When there are no good options in Google Ads

I consulted with a fellow Google Ads guy about a struggling low-volume B2B account.

He was using phrase match keywords with manual CPC bidding. This had worked well for years, but over the last few months the leads had stopped completely. Phrase match was delivering junk: competitors, job seekers, and random low-intent traffic. He added negative keywords three times a day, but it wasn’t helping.

He felt guilty and desperate. He’d worked with this client for years, and the client trusted him. They were three months into the busy season and he hadn’t generated a single lead.

The campaign setup was good — solid structure, well-written ads, fast clean landing pages. He’d managed it carefully too: checking search terms, adding negatives, testing bids and pages. He should have been getting leads.

But Google changed how phrase match works, and that’s why he wasn’t getting results.

He hoped I’d be able to fix it, but there were only bad choices. We could:

• Keep the current setup and keep wasting money on bad traffic.
• Switch to exact match for better traffic, but risk almost no volume.
• Try broad match with a conversion-based strategy and hope the algorithm found quality traffic before the budget ran out.

Every option had a serious downside. When that happens it's time to bring the client into the conversation.

I don't normally advocate for discussing in-account tactical decisions with clients, but this was different. There were no good options for dealing with the problem. The client needed to make an informed decision about which tradeoffs they were willing to live with - if any.

I suggested he talk with the client, explain the three options, outline the downsides, and get buy-in to test one of them. He’d be honouring the trust that comes with being responsible for someone’s money. And he wouldn’t be carrying the outcome on his own.

Discussions like this with clients aren't about dodging responsibility. They're about being realistic about what you can control, and helping your clients make better decisions. The discussion doesn't fix the problem, but it changes the dynamic. Instead of failing your client, you're now on a team with them to find the best outcome possible in the changed circumstances.

Related articles

Why good Google Ads campaigns still lose clients

The client blames the ad manager. The ad manager blames the client. There is a better way.

The AI audit ambush

That makes a point-by-point rebuttal a trap. Here are some better ways to handle an AI ambush.

Most Google Ads reports focus on the wrong things

Most reports explain what happened. Strategic reports explain what to do next.

Helping people make better Google Ads decisions

I advise a handful of agencies and in-house Google Ads teams. Over time, I’ve noticed a recurring problem creep in. Some people start outsourcing their critical thinking to me.

Why I've Stopped Giving Quick-Fix Google Ads Advice

Quick fixes in Google Ads often backfire for small business owners because surface-level metrics mislead. Here's the four-step plan to turn a Google Ads accounts around.

50% more leads… and still fired

I delivered 50% more leads for a client—then got fired. Here’s why I won’t take responsibility for results without control of the landing pages.

Topics you'll find on this site