×
GlobalIndiaThailandUAEUSA
Back
Back
Head of Marketing - Earned Media
Advertising | Google
Running Google Ads without solid keyword research is a fast...
By Narender Singh
Jan 29, 2026 | 5 Minutes | 
| 
Running Google Ads without proper keyword research is expensive. Really expensive. You'll burn through budget faster than you'd think possible, all while wondering why your campaigns aren't working.
The thing is, most people approach keyword research backwards. They think about what they want to sell instead of what people are actually searching for. That the first mistake.
Here something that took me years to really understand: a keyword with 100,000 monthly searches isn't automatically better than one with 1,000 searches. Volume looks impressive in reports, but it doesn't pay the bills.
What matters is intent. Someone typing "what is project management software" probably isn't ready to buy. They're just learning. But someone searching "Asana vs Monday pricing comparison"? That person has their credit card ready.
You want keywords that signal buying intent. Commercial investigation queries like "best," "review," "comparison," and "vs" are gold. Transactional terms like "buy," "pricing," "demo," and "trial" are even better. Save the educational content for your blog, where organic traffic makes sense.
The informational stuff has its place, sure. But when you're paying per click, every dollar needs to work harder.
This one drives me crazy. Companies create these elaborate product names and expect customers to search for them. "Enterprise grade multi cloud orchestration platform." Nobody types that into Google.
Your customers aren't using your marketing language. They're using their language. The sales team knows this better than anyone because they hear it every day. The phrases customers use in support tickets, on phone calls, in emails, that your real keyword list.
Sit down with someone who actually talks to customers. You'll discover that people search for "easy accounting software for freelancers," not "SMB focused financial management solutions." The gap between what companies say and what customers search for is usually massive.
Yeah, you need to use Keyword Planner. It free, it built into Google Ads and the data comes straight from actual searches. But treating it as your only research tool is limiting.
Type in your core terms and see what Google suggests. Pay attention to the bid estimates, they tell you how competitive and expensive each keyword is. A keyword showing a $45 suggested bid better be converting like crazy, or you're going to hemorrhage money.
But here the thing: Keyword Planner shows you what Google wants you to see. Tools like SEMrush, Ahrefs, SpyFu, they show you what your competitors are actually bidding on. That different. Sometimes you'll find keyword opportunities that Keyword Planner barely mentioned because the volume looks low, but the conversion rate is ridiculous.
Competitor research matters because they've already spent money testing keywords. Learn from their experiments instead of repeating them.
Broad match sounds great in theory. Maximum reach, Google smart matching, all that. In practice? You'll get clicks from searches that have nothing to do with your business.
Start tight. Exact match and phrase match give you control. You know what triggers your ads. You can calculate ROI. You're not guessing.
Broad match has its uses once you know what you're doing. But launching a campaign on broad match from day one is like opening your wallet and telling Google to take whatever it wants. They will.
Phrase match is probably the sweet spot for most campaigns. You get some flexibility without completely losing control. Your keyword can show up with other words around it, which catches variations you didn't think of, but you're not showing up for random garbage searches.
Short, generic keywords get all the attention. "Shoes." "Insurance." "Software." Everyone wants to rank for the big one word terms.
Here what actually happens: those keywords cost a fortune and half the clicks are from people who aren't even close to your target customer. Someone searching "shoes" could want anything. Running shoes, dress shoes, baby shoes, shoe repair. You're paying for traffic you can't use.
Go specific. "Waterproof hiking boots women size 8" has way less search volume. But everyone searching that term wants exactly what it says. The cost per click is lower because fewer advertisers compete for it. The conversion rate is higher because the intent is crystal clear.
This isn't revolutionary advice, but most advertisers still chase high volume generic terms and then complain that Google Ads doesn't work. It works fine when you target keywords that actually match what you sell.
If you're not checking your search terms report weekly, you're doing Google Ads wrong. This report shows exactly what people typed before clicking your ads.
You'll find new keywords you never considered. You'll also find absolute garbage, searches that triggered your ads but have zero chance of converting. Both are valuable.
The good stuff? Add it as new keywords. The bad stuff? Add it as negative keywords immediately. This isn't optional maintenance. Your campaigns decay without this.
I've seen accounts where 40 percent of ad spend went to completely irrelevant searches. Just bleeding money because nobody bothered to check what was actually triggering the ads. Five minutes a week reviewing search terms can save thousands of dollars a month.
Finding the best keywords for Google Ads isn't just about what to target. What you exclude matters equally, maybe more.
Selling premium furniture? Add "cheap," "free," "DIY," and "used" as negatives. Running local services? Add every city you don't serve. B2B software? Probably want to exclude "student," "free," and "homework."
Build your negative keyword list aggressively. Start with the obvious ones, then add more every week based on your search terms report. A strong negative keyword list is the difference between profitable campaigns and wasted budget.
Some advertisers treat this like busywork. It not. It budget protection.
Search behavior isn't static. If you sell tax software and run the same campaigns year round with the same budget, you're leaving money on the table in March and wasting it in July.
Google Trends shows you exactly how search volume fluctuates. Some keywords spike at specific times. Others are steady year round. Your budget allocation should match these patterns.
This applies to weekly patterns too. B2B searches drop on weekends. Retail searches spike on mobile during lunch hours and evenings. You can adjust bids by time of day and day of week. Most advertisers don't bother, which means they're overpaying during low conversion times and under bidding during peak hours.
Bidding on competitor brand names is controversial. Some people think it genius. Others think it a waste of money because click through rates are terrible and Google charges a premium.
Both are right, depending on the situation.
If you're a legitimate alternative to a competitor, bidding on their brand name can work. Someone searching "Mailchimp alternatives" is actively looking for options. That a reasonable target.
But bidding on "Mailchimp" directly when someone is trying to log into their account? You'll pay a lot for clicks from people who have zero interest in switching. The quality score tanks, the cost per click skyrockets and you're essentially funding Google quarterly earnings.
Test it carefully. Track the conversion rate separately from your other campaigns. If it profitable, great. If not, kill it fast.
This isn't a one time project. Search behavior changes. New competitors enter your space. Your product evolves. The keywords that crushed it six months ago might be bleeding money now.
Set aside time every month for keyword research. Look for new opportunities. Check if your top keywords are still performing. See what competitors are doing differently.
The best Google Ads accounts treat keyword management as ongoing optimization, not a launch task. You're constantly testing, refining, cutting losers and doubling down on winners.
Most advertisers set up campaigns and then ignore them for months. Then they wonder why performance gradually declines. Neglect kills campaigns slowly.
When you find new keyword opportunities, don't dump your entire budget into them immediately. Test small.
Add a few keywords to an existing ad group. Give them a week or two. See what happens. If they convert, scale up. If they burn money, pause them and move on.
This applies to new match types, new competitor terms, seasonal keywords, anything new. Small tests are cheap lessons. Big launches based on hunches are expensive mistakes.
Track everything at the keyword level. Cost per click, conversion rate, cost per conversion, return on ad spend. Some keywords look great on paper but perform terribly in reality. You won't know until you test.
Here what finding the best keywords for Google Ads really looks like: Start with customer language, not marketing speak. Use multiple research tools, not just one. Prioritize intent over volume. Test long tail variations. Use tight match types until you have data. Build a massive negative keyword list. Review search terms religiously. Adjust for seasonal patterns. Test competitor keywords carefully. Treat it as ongoing work, not a launch task.
None of this is complicated. But most advertisers skip steps, chase vanity metrics, or set campaigns to autopilot too quickly. Then they blame Google Ads for not working when the real problem was lazy keyword research.
The keywords you choose determine everything. Who sees your ads. How much you pay per click. Whether those clicks turn into customers. Whether your campaigns are profitable or just expensive experiments.
Get the keyword research right and Google Ads becomes one of the most predictable, scalable acquisition channels you have. Get it wrong and you'll burn through budget wondering why nothing works.
Most of the difference between successful campaigns and failed ones comes down to this: successful campaigns target the right keywords and failed campaigns target whatever seemed like a good idea at launch.
That it. That the gap.