before they know your solution exists is often very different from the language your marketing team uses to describe your product. Closing that gap is one of the highest-value things a paid search programme can do, and it requires getting out of the platform and talking to people. Forrester’s analysis of go-to-market struggles highlights how gaps in market understanding create execution problems that tactical optimisation cannot fix.

Ad words strategy, at its most useful, is a forcing function for market clarity. The decisions you make at the keyword level force you to answer questions about who you are trying to reach, what they are trying to solve, and how your offer fits into the conversation they are already having with the search bar. Those are not paid search questions. They are business questions. The platform just makes them impossible to avoid.

If you are working through how keyword strategy connects to broader go-to-market decisions, the Go-To-Market and Growth Strategy hub at The Marketing Juice covers the strategic layer that sits above channel execution and shapes whether the execution produces growth or just activity.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions