Google’s Official Position on Campaign Consolidation
▼ Summary
– Campaign consolidation is not an end goal, but a means to achieve equal or better performance with less granularity due to modern AI and Smart Bidding.
– Legacy, highly segmented account structures were rational for manual control but can now limit performance by diluting data and slowing automated systems.
– Control still exists in consolidated structures; it simply represents a different, required mindset shift for PPC professionals.
– Segmentation remains valid when it reflects actual business operations, such as distinct budgets, objectives, or regional splits, not just outdated best practices.
– A measured approach to restructuring is advised, starting with evaluating splits based on current business logic, with a benchmark of 15 conversions over 30 days to inform decisions.
Google’s official stance on campaign consolidation clarifies that the primary objective is achieving equal or superior performance with less account complexity, not consolidation for its own sake. This perspective, shared by a senior product director, addresses a major point of debate among paid search professionals. The evolution of automated bidding and AI systems has fundamentally changed the relationship between granular account structures and effective campaign management.
During a recent podcast, Brandon Ervin, Director of Product Management for Search Ads, explained that the highly detailed campaign builds of the past were entirely rational. For years, strategies like match type segmentation, tightly themed ad groups, and regional splits provided essential control in a more manual advertising environment. However, he noted that the advanced capabilities of modern Smart Bidding and AI have shifted this dynamic. The technology can now often outperform manual segmentation, meaning the very structures that once boosted performance might now be holding it back.
A critical point Ervin emphasized is that consolidation does not equate to a loss of control. Instead, the nature of that control has evolved. Advertisers now exercise influence through different levers, such as setting the right conversion goals, crafting compelling ad creatives, and establishing robust audience signals, rather than micromanaging every individual keyword and bid. This requires a significant mindset shift for many seasoned marketers.
This doesn’t mean all segmentation is obsolete. Ervin was clear that campaign structure should directly reflect how a business operates. Distinct segmentation remains valuable and necessary in specific scenarios. Examples include managing completely separate product lines with independent budgets, supporting different core business objectives that need unique targets, or mirroring genuine regional operational divisions. The intent behind the structure is what matters. If a campaign split supports a real business decision, reporting need, or operational reality, it is justified. If it exists solely because it was considered a best practice years ago, it may now be creating unnecessary friction.
For those wondering how to gauge if they have consolidated sufficiently, Ervin provided a practical benchmark: aiming for at least 15 conversions in a 30-day period for effective machine learning. This volume does not need to come from a single campaign; using shared budgets or portfolio bidding strategies can aggregate data across multiple campaigns to reach this threshold. The core question to ask is whether your current segmentation is diluting conversion data and slowing down the bidding algorithms’ ability to learn and optimize.
This guidance is impactful because granularity has long been synonymous with PPC expertise. Many professionals, including the author, built careers on meticulously segmented accounts, using structures like Single Keyword Ad Groups (SKAGs) to control spending on high-volume terms. What changed this perspective was witnessing firsthand how legacy segmentation could fragment data and impede the learning process of automated systems, particularly in accounts with lower overall conversion volume. In several cases, thoughtful consolidation led to more stable and sometimes improved performance, demonstrating that a “perfectly built” old-school structure could actually limit results by spreading data too thin.
Adopting this new approach can be uncomfortable, requiring practitioners to unlearn deeply ingrained habits. However, the principle is not that consolidation is universally correct, but that account architecture must be tied directly to contemporary business logic, not to historical platform best practices.
For teams considering structural changes, a gradual, measured approach is advised. Drastic overnight overhauls can introduce significant risk and performance volatility. A more strategic method involves first identifying splits that clearly align with current budgets, reporting, and business priorities. Then, evaluate segments that exist primarily due to outdated conventions. In some instances, consolidation will strengthen data signals and lead to more consistent bidding. In others, maintaining separation will remain the right choice. The essential step is to be intentional about the purpose behind every layer of your account structure.
(Source: Search Engine Journal)
