15% of specialists do not structure campaigns by any of these parameters at all or very rarely. On the contrary, only 2% of respondents said that they always or very often use the division according to all 4 options.
And now it’s getting interesting! The second question was: How do you work with matches?
plus or minus 30% of specialists admitted that they still add all matches to all reports (feel free to write to me in the comments why you do this. Because I never understood it, I think it unnecessarily obscures the campaigns)
and the same percentage mostly bc data china uses only free modified and only separates top words into separate campaigns in exact
28% of people structure matches within a single campaign
40% of respondents always have 2 versions of their campaigns
only 8% use SKAG, 2% have everything how to choose the right program in loose agreement and the same number answered that they have everything in exact agreement
Many of you chose several options, some even all of them. Apparently it depends on the size of the budget and the market. Only 2 people said they use the Royal Berl structure .
A very good idea was mentioned
By an anonymous person: instead of broad or broad modified match campaigns, they use DSA campaigns. And then they create exact school email list match campaigns. We have now also switched to 100% DSA campaigns at one company. But they have a great SEO solution and low budgets.
At uLab, we sometimes add sets with pure free matches, which serve as inspiration. Quite often, it helps us discover some variants that we hadn’t thought of. Maybe even in another language.