Why perform a structural audit?

SparkX has recently launched the "Smart Audit" feature, now open for early access. You can contact your customer success manager to apply.

SparkX has three healthy structure standards (refer to the intelligent creation of SP), which are:

SparkX recommended structure diagram

SparkX intelligent creation structure reference diagram

The common features of the three SparkX structures are that at the Ad Group level, the advertised product is unique (single parent ASIN) and the targeting match type is unique (single targeting match type)

Moving from the Binary structure to the Precise structure, the required budget, management cost, and number of Campaigns gradually increase, while the granularity of ad delivery becomes more refined.

On the basis of an already pure structure, the definition of structure optimization is to determine the strategy that should be adopted based on life cycle, competitiveness, and spending ability, and to find the optimal balance point between management capability and refinement.

Based on the definition of SparkX recommended structures, when there are multiple advertised products (ASIN mixing) or multiple targeting match types (targeting type mixing) under an Ad Group, it can be used as a reference for diagnosing unhealthy structure.

Based on the definition of SparkX recommended structures, whether it is a Binary structure or a Precise structure, sufficient diversity is required in the advertising strategy to jointly constitute the ad structure traffic system of an ASIN.

For example:

When the Brand advertising strategy is missing, it will neglect traffic defense, allowing competitors to "take advantage of the weakness".

When the Auto/Broad advertising strategy is missing, it will greatly reduce the acquisition of associated Search Terms, resulting in the inability to find and obtain new traffic entry points.

Whether the advertising structure is complete and matches the ASIN's advertising depends on the ASIN's life cycle, competitiveness, spending ability, and category situation.

When there are multiple targeting options under an Ad Group, there may be situations where some high-traffic keywords consume a large portion of the budget, causing other keywords to be unable to generate spend/impressions. In this case, although the high-traffic and low-traffic keywords have a unified match type, the high-traffic keywords still need to be split at the budget management dimension (Campaign) and allocated a separate budget.

The following situations increase the probability of unbalanced structures:

In scenarios where multiple parent ASINs and multiple targeting options coexist within the same Ad Group, there is a many-to-many mapping relationship between ASINs and targeting options. Without the aid of AMS data, it is impossible to accurately evaluate the data.

For example: A certain targeting X performs poorly. The underlying logic may be that X performs well on ASIN A but performs poorly on ASIN B. However, in a mixed structure (without the aid of AMS data), it is impossible to obtain this insight.

In cases where multiple parent ASINs and multiple Match Types coexist, it may result in the inability to properly execute certain optimization operations, causing limitations on the action boundaries of ad management.

Known scope of operations that may be affected: bidding, keyword addition, negative keywords, bidding strategies, etc.

For example: For the exact negation operation of the targeting "iphone case" with Match Type = BROAD, it will also cause the targeting "iphone case" with Match Type = EXACT in the same Ad Group to no longer generate traffic. Therefore, this operation cannot be properly executed in a mixed structure.

Based on the previous two points, in the absence of sufficiently accurate insights and with limited action boundaries, manual/AI ad management cannot achieve refinement, which may ultimately affect the delivery performance of ads.

When an ASIN has never used a certain strategy, it is impossible to verify the revenue of that strategy, potentially causing the ASIN to lose potential traffic entry points.

In addition, placing keywords with different match types in the same Campaign/Ad Group causes keywords with broader match types (such as Broad Match) to consume most of the budget, preventing Exact Match keywords from getting exposure opportunities.