The Kobayashi Maru Google Ads Client

A client is looking for a new Google Ads agency. They spend about $300k/month. One of the agencies they've shortlisted charges 10% and wants a three-month commitment.

That's $90,000 in fees.

The client is OK with that. Their attitude is essentially:

"I'm happy to spend $90,000 if their work brings in more than they cost."

That's a nice client to have.

But there's a problem: I'm not sure they'd be able to tell how much the agency's work brought in.

They're a Kobayashi Maru client.

If you're a Star Trek fan you'll know that Kobayashi Maru is a deliberately unwinnable training exercise. No matter what the candidate does, they fail.

I realised we were about to put the new agency into their own Kobayashi Maru scenario.

I've been helping this client evaluate Google Ads agencies. As part of my work I looked into what happens between someone clicking an ad and becoming a customer.

I discovered that their attribution leaks like a rusty bucket.

Here's an example.

About a third of their ad budget is spent on clicks on location assets: their Google Business Profiles.

• Anyone who calls using the click-to-call button on the profile shows up in their CRM as a Google Business Profile lead. The agency that manages their profiles gets credit for these.

• Anyone who clicks the website link and then calls the number on the site or fills in the form shows up as an organic website lead. Their SEO guy gets the credit.

• Google Ads gets no credit in either case.

In three months, the conversation is going to be something like:

Prove you've generated enough extra profit to justify your $90,000 fee. But we're giving other people credit for some of the customers you've generated.

That's a test even the best agency could fail.

The problem gets worse.

Attribution isn't only how we measure what's working. It's also part of how Google learns what works.

Imagine two people click your ads and both become leads.

• One is a perfect fit and goes on to spend $20,000 with you.
• The other is outside your area.

If all Google knows is that you got two leads, it thinks they're equally valuable.

If it knows what happened afterwards, it can start learning what distinguishes the customers you want from the leads you don't.

Without that feedback, you're asking Google to find more leads without showing it what a good lead looks like.

In Star Trek, the hero Kirk beats the unwinnable test by changing the test parameters.

We need to do the same. We need to fix the attribution system before we sign with the agency.

The plan is to get to the point where we can see enough of the connection between ad spend, leads, customers and value. That way the agency gets a fair shot. And the client has a fair way of judging them.

If this resonates with you, I'd like to give you a copy of my book Profitable Google Ads. You can download it below or by using the link at the top of the page.

Related articles

Excellent Ad Strength doesn't mean you've written an excellent ad

Giving Google 15 headlines and 4 descriptions creates plenty of combinations. But are they good ads? Here's how I use pinning to keep some control.

Google Ads isn't about more customers. It's about fit.

More leads isn't the goal. A furniture maker cut his enquiries and ended up with a 4-month waiting list. Here's why.

Every Google Ads lead leaves a trail of evidence

If you can't answer what happened after someone clicked your ad, you're probably making important decisions without enough evidence.

Why a Google Ads account audit isn't enough

Want to find places to improve. You've got to look at the whole system.

Why I'm rethinking how I audit Google Ads accounts

I've been starting from the wrong point: looking for problems. I should have been looking for evidence.

Testing Google Ads for an RV Campground

The goal was to spend a small amount, gather data, and see what actually happens. We got bookings, but the value distribution surprised me and changed how I'm going to structure this account.

Topics you'll find on this site