{"id":28059,"date":"2026-07-08T23:44:51","date_gmt":"2026-07-08T18:14:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.karooya.com\/blog\/?p=28059"},"modified":"2026-07-08T23:44:52","modified_gmt":"2026-07-08T18:14:52","slug":"ppcchat-some-google-ads-hot-takes-to-get-us-talking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.karooya.com\/blog\/ppcchat-some-google-ads-hot-takes-to-get-us-talking\/","title":{"rendered":"PPCChat | Some Google Ads Hot Takes to Get Us Talking | 7th July 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Inspired by a post from Jyll Saskin Gales<\/a>, this week’s PPCChat took a closer look at five bold Google Ads declarations<\/a>. Led by Julie F Bacchini<\/a>, this discussion was filled with practical insights and expert perspectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

First Declaration: \u201cAudience signals and search themes are placebos”<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The way to control your targeting in PMax is through your ad creative, bid strategy, conversion settings & customer lifecycle goals (and soon\u2026 AI Brief!) There\u2019s no harm in using signals, but they are not an optimisation lever and may be completely ignored by your campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q1: What are your thoughts on this?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

This gives me hives. I am not saying she is wrong, but the entire concept of an advertiser being only able to provide suggestions to a platform where they pay by the click is insanity to me. Or that you have to hope the platform gets what you have in actual customer data from your creative, etc., is also bananas. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, we all knew this was coming and the case with PMax. The audience helps, but Google will decide in the end. The day of the credit card and link are coming sooner rather than later. @Ichasse<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Audience Signals can do more harm then good. Search Themes can be helpful, but depends on what they are. @duanebrown<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think she might be right saying the themes and audiences don’t work. In my mind both of those were placebos to give an illusion of control to advertisers. The Max campaign types are the beachhead for action=targeting campaigns ie ad display based on what happens after the ad was seen (clicked, converted etc) @Pete_Bowen<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@duanebrown<\/a> Which ones do you find are most helpful for performance ? @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I can’t say she’s totally wrong, but changing audience signals have definitely brought different results with the same assets (not using multiple asset groups with difference signals, mind you – just changing the audience signals in an existing asset group). And I wish<\/strong> the assets had MORE influence– but that’s not my observation with NON-Product campaigns. @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assets are in an upcoming question\u2026It is hard for me to wrap my head around having audience and historical keyword data and that not being allowed to directly influence a campaign I am paying for. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Microsoft Advertising, audience signals and search themes are not hard targeting levers, but they are not placebos either. They provide Microsoft AI with additional context about relevant audiences and intent, helping guide optimization and accelerate learning. Campaign goals, bidding, conversion tracking, creative assets, landing pages, URL expansion settings, and budget generally have a larger impact on overall performance, but search themes and audience signals remain important inputs to the system. @navahhopkins<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We end up having to trust Google will do the right thing. I do find more targeted PMax campaigns tend to do better than very broad ones if you have a lot of data with them. Sometimes in our quest for “control” we over optimize though, so I can see the argument against letting folks do everything to a campaign as well. I have audited accounts where they were very much overoptimized to the point of making the campaign just not work. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s also important to note that search themes that overlap with exact match keywords might result in lower PMax traffic since exact match takes precedence @navahhopkins<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I do feel that audience signals in Google are much like Advantage+ audiences in Meta.  If you haven’t made the proper audience, then Meta and Google both take WIDE liberties to make sure they spend you budget. @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also think the gap between all of this \u201ctrust me bro\u201d setup with the  Max campaign types and performance we had deep insight into and could sculpt strategies is still pretty big. It is more of a you have to accept this much worse performance to get the benefit of the backend using data it didn\u2019t use to use in this way. Google assumes that you have a certain percentage of your budget to just burn in a Max setting and that is a new concept too. Albeit one that is not directly talked about @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@navahhopkins<\/a> this is the opposite of what has happened in some of my campaigns. Literally 0 exact matches in search almost overnight (but not necessarily due to pmax) @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is exactly why negatives are so important as well. We can still funnel traffic into certain campaigns if we do things correctly. The issue with this is if Google has a higher ad rank for your PMax campaign than your regular campaign, and your regular campaign is not as good as someone else’s PMax or regular campaign you could lose on qualified traffic. It becomes a very tough situation. It is more complex now than it has ever been on some levels. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@Ichasse<\/a> It is also a lot less transparent @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@ynotweb<\/a> Microsoft’s logic puts exact-match searches above PMax in the auction (everything else comes down to ad rank). Are you saying you added your exact match keywords as search themes and the exact match keywords didn’t get traffic? navahhopkins<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We used to be able to find something that worked for a brand and create an SOP that would hold up for 1-2 years. I kind of miss those days. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@navahhopkins<\/a> oh yes, definitely different in Google than MS PMax @Ichasse<\/a> now we can’t even have SOPs that last 2+ months @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Microsoft does handle things differently than Google; again, I wish their audience was as big and good as Google’s. Microsoft is much more advertiser-friendly with the priority tiers than Google is. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Agree that Microsoft is less draconian in these changes. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I will just say, this is why we rarely use Pmax. @beyondthepaid<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@ynotweb<\/a> Yeah, I don’t even create them anymore because the upkeep on them is almost impossible if you have a full load of work on top of keeping them updated. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I was only chiming in with the Microsoft-specific mechanic because it’s easy to assume they’ll behave the same way – Audience signals and Search themes do matter. That said, I fully agree that conversion values and reasonable goals + solid landing pages will be more helpful in reaching customers than static keywords @navahhopkins<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I really hate that the single most intent-oriented data point we have – a query by a searcher – keeps getting devalued in this process. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ads folks are still used to the old ways of doing things (unfortunately). Some of the biggest predictors of success are outside the ads platform altogether (landing pages, content, shopping cart experience, etc\u2026). Ads are just the first step in that whole process, but that whole process has an impact on our ads and the signals being sent to the platforms. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Queries aren’t getting devalued – it’s just easier to reach more of the right humans if your landing pages provide clear signal that you serve that user, your audiences and creative match the ideal user, and negatives\/exclusions are in place to mitigate overreach @navahhopkins<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If I am driving from Maine to California, the platform is looking at that whole trip where we as ads folks tend to hyperfocus on Maine to New Hampshire. The platforms have to serve their clients which are making the whole trip. If the car breaks down in Tennessee, then we may not be looking at that, but the platforms are. They don’t want a poor user experience for their users, so they may not give us a great score on planning our trip. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think the bigger discussion at this point is now – how to we talk about spending relative to platforms doing exploration based on their ideas and less about ours and the knowledge off the platform that we\/advertisers have @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

BTW, I prefer the old ways as well if I am being honest. I just also know there is no way any of the platforms are going to do that for us ever again, lol. They have stockholders and advertisers who do not want to hire the best talent out there to run their ads, which the old ways also needed to find the best opportunities. The big advertisers want to only pay small teams (no teams if possible) and they want solid performance. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@Ichasse<\/a> sad but true. @beyondthepaid<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I agree with you @Ichasse<\/a> which is why I am bringing up the whole – how do we talk about spend now? Because before it was about testing and pruning to get specific results. Now it is enter some stuff and \u201ctrust\u201d the platforms to do what is best with much less insight into what is actually driving conversions. It is a huge change. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am also not fond of platforms testing on our dimes, especially for brands who do not have deep pockets. It almost feels like theft to me cloaked in a “learning period” or just tests we always run. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would be fine if platforms said x% of your budget this month was used for different tests we did, so we are not going to charge you for these tests. If my client gives me a budget, we usually discuss testing budgets so they know 10% is going to try campaigns we have not tried before or targeting markets we have not targeted, etc\u2026 The platforms can just do what they want, and we have zero say in the matter. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@navahhopkins<\/a> to say queries aren’t getting devalued because everything else is just a more important part of the auction feels off to me. Seems like saying inflation doesn’t devalue the dollar, it just makes everything else more expensive. Or if you have a recipe, you’re not putting less of ingredient X in, you’re just doubling everything else. By emphasizing EVERY other signal, that inherently makes the remaining variable much less of a determining factor of the outcome. Which isn’t an absolute negative, but there are MANY instances where I’d argue it is, unfortunately. @AnthonyMcDaniel<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@AnthonyMcDaniel<\/a> based on your response – it sounds like there’s a conflation of keywords and queries. The queries are very important and remain a signal that should influence campaigns (which is why Microsoft shows you all search terms that result in a click). What I’m getting at is that keywords (especially syntax-oriented ones) aren’t going to be as effective as other signals to help with targeting the right humans and excluding the wrong ones. For example, I was looking for a chiropractor for my husky and searched for “dog chiropractor in Johnston RI” and “chiropractor for dogs”. Both times, Google gave me human chiropractor ads and organic results. Bing gave me chiropractors that were for dogs, but most of them were too far away or weren’t accepting new patients. I have zero chance of becoming a customer for the brands I found through Google (and now I’m getting chiropractor ads on my Google surfaces). Keyword-oriented bidding put those ads there. While Bing’s results weren’t as close to me as I would like, they at least had a chance of winning my business and had landing page clues to help contextually match the brand to my query. @navahhopkins<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Second Declaration: \u201cThe reason to have a different asset group is because you have different ASSETS, not different audience signals”<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Creating 5 PMax asset groups with the same assets in each, but different signals, is like creating 5 search ad groups with the exact same RSA and broad match keyword in each. Pointless duplication that can hinder performance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q2: What are your thoughts on this?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

I know Google does not want us doing this. But honestly with the how budgets will work changes, I feel even less comfortable about just dumping everything together and letting the platform \u201cfigure it out.\u201d And if you don\u2019t know what I am talking about with the budget and bidding changes, here is a great write up on it: @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This might be worth a test or two. @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

campaign setup because so much of how it will perform is outside of what we input  @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have a client with constantly changing “products”. Every month new priorities with the same “theme”. I’m willing to try just about anything because in Google, search term matching has reduced to nothing. @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We utilize Meta without cost caps most commonly here, and Google seemingly pressing us to start handling campaigns in the same manner moving forward unfortunately. There will be a lot of internal testing with this change over here on how best to handle. @Ryansappington<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I understand the sentiment, but I’d like to see hard evidence of this in a major campaign. I don’t have clients spending enough that I would get statistically significant data to prove this out one way or another. Anyone else test this before? @AnthonyMcDaniel<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Third Declaration: \u201cYour ad creative must appeal to your target audience, and just as importantly, NOT appeal to your NOT target audience”<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This is especially important with broader targeting (like PMax or AI Max) and\/or in B2B. Getting the wrong person to NOT click on your ad can be just as valuable as enticing the right person TO click on your ad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q3: What are your thoughts on this?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Yep, this makes sense. The sooner you can filter out the wrong people the better. And, I’d far rather the algo learn that my ad isn’t going to be clicked than learn from a later conversion after I’ve paid for it. @Pete_Bowen<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

100% agree. @beyondthepaid<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is where I see the most ROI on creative and critical strategy – ensuring creative and message mapping is on point @navahhopkins<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is why we accept low quality scores in B2B. CTRs are usually not great – intentionally. We want to weed out all the consumer traffic @beyondthepaid<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is absolutely an art to this that many advertisers don\u2019t apply. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is rough when you have a very appealing product but a VERY small geographic area. @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

People also still don\u2019t read ads – but that will always be a problem. Using terms like \u201centerprise\u201d or \u201ccommercial\u201d to weed out consumer level can be helpful. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes advertisers get weird about using language to have people not click too. Like why do you want to pay for traffic that will NEVER convert? If you have a service based business this can be even more important. Be clear on where you serve. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is exactly why audience signals would be vital. Also, who’s to say that people are putting language in their ads to specify service-area, audience-type, b2b vs b2c but Google doesn’t choose to SHOW that asset because it gets less clicks. right now I am VERY happy I am not dealing in b2b @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think some of my skepticism comes from basic things like geographic targeting still needing backstopping. When you have to still include areas you don\u2019t want traffic from as exclusions, it does not inspire confidence that the algorithm or machine learning or AI can determine this without the manual safeguards. That is a piece that needs improvement @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@NeptuneMoon<\/a> Exactly @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@ynotweb<\/a> that scenario is the very one platforms are trying to tell us they \u201cjust know\u201d and I\u2019d like to know how they are differentiating these things without it being front and center in a query???? @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ads should pre-qualify or disqualify – saves you from irrelevant expensive clicks. @revaminkoff<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

You know what else would really be helpful? If we could target EXACT queries. This seems like Google making a bad change to constantly loosen up “close variant” matching, and then making it our job to filter out people with ad copy. @AnthonyMcDaniel<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Fourth Declaration: \u201cHigh CPCs are not the enemy; low-quality traffic is”<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

High CPCs are a feature, not a bug, of Smart Bidding. More desirable clicks are more expensive. It\u2019s an auction! Use CPCs as a diagnostic tool, like Quality Score or Impression Share, not an end-goal metric<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q4: What are your thoughts on this?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

What about expensive low quality traffic? @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Low quality traffic is the enemy. Expensive low quality traffic is the worst. Does that make it the devil? @revaminkoff<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

yeah, a hard pill to swallow— now we have to actually get to the $100s to determine if something is just not worth it for cost\/conversion or ROAS @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would love a \u201cstop chasing this\u201d toggle to short circuit some weird and expensive paths that go on for too long @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think the variance on CPCs is too high to use as a diagnostic though – sometimes a keyword can be very relevant and still expensive or be irrelevant and cheap or\u2026 I’ve seen every combo. @revaminkoff<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think of the irrelevant but cheap as “death by a thousand cuts” @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’m interested if everyone has adopted conversion values or if most campaigns are still leaving those off. Because conversion values (and conversion value rules) are one of the best ways to communicate with algorithms @navahhopkins<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

personally would rather pay a little more for the relevant that have the 1000s of “but mayyyybe they are interested”. However, I also feel like relevants are just artificially inflated– like eggs. Because they can. @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, this goes back to my point about how we have to talk about spend with clients. There is just a percentage now that will get spent with the platform learning or chasing or trying things that previously would not have happened. Now, that can lead to a positive place where you find paths you would not have. And it can also burn funds with little to no return. So we need to be talking about spend differently to adapt to the way things work now. @navahhopkins<\/a> I find conversion values under utilized generally @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@navahhopkins<\/a> I also find it is under utilized. I also find it does not do a great job of hitting the goals most of the time. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@navahhopkins<\/a> I am not a fan of conversion values when there’s no revenue attached. @revaminkoff<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think advertisers also struggle with setting values. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I see too many people try to use random values or even well-considered ones, and then they think that’s the actual ROI or value being driven, and it gets really messy. @revaminkoff<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many do not want to send actual sales data back into an ad platform, so they have to come up with relative values to use instead. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

High CPCs aren’t the enemy, but that doesn’t mean they’re my friend! Low CPC doesn’t always mean low quality traffic, although they can often be correlated. So while I agree with the sentiment, it also feels a bit like we’re excusing the fact that we used to be able to get good traffic AND low cpcs, but now it’s just too much to ask for that. @AnthonyMcDaniel<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wholly agree to this, but high cpc’s are often accidental or unnecessary\u2026.@Aaronlevy<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Final Declaration: \u201cYour data is your competitive advantage”<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Google Ads is no longer about control vs. automation; it\u2019s control WITH automation. Your conversion data and your customer data are your two best control levers – and your competitors don\u2019t have access to either of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q5: What are your thoughts on this?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

This is the most frustrating part when your customer data is not available to use to teach Google Ads. That’s why cutting out signals that people who KNOW the product, the target audience, and the target geography is so VERY damaging. I don’t have time to teach the Google AI intern. @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Agreed. The biggest challenge is what to do about customers where one or both don’t apply. @revaminkoff<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, not every advertiser is comfortable uploading customer data to a company like Google\u2026And if they are, many do not have that data in a format that can quickly and easily be output to upload. The assumption that this is the case is a faulty one. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am finding these clients (that cannot or will not upload customer data) are doing better on social platforms that allow them to use their follower\/engager audiences as signals. @ynotweb<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Look here is the hard truth. We had control -> control w\/automation -> Then it will be fully automated. Not sure how long it will be, probably depends on how quickly they can become comfortable with AI’s generation of copy\/images, etc\u2026 but it is coming. A marketer’s job will be managing the different platforms based on the audiences and budgets. Controlling what they allow us to control. This right now is the most control we will ever have moving forward. @Ichasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hard agree with @revaminkoff<\/a> and @ynotweb<\/a> on this. On top of this, some advertisers have both, but aren’t spending 6-figures a month, so they aren’t able to achieve the kind of volume needed for Google to accurately set bids\/interpret signals\/predict outcomes. In many of these instances, they were only able to find success BECAUSE of the qualitative\/contextual\/non-data controls they had, like keywords and 3rd party audiences. But hey, coca cola was able to find success with the new products and features, so we should all be celebrating! @AnthonyMcDaniel<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A million times yes – Google takes our instructions and does what it thinks best with those instructions. well\u2026. if we give it bad or no guidance then\u2026\u2026@Aaronlevy<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

PPCChat Participants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n