I found the readings this week helpful. They provided an interesting way of considering keyword choices more thoughtfully than just a random assemble of synonyms. I particularly like the information on negative keywords. I have often searched for various things on Google where I needed to include the “-“ in front of a word because I was getting bogged down with the wrong kind of results. I love the idea that I can do the same sort of thing on the advertisers end to streamline my campaigns effectiveness.
Personally, I originally felt that marking the major brands
as negative keywords would be helpful. Thinking that if a person is already
specifically looking for FamilySearch then I don’t want to waste my money in those
search results. However, I find myself turning this concept over in my brain,
maybe eliminating these brand words isn’t the best way of narrowing the market
in that it could be beneficial to leverage the brand notoriety.
As far as I can tell, I’m not exactly anyone’s competitor
because I haven’t found anyone offering the same exact service. Mostly,
professional genealogists are offering the actual research as their service. So,
distancing myself from these companies might do the reverse. Now I’m leaning
more towards the idea that these brands presences would help drive traffic my
way because people who might want my service would likely be familiar with the
main Family History brands.
Tomorrow I might switch back again but I really like the
analytical approach to choosing keywords. It’s like an entertaining never-ending
riddle.
No comments:
Post a Comment