Google recently launched yet one more way to improve your AdWords campaign’s performance, this time around hitting us with their Google Campaign Optimizer. Think of it as Paid Search for Dummies.

Among the sample suggestions from the new Campaign Optimizer are recommendations to change the daily budget, add new keywords, change keyword matching options, adjust max CPCs, and changing ad text. While Google is continually trying to streamline AdWords, the Campaign Optimizer’s release is a good opportunity to point out a very important reminder: there will never be a substitute for the basics.

Though Google has now made easier to audit a campaign, the new Campaign Optimizer will never be a sufficient substitute for copy and landing page testing, ROI bid optimizations, and the other forms of testing that comes from running a good campaign. There is no better way of understanding the intricacies of your market and campaign than getting your hands dirty with trial and error. Marketers should experiment with the new Campaign Optimizer. But don’t forget the fundamentals.

Depending on the size of a search campaign, the campaign structure can go a long way in deciding success. Most campaigns are centered on a group of high volume keywords, taking advantage of the few keywords that drive the best ROI. While oftentimes effective, this common method of campaign management can leave behind a large list of tail terms. A useful way of including tail terms in without sacrificing efficiency is to reorganize campaigns based on user-defined semantics.

When studying campaign metrics, it is often found that seemingly similar words perform with a much greater variety than expected. The same word that is misspelled, in plural form, or with a space (i.e. bedroom vs. bed room) can have vastly different efficiency and volume metrics. The first step to successful campaign reorganization is to track and select the keywords that perform the best according to your standards. These keywords should be used as new campaigns or ad groups, depending on the level of granularity desired. Also relevant to the reorganization are the levels of hierarchy – if 'bedroom' performed better than 'furniture,' a search term like 'bedroom furniture' would be placed with the first group, as users have defined that to be the more successful keyword.

The theory behind this kind of campaign structure is that users define word sets differently than common logic necessarily does. As a result, organization can be broken down with more user-relevant granularity. The benefit here comes from applying budgets – instead of giving money only to high volume keywords, budgets can now be applied to the extremely efficient tail terms that are semantically aligned with a high volume keyword. Instead of reducing the run of a tail term that could be otherwise extremely beneficial for a campaign, semantic reorganization can lend more insight into possibly reducing budgets not from tail terms at random, but from higher cost high volume keywords that have a lower return on investment.

Session Highlights from Search Engine Strategies San Jose

While we will be writing more in-depth reviews next week, we have provided some links to the bloggers who are covering the sessions in real time.

Advanced Paid Search Techniques was moderated by Danny Sullivan, providing great insight into the world of Paid Search.

Bruce Clay provides more insight into a world with One Billion Searchers.

Lastly, Chris Sherman moderated the session on Personalization, User Data, and Search. This session was yet another reminder of how much Search affects our lives as consumers, and our businesses.