ClickEquations Blog

Our ebook The 21 Secret Truths of PPC takes a broad strategic and tactical look at paid search. Over the past few months in this series we’ve looked at each truth from another angle, expanding or elaborating on the concept each contained.

If you were to attempt to sum up the ideas in this series, you might get something like this:

Paid search is the process of answering questions. Focusing on the search queries that deliver those questions rather than the keywords that attract them makes it easier to provide direct and persuasive answers in your text ads.

The organization of your account is the key to a lot of your success. The way you choose to group keywords into ad groups defines the way your text ads align with the search queries you attract. And the way you place ad groups into campaigns defines the utility of your reports. Segmentation is an equally important part of your organization. Keep brand, head, content network, ego-based, and other keyword groups isolated so that their unique attributes can be understood and optimized.

At the keyword level, a focus on search queries will help you to reduce your reliance on broad match. Mine your search queries for new keywords with more targeted match types and new negatives. And pay attention to click-through rate and the factors that drive quality score. Bidding is important but not omnipotent. Don’t expect too much from or apply too much effort to bidding until your keywords are otherwise optimized. Make sure you’re measuring profit as your goal, not just return on ad spending. And when you’re buying keywords for ego-based(non-economic) reasons, make bidding decisions accordingly.

Writing effective ad copy is difficult given the complex communication goals and tiny available space. The only way to succeed is via trial and error, otherwise known as testing. While gaining the click is your initial goal, it’s what your prospect does after that click ultimately determines your success. Consider and coordinate the entire post-click experience as part of your overall PPC management program.

Reports and metrics are important, but make sure you know what they’re really saying. People can’t click ads that they can’t see.

And finally, although your account is large and ever-changing, there is almost certainly a concentration of revenue within a very small number of keywords. So prioritize your time and adjust your expectations accordingly. Don’t waste time chasing your own tail.

Objections? Extensions?

Before moving on past this series, I want to ask for more feedback. We’ve had thousands of downloads of the ebook, and tens of thousands of page views in this series, and not one good argument yet. And not nearly enough praise

Which of the truths do you think is just an opinion? Are there central PPC truths that were left out? Speak now before the guy with the stone tablets and chisel gets to work.

Get The Free eBook

This post is part of a series extending and amplifying the ideas in our free ebook ’21 Secret Truths of High-Resolution PPC’.

Download Your Copy Today
.

.

If there’s a theme to the 21 Secret Truths, it may be that almost nothing in paid search is what it appears.

Keywords aren’t what you’re trying to optimize, ad groups aren’t for organizing keywords, campaigns aren’t for organizing ad groups, bids don’t determine how much you pay, and so on. So perhaps by now it won’t surprise you to learn that the profit reported by paid search often isn’t real either.

When Making Money Isn’t Enough

The idea of spending $1 and getting back $3 sounds great. If we take in more than we put out, our business is profitable. Everyone knows that.

But as with all the other little-white-confusions, the definitions of ‘cost’ and ‘revenue’ used in the common language of PPC are incomplete and inaccurate.

The trouble is that AdWords, GA, Yahoo, Ad Center, and many other tools have no mechanism for including the cost of goods (or cost of sales) in their reports and calculations. They report Gross Profit, and Gross Return – which they call return-on-ad-spend or ROAS. (Although Google does sometimes stretch and literally call this number ‘profit’.)

ROAS is a ‘better than nothing’ metric. But ROI, a true Net Profit based return calculation is vastly superior and more accurate. Anyone managing substantial paid search programs for products or services that don’t have a flat cost shouldn’t settle for ROAS.

How ROAS Lies

The trouble with ROAS isn’t just that it gives the false or increased appearance of success. It shows positive numbers that should be negative, and high positive numbers where there should be low ones – that is true.

But for most businesses margin levels aren’t consistent. Some products or services are marked up 20% while others 80%. This means that all ROAS numbers aren’t off by the same percentage, so you can’t just adjust them in your head. And even if you know specific or approximate margins by product category, you can’t be sure which keyword drive which item sales. Very often the keyword ‘little black dress’ leads to the sales of shoes along with or instead of the dress.

Looking at ROAS vs ROI at the query, keyword, ad group, or campaign level always leaves a vastly different impression and lead to very different decision making and prioritization.

There are many data elements we use in PPC that should or could be improved, but betterness (I made that word up) is beyond our control. Accepting ROAS is voluntary and generally unwise.

Except

It should be noted, if it isn’t obvious, that there are some businesses for whom ROAS is functionally equal to ROI, and therefore the ROAS problem doesn’t exist. Pure lead-gen with a single type of conversion is one example since there is functionally no cost-of-goods. There are others. So if in your business the gross profit is the net profit (at least excluding fixed cost and overhead which is generally not considered in the ROI calculation, this topic doesn’t apply.

It’s clear this whole social media thing is gonna get tiring real fast.

But before it does, please go vote for The ClickEquations Blog in the PPC Blog category at Search & Social.

Just click the image to your left. Scroll down to Best PPC Blog, then click VOTE.

Ice cream for everyone if we win.

It’s just an honor to be nominated. Really. Now I’m going home to work on the acceptance speech.

Update: OK forget it. I just went through the process of voting, and I really don’t want to put anyone else through that. Sheesh.

We’ll find another way to feed our ego. But thanks for offering.

Every time someone executes a search, they’re asking a question.

They search because they want to learn about something. Or find out where something is. Or discover who has it or knows about it.

They may just be curious. Or the question may have been provoked by an urgent problem. The question could be simple or complex and the searcher might be sophisticated or naive.

But every search is a question.

Search engines deliver answers. They look at the word or words in the search box, assume or infer the question being asked, and then put together a list of potential answers to that question.

Paid search is your chance to offer your answer as a part of that list.

This simple truth – people are asking questions and you’re trying to answer them - is a great way to frame the process of managing paid search accounts.

It makes clear the fact that every step you take along the way should help to either target better questions, deliver better answers, or ensure that you pay a reasonable price for the privilege.

There are many complicated aspects of managing paid search. Accounts are large and business conditions change rapidly. There are confusing options, evolving algorithms, and aggressive competitors. This isn’t going to be easy.

But it’s nice to have a simple mental model to guide us: We’re just trying to answer questions.

The deal between Microsoft and Yahoo is very good for the paid search community. It creates a viable #2 competitor with enough market share to matter and a single API for developers to exploit. And Yahoo gets a few dollars for their retirement fund.

Some quick initial thoughts on the impact to each player in the game:

Search Advertisers
Advertisers get a single channel with 20-35% of the search traffic (depending on what and how you measure, and who you believe) which is *nearly* enough critical mass to actually spend time on. The core economic problem that Microsoft, and to a lessor degree Yahoo had before was that they didn’t offer enough inventory to justify the effort of managing let alone aggresively managing large keyword accounts on their platforms. Many advertisers have 20% of their keywords or less running on these engines, and spend 10% or less of their management time on them. Bing and Yahoo still need to attract users or advertisers won’t care. But at their current market share, or better yet if they can pickup 5 or 10%, there’s enough there to be worth the effort to equalize campaign sizes and spend perhaps 30% of campaign management time on them.

Microsoft
Proof that being dumb and rich is a far better strategy than just being dumb. Nothing except their money has justified Microsoft’s existence in this market until recently. Bing seems a reasonable search engine, but the AdCenter platform is pure Microsoft, meaning anything-but-cutting-edge and won’t really offer even the baseline of what the market really needs until version 3.0. They seem to be trying, but in management tools, software and API features, and overall ‘state of the art-ness’ the teams over there need to re-triple efforts to deliver a platform and API set as rich as Google’s. If they don’t, users and developers who now have a large enough market share to bother, won’t have enough patience to work around the limitations it takes to do so.

Yahoo
Yahoo can now spend their time and energy on being second or fourth best at a wide variety of internet content and web-app plays, perhaps to eventually sell each of those to richer and dumber rivals. Or maybe the idea was to get out of search so Google would want to buy all their other assets. This is the Sarah Palin move of search – quit and declare victory.

Paid Search Platforms and Tools
For purely selfish reasons, we’re glad to see the Yahoo and Microsoft platforms consolidate. Every feature we add to ClickEquations that had to touch 3 different APIs took two or three times more time (at least) than if it only had to touch one. We can build more cool features to help advertisers faster now. As mentioned above, the AdCenter platform has plenty of Microsoft quirkiness to it, but we’ll hope and assume they listen to the market and evolve. But in the case of API vendors we can do more with less.

Searchers
I believe that search result quality has a long way to go, that the loyalty Google has is to the brand and therefore ultimately could erode quickly. The Bing/Yahoo platform will likely very slowly pick up steam, but MS has to go do some HUGE bus dev deals to buy more distribution (AOL?) and continue to innovate on the results. Over time, they could substantially erode Google share, but the road will be hard and long. In this case, a perfect fit for Microsoft BUT they need to earn it they’re not just going to be able to out-last the competition or wait for them to commit suicide this time.

Google
Enabling very weak competition to become marginally viable doesn’t hurt Google in the short run. The fear of actual competition and even market share loss could very well spur the very smart folks at Google on to deliver even better stuff faster, as competition always does. So in the short and medium terms I’d say this is good for Google (and helps get the Gov’t monkey off their back for a while). In the long run, I’d still bet on Google but Microsoft does have a lot of money and know how to compete.

But mostly, I’m just really happy we have one less API to support.

In the paid search world, Quality Score is the new black. Blogs, forums, conferences, and Twitter are full of discussions of what quality score is and how you can optimize it.

But the real importance of quality score has been a bit hard to pin down. Not any more – we’re going to reveal the exact $$ value of quality score.

UPDATE: Since this post was written, we’ve learned an important new fact about Quality Score – the numbers we’re shown are reported as integers between 1 and 10, but these are not the numbers or scale Google applies to in their formulas. Rather, they’re representative of the actual Quality Score in terms of 1 being poor and 10 being great. Knowing this, it seems unlikely the specific math and results described in this post are correct. The positive and negative effects of good and bad quality score remain true, and hopefully the numbers are roughly proportional. We’ll update this post further when we get more information.

Why Does Quality Score Really Matter?
The prominence of quality score has been based on it’s role in Ad Rank – the formula Google uses to determine the position in which your ad appears. Ad Rank = Bid x Quality Score.

But Quality Score also plays a very important role in determining how much you’re charged per click. This is a separate application of the value which occurs after Ad Rank is calculated.

The recently released Google Video by Google’s Chief Economist, Hal Varian helped clarify this point.

In the video Mr. Varian points out that your cost-per-click is calculated using the formula: Ad Rank of the ad below yours / your quality score.

So if you’re in position #1 with a quality score of 5, and the ad in position #2 has an Ad Rank of 10, your cost-per-click is 10/5 = $2.

So What Is Quality Score Worth?
Knowing this is how cost-per-click is calculated, we’re able to determine the specific impact of any quality score on your cost-per-click.

And therefore the exact cost or savings from any single-digit increase or decrease in your quality score.

Yes that’s right – we can tell you the specific change in your CPC that is due to the quality score you’re getting for each of your keywords.

For example, your QS=10 keywords are enjoying a 30% CPC discount as compared to if they were QS=7 and in the same position. And your QS=4 keywords are paying a whopping 75% premium for their position.

The table below contains the complete list. This details the positive or negative impact quality score is having on the CPC prices you’re paying.

These factors are true regardless of your bid, position or those of your competitors. These are the impacts of Quality Score on your cost-per-click, anywhere, anytime.

As you can see, there are serious savings to be had with high quality scores (8, 9, or 10) and very high penalty costs to low quality scores (6 or below).

How We Calculated These Numbers
We calculated these values by comparing the impact of quality score on the price established at a wide range of Ad Rank values. This analysis showed that when QS was applied as the denominator of the equation, the Ad Rank values didn’t matter – the impact of each step of quality score was consistent. (Check out the raw data). So it was a simple task to compute percentage of impact each different QS had on CPC.

Note that we set QS=7 as the neutral value because using ClickEquations to review a wide range of accounts we’ve seen that QS=7 appears to be the mean quality score across a very large and diverse set of keywords.

In other words, most keywords get QS=7, that’s the typical score. So quality scores better than 7 can be considered better-than-average and thereby beneficial, and quality scores lower than 7 are lower-than-average and detrimental.

Two Important Disclaimers

1) Since quality score is used to first compute the Ad Rank and then to influence the CPC, you wouldn’t actually have the position you do if you didn’t have that quality score.

So it isn’t exactly accurate to say that your keyword is paying 30% less for position 1 at QS=10 than at QS=7, because in most cases you wouldn’t be at position 1 if you did have a QS=7. I think the relative value for each QS remains valid and valuable.

2) Google very likely calculates quality score not as an integer but as a real number (you your QS isn’t actually 6 but rather 6.329498) which means the impact would be more linear and not in the big steps the charts suggest. Thanks to commenters for pointing out that this fact was left out of the original post.

What Does A 1-Point Change Cost You?
Based on the same numbers, this next table documents the economic cost or benefit of having your quality score move up or down by 1 point.

As you can see, if your QS=9, then moving up 1 pt (to QS=10) will give you a 10% CPC discount. Starting from that same QS=9 and losing 1 pt (to QS=8) will result a 12.5% % CPC increase.

A Clear New Reason To Improve Your Quality Score
Knowing that your quality scores are saving you up to 30%, or costing you up to 133%, should further motivate everyone to both know and work to improve your quality scores.

In ClickEquations we have a lot of features that can help you improve quality score:

• We list QS (and the related Min First Page Bid) right next to each keyword so you can watch them carefully.
• Our ClickShare metrics tell you which ad groups and keywords aren’t getting as many clicks as they should – and why – which can help you drive up CTR which is by far the largest driver of quality score.
• Our ClickVariance metric tells you when you’ve got keywords in ad groups which are under-performing based on CTR, so you can move them into their own groups and write more applicable ads, or pause/delete them – thereby driving up average CTR
• Our complete search query detailed reporting lets you add new keywords and phrases that users have proven that they click on
• Our multivariate text-ad testing tool is the best possible way to drive up CTR – often by 2X-5X which skyrockets quality score
• The Quality Score Distribution template in ClickEquations Analyst lets you keep a direct eye on how your entire campaign is doing relative to Quality Score – and we’ve just updated it to show the actual $$ saved and expended due to the quality score cost numbers released in this post.

Click To Enlarge

And A Warning
One small word of caution regarding the existing, and likely to continue, flood of tips on improving quality score. Be very suspect of anything which promises to improve quality score by any method other than improving click-through-rate.

Relevance has it’s place. But both the new Google Video and other recent disclosures make clear that CTR drives quality score. You will not have meaningful impact getting your keywords into your text-ads, grouping keywords in better ways, and many of the other tactics getting over-hyped in some quarters. Relevance plays a supporting role, as does landing page to an even lesser degree, but both are trumped and trounced by CTR. Get great CTRs and you’ll get great QS’s. There is no other route.

Summary
We hope you’re as excited as we are about the discovery of the true economic benefit and cost of quality score.

Another small victory for transparency in the paid search process. Which means another tool to help us manage PPC in High Resolution.

To learn more about quality score, read our complete Quality Score blog post series from several months ago, or check out the replay of our recent Quality Score webinar or our SMX presentation on Quality Score Tips on video.

I don’t believe firms should have any trademark protection in advertising, online or offline, with the exception of cases where an advertiser attempts to mislead a consumer into thinking they’re visiting or doing business with one company when it’s actually another company.

But the use of trademarks to compare or contrast is obviously – to me – legitimate.

It is something that happens naturally in the world every day and cannot be stopped or protected. It can only be stopped and protected in a few un-natural segments of communication and commerce where lawyers can beat sanity into the ground.

The search engines have been one of these places, and trademark holders can file to prevent others from bidding on their brand terms or using these terms in ad copy. Many companies do this, and unfortunately when your competitors block, it’s semi-understandable why your company might block too just to keep the playing field level.

I understand why a company would want to prevent others from competing with them. It’s a nice fantasy.

I even think the search engines, of their own volition, should offer registered trademark holders guaranteed #1 position and some neato ‘certified-official’ icon for their PPC adverts. Just because it sort-of-sucks to have to pay insane prices for your own name. I get it.

But that doesn’t mean others should be stopped from buying the trademarked keyword or using it in their ads.

It’s called ‘free speach’ and if you can understand trademark law it shouldn’t be that hard for you to grasp. Not the technicality, the concept. Anyone can say anything if they’re not hurting anyone else. In this case, if you’re not misleading anyone, you should be able to speak.

So Google has a policy I don’t agree with. That’s their right. (And it’s not the only one).

But should using words in a non-misleading way be illegal? The folks at 1-800-Contacts think so.

That’s right. The same people who could only come up with entirely of generic words as a company name, think that the combination of these terms should be illegal for use as keywords or in advertisements of competitors.

Read about their pathetic actions here. Then call every contact-wearer you know and send them to shop at Lens.com.

You Need Killer PPC Software.

This is the phrase used to begin the announce of our Twitter Contest. Is it true?

During a recent Omniture webinar they claimed (I think it was a Jupiter statistic) that 85% of paid search accounts do not use any tools beyond those provided by the search engines.

If nearly 2 million advertisers can get by with nothing out Adwords itself and perhaps the Adwords Editor, why shouldn’t you?

The Obvious Reasons
The first reason many people think about 3rd party paid search software is the convenience of managing the three major search engines from within a single interface.

Logging into three web sites, navigating three different interfaces, and translating three different sets of terminology gets tiring fast.

The second reason seems to be a desire for some type of automated bid management.

It’s hard to figure out how much to bid, and the problem is compounded by the number of keywords being managed and the rate of competitive and other changes in the market.

The idea of algorithms that put some math on your side of the table is undeniably appealing. A huge amount of data that needs to be constantly crunched and re-crunched – the perfect job for computers and software.

These are both solid reasons – and alone (putting aside the actual quality of most bid management solutions for the time being) could easily justify the effort and expense of moving onto a paid search management platform.

But I don’t think these really capture the most important advantages paid search software currently provides, nor the more exciting benefits which are only now emerging.

Let Me Count The Ways
Paid search marketing campaigns are run to make money.

Their operation requires that you you buy and organize keywords, set bids and write text ads, and then read reports to see what we should change to make it all work better.

Each of those steps – even within this massive over-simplication of the process – takes a lot of time, has a ton of room for error, and can swing your costs or revenues dramatically in either direction.

PPC is a complicated task, both logically and logistically – and you can’t do it without good tools.

The question is whether you want to use the free ones provided by the people who have very little incentive to make you efficient or effective, or the paid ones from people for are only incented if they can do those things.

Now before the comments come in from my friends at Google or Yahoo or MSN (ok, I don’t have any MSN friends) let me clarify and expand that point. It’s not that they don’t build and deliver tools that are designed to both make it easier to use their services and to help you produce better results; I think generally speaking they are trying to do both.

But there are limits. First of all they have to build general purpose tools serving the needs of the full range of users. Most of whom would be generously described as casual users. They don’t want power and complexity and sophistication – they want basic utilitarian capabilities that can be understood and applied quickly and easily.

Secondly, these tools are designed with the idea of making it easier to use the engines to run the ads, and then supplimented with features to help you do so successfully. They’re not designed around the goal running profitable campaigns within the technical constraints of the engines.

This not wordplay. One is task oriented, and one is goal oriented. One is about how you satisfy their needs, one is focused on satisfying your needs. And they’re absolutely not the same.

Which is what’s wrong with the engine tools – it’s easy to complete the task but hard to accomplish the goal.

And it’s why most advertisers aren’t making nearly as much money as they could from paid search.

Let’s get more specific:

Creating and Editing Campaigns
In the nuts and bolts job of building campaigns and ad-groups, the engine web interfaces are fine, with some clear logical/quality differences between the various implementations (ie there are some crazy limitations with both the Yahoo and MSN interfaces.) For one-at-a-time adds and edits they generally work pretty well. The largest limitation they have is with the interface constraints of HTML or even AJAX, which the new beta Google Adwords interface looks to be the first to move beyond.

For both bulk and individual editing, the Google Adwords editor is excellent. It’s the standard to which most third party tools are playing catch up. The interface is fast, the layout intuitive, the features powerful, it’s just a great all around tool. If it supported Yahoo and MSN the third-parties would really have very few advantages in this area.

But this is the core of the utilitarian argument. They engines make money when you expand and tweak campaigns. So they do an excellent job of enabling you to do so.

Reporting clarity
Here the tables turn. The reporting capabilities of the engines are basic and unimpressive. They provide just enough data in their core web interfaces to make simplistic editorial decisions. They offer batch-mode report modules that can provide more data, but without real-time delivery it’s difficult or impractical to use them for serious analysis – unless you have the time to design and request many different reports (each time you want them), export them and then import them into excel, and then sit for hours digesting and interpreting.

The best of the third party tools make you much better informed, both in the midst of their editorial capabilies and with pure reporting and analysis modules. There are simply more reports, a greater ability to customize and save them, and much faster date and data filtering and intra-report navigation. This enhanced reporting enables more review, faster and deeper analysis, and better decision making.

In some cases, the reporting capabilities go beyond better access to the data provided by the engines, with enhanced data collected at the site (regarding user behaviour and conversion), and/or proprietary metrics which offer additional views or insights. Some even provide direct integration into excel for even more advanced charting, analysis, conditional formatting, and one-button updates. All of this enables smarter decisions based on better and deeper information.

But Wait, There’s More
Better reporting and simpler editing are important. They can be huge time savers. And for anyone who spends $10K or more per month and five or more hours or more managing their campaigns these benefits should easily more than justify the cost of paid search software.

But beyond this, what paid search software can and should really do that the engines themselves don’t is to help clarify what should be done and make it easier to accomplish the right changes.

Clarifying opportunity starts with simple alerts that warn you of ‘out of norm’ conditions. It includes advanced data insights such as our ClickShare and ClickVariance metrics and ‘what’s changed’ reports that highlight severe increases or decreases in performance that almost certainly require your reaction.

Getting things done features include keyword suggestions (positive or negative), automatic or suggested campaign re-organizations, multivariate text-ad testing, dynamic match-type assignments, day or geo-parting, cross-engine campaign cloning, and many more.

A range of initial versions of many of these features are available today. What’s it worth to get warned that your campaigns are making money in most states but losing a lot in a few others? How would your campaign improve with an MVT test that boosts your CTR by 350% in your top ad group? And these are just a few examples.

It’s Not If But When
Managing a paid search account without a high-end third-party PPC platform doesn’t make logical or economic sense. If you only use the engine interfaces, you’re agreeing to be disadvantaged in terms of the information you have access to, the pace at which you can make necessary changes, and the range of feasible analysis and improvements.

• You lose by spending money that shouldn’t be spent. In most accounts this is a solid double-digit percentage of your current spend.
• You lose by missing revenue that could have been had. This number is much harder to globally estimate, but it would be a rare account that didn’t have the potential for double-digit improvement due to better structure, CTR, or even bidding.
• You save 2%-5% of your spend – unless your spend is huge in which case you save even less.

Paid search management tools, I need to point out, don’t do these things by themselves. They really just enable better results by enabling deeper understanding and more efficient execution. The ‘battery not included’ in this case is an engaged and intelligent search manager. It’s only in their capable and properly resourced (as in with enough time and even assistance) hands that these tools are advantageous.

It makes sense to work without high-end tools if you only spend a few thousand dollars per month on paid search. There’s clearly no need for a professional tool if you don’t have a professional person using it.

But expecting a full time search manager to wisely carve up and and spend thousands or tens-of-thousands of dollars each month and serve up good or even great returns in this competitive market, with the technical equivalent of a butter knife, is quite a lot to ask.

Which software platform should you buy? How should you decide? That’s a topic we’ll tackle here soon. (Despite my clear bias and preference for ClickEquations.)

It’s a tad early for year-end predictions, but I’ll make one anyway. 2009 will be the year search queries overtake ‘keywords’ as the focal point of interest among PPC managers.

Search queries, by way of definition, are the words and phrases user type into the search box before clicking the ‘Search’ button. They’re often and confusingly called ‘keywords, both in organic search and even within PPC.

In the paid search world we should pay close attention to search queries and the way they’re matched with the keywords we bid on – to determine how we can tune or keyword buys, match types, bids, text-ads, and landing pages.

Most paid search manager don’t have full access to every query for every click they pay for. Yahoo and MSN don’t provide them and Google Adwords provides only a very partial list and not matched at the keyword level.

Providing clear, complete, and detailed search query information is one of the great features in our ClickEquations paid search platform, and a few others provide query access as well.

Recently we’ve talked to a number of advertisers who’ve been mining queries to move to a much higher percentage of exact match keyword buys – a practice we’ve found to increase volumes and lower costs.

And this week Google introduced a new keyword expansion tool which can provide you with lists of actual search queries related to your keywords and your landing pages.

This is a great help. Both as a research tool, as additional insight into the algorithms google uses to contextually relate words and pages, and to get more people to think about the distinction between queries and keywords.

If you find the new Google Search-Based Keyword Tool useful, imagine how great it would be to see nearly every query for every click you’re paying for in your current search campaigns.