Session 20: SEM Audit, Quality Score & Finalizing A3

Block 3: The Real-World Technical SEO/SEM Audit (A3)

View lecture slides: Session 20 Slides

Template: finalise the A3 prioritised actions in the SEO Triage Matrix before submission.

1-Hour Lecture (Theory & Strategy)

  • SEM audits mirror SEO audits: check account structure (campaign → ad group → keyword → ad relevance), Quality Score drivers (expected CTR, ad relevance, landing page experience), and wasted-spend signals (broad match with no negatives, low-relevance search terms).
  • Read the full theory here: Intro to SEM/PPC, Campaign Structure, and Ad Performance.
  • Recap the Phase 1 reference for quick lookups: Google Ads Reference.
  • Report structure for A3: Executive summary (3 bullets) → Keyword mapping → On-page/technical fixes → SEM observations (if applicable) → Prioritized action list → Appendix (screenshots/evidence).
flowchart TD
    SEM[SEM Account Structure Review] --> QS[Quality Score Drivers]
    QS --> OBS[SEM Observations]
    S17[S17 Technical Findings] --> RPT[SEO Mini-Audit Report]
    S18[S18 Keyword Map] --> RPT
    S19[S19 Prioritized Actions] --> RPT
    OBS --> RPT
    RPT --> SUB[Submit Assignment A3]

Figure 1: Assembling and submitting the A3 SEO Mini-Audit report

Key Concepts in Depth

Quality Score (1–10, at keyword level) summarises three components: expected CTR, ad relevance, and landing-page experience. Higher Quality Score improves Ad Rank, so you can win the same position for a lower cost per click.

A simplified view of the auction: Ad Rank ≈ max CPC bid × Quality Score, and the actual CPC you pay ≈ (Ad Rank of the advertiser below you ÷ your Quality Score) + a small increment. Real auctions include more factors, but the direction holds: better relevance means cheaper clicks.

SEM audit checklist:

  1. Structure: tightly themed ad groups (one idea per group), each with matching ads and landing pages.
  2. Match types and negatives: broad match without negative keywords leaks budget to irrelevant searches.
  3. Search terms report: what people actually typed; add irrelevant terms as negatives.
  4. Ads: headlines that echo the keyword; assets (sitelinks, callouts, call buttons).
  5. Landing page: matches the ad promise, loads fast on mobile, has one clear CTA.
  6. Conversion tracking: without it, bidding and reporting are blind.

The A3 report opens with a three-bullet executive summary, then the keyword map, fixes, SEM notes, prioritised actions and an evidence appendix.

Worked Example: Pathshala Tutors (Running Case)

Search terms review (one month, NPR 12,500 spend): the broad-match keyword “ielts” triggered “ielts result”, “ielts registration date”, “ielts free pdf” and “ielts jobs”. These irrelevant terms consumed about 30% of spend: NPR 3,750 wasted per month.

Fixes:

  • Add negatives: result, registration, pdf, free, jobs, idp, british council.
  • Split into ad groups: “IELTS classes Lalitpur”, “IELTS online class”, “IELTS fee”.
  • Point each ad group to its matching page, not the home page.

Quality Score effect (simplified): the advertiser below has an Ad Rank of 120.

Your Quality Score Actual CPC ≈ 120 ÷ QS
4 NPR 30
8 NPR 15

Doubling Quality Score roughly halves the price of the same position. Combined with the recovered NPR 3,750, the same budget buys far more relevant clicks.

Executive summary for A3:

  1. Six course pages are blocked from Google; unblocking them is a 10-minute fix.
  2. Mobile pages load in 4.8 s; compressing one image should bring LCP under 2.5 s.
  3. About 30% of search ad spend goes to irrelevant searches; adding negatives recovers about NPR 3,750 a month.

1-Hour Lab (Agency Execution)

  1. If your audit site runs (or mock-runs) Google/Meta ads, review the mock campaign structures from Phase 1 Session 4: SEM & Paid Search and Phase 1 Session 5: Paid Social Media Strategy for ad-group-to-keyword relevance and note any Quality-Score red flags (broad match with no negative keywords, generic ad copy vs. specific ad groups).
  2. If no live SEM account exists, substitute a 10-minute peer audit swap: review a classmate’s mock Google Ads structure from Phase 1 and give one Quality Score observation.
  3. Assemble your full A3 SEO Mini-Audit report using the structure from the lecture: executive summary, keyword map (Session 18), fixes (Session 19), SEM notes, prioritized actions, evidence appendix.
  4. Proofread against the rubric, then submit.

Common Mistakes

  • Running broad match with no negative keywords and never reading the search terms report.
  • Sending every ad to the home page.
  • Chasing a higher Quality Score number instead of the business metric (CPL, CAC).
  • An A3 report that hides the key findings on page 8 instead of in a three-bullet executive summary.

Deliverable: Assignment A3 — Submitted

SEO Mini-Audit report complete. Block 4 shifts focus to email automation, analytics, and finalizing A2.

Summary

An SEM audit checks account structure, match types and negatives, search terms, ad relevance, landing pages and conversion tracking. Quality Score (expected CTR, ad relevance, landing-page experience) lowers the price of each click. The A3 report brings SEO and SEM findings together under a short executive summary and a prioritised action list.

Key Takeaways

  • Quality Score = expected CTR + ad relevance + landing-page experience.
  • Better relevance means cheaper clicks.
  • The search terms report shows where money is wasted.
  • Lead the report with three findings a manager can act on.

Review Questions

Short answer

  1. Name the three components of Quality Score.
  2. What is a negative keyword? Give three examples for an IELTS institute.
  3. Why should each ad group point to its own landing page?

Applied (case) questions

  1. A travel agency spends NPR 40,000 a month on Google Ads; 25% goes to searches containing “visa form” and “embassy address”. Calculate the waste and propose fixes.
  2. Using the simplified formula, compare the CPC for Quality Scores of 3, 6 and 9 when the Ad Rank below you is 90. What does this mean for budget planning?