7 mistakes to avoid in PPC

Insufficient campaign performance in most cases has a specific cause — hidden mistakes in PPC settings.
If these are identified and corrected in time, it’s possible to save budget and improve results.

Mistakes occur more often than one would like to admit. Some are tactical, others strategic, but almost all negatively affect advertising efficiency.

There’s no single recipe for success, but over time certain recurring patterns become evident.

This article will cover:

• what usually works;
• what most often fails to deliver results;
• where advertising accounts systematically make mistakes.

Every account is unique, and deep understanding comes after weeks or even months of analysis. However, there are issues that appear again and again.

PPC is not an exact science, but there are certain “safety rules” worth following.

Below are seven of the most common mistakes found in PPC accounts — and how to fix them.

Over-segmentation of campaign structure

Just a few years ago, it was considered best practice to separate each keyword into its own ad group and create individual campaigns for each match type.

However, with the introduction of expanded broad match, improved Smart Bidding algorithms, and the Responsive Search Ads (RSA) format, the approach has shifted. Today, it’s more important to have a larger volume of conversions within one campaign than to have excessive control through micro-segmentation.

What previously required 50 campaigns can now be done in five. Instead of 20 ad groups, three may be enough.

SMEC research on Performance Max and Shopping confirms that conversion volume at the campaign level is key to success, especially when working with Target ROAS or Target CPA.

Despite this, over-segmentation remains one of the most frequent structural errors, especially in search campaigns. As the AI Search era approaches, consolidating conversion data is becoming even more critical.

Lack of A/B testing

Testing has always been — and remains — one of the most effective ways to improve PPC performance.

However, the Google Ads Experiments tool is rarely used, even though it provides real-world data on what works and what doesn’t.

Without tests, you cannot know for sure:

• whether your chosen landing page is the most effective;
• which bidding strategy delivers better results;
• whether Performance Max outperforms Shopping campaigns in your specific case;
• whether pinning headlines in RSA works better than Google’s automatic selection;
• which creative format drives more conversions.

Even if a test yields clear results, that doesn’t mean it will be valid forever. PPC changes quickly, so retesting after a year (or even sooner) is essential.

Main areas for testing:

• landing pages;
• ad copy;
• ad formats;
• campaign structure;
• creatives.

Except during peak seasons, there should always be at least one A/B test running in your account.

Using only one asset group in Performance Max

Many advertisers associate Performance Max primarily with Shopping, ignoring the fact that a significant share of traffic also comes from other channels, including search.

The issue is that in most cases, only one asset group is created with generic text and creatives attempting to cover all products at once.

This leads to the loss of potentially relevant traffic, especially from search.

If you wouldn’t combine hundreds of products into one ad group in search campaigns, why do it in PMax?

The solution is to create multiple asset groups optimized for specific brands or categories:

• with dedicated landing pages;
• tailored headlines and descriptions;
• clearly defined audience signals and search themes;
• videos and images relevant to the specific product group.

Using Google’s new channel report or Mike Rhodes’ script, you can identify which asset groups are driving the most search traffic and start optimization with them.

Ignoring ad extensions (ad assets)

Ad extensions are a valuable tool to maximize ad space and extend your message beyond the text of Responsive Search Ads.

When set up correctly, they can increase CTR by 10–15%, generate more clicks, and even improve quality score. Extensions also provide greater control over the ad appearance, which is increasingly important given Google’s experiments, such as displaying additional links directly in RSA headlines.

Despite this, many accounts either don’t use extensions at all or rely entirely on automatically generated ones. The problem isn’t only their absence but also their poor quality — automatic extensions often look irrelevant or unprofessional.

To avoid this:

• create your own extensions rather than relying on automatic ones;
• add descriptions to sitelinks to maximize ad space;
• use multiple callouts and structured snippets to test variations;
• apply price extensions to highlight key offers and promotion extensions for sales;
• in Performance Max, configure extensions at the campaign level, not just at the account level.

Since PMax generates search ads, if you don’t add relevant extensions, the system will either pull irrelevant ones from the account level or omit them entirely.

Ignoring first-party data

With the rise of automation and AI targeting, Google increasingly relies on high-quality customer data. If adding first-party data used to be a competitive advantage, now it’s a baseline requirement for maintaining performance.

This includes:

• conversion data;
• customer lists;
• audience segmentation based on interactions.

Integrating such data has become much easier thanks to import tools and consent settings. For small businesses, data volume may be a limitation, but it’s worth starting with what’s available and gradually expanding the database and segmentation.

Smart Bidding performance depends directly on the quality of first-party data, making its neglect a strategic error.

Incorrect conversion tracking setup

Audits often reveal that conversion goals in the account are either missing or not aligned with real business objectives.

Without accurate tracking, even a perfectly structured campaign with strong ads and relevant targeting cannot achieve maximum results.

Typical problems:

• in small accounts — no tracking or only basic setups (e.g., GA4 goal import for “Thank You” pages);
• in large accounts — using GA4 imports where Google Ads’ native tracking would be more effective.

To enrich data, consider using:

• Enhanced Conversions;
• Consent Mode;
• Cross-device tracking;
• View-through conversions.

The bigger the budget, the fewer excuses there are for not tracking all important actions in detail.

Making too many changes at once

Another common mistake is making numerous changes within a short period, especially after an account is handed over to a new specialist or agency.

Even following best practices, it’s important to remember that PPC has its own dynamics, and understanding results takes time.

Changing several key parameters at once — such as bidding strategy, conversion goals, and campaign structure — makes it difficult to determine what exactly affected performance.

To avoid this:

• implement changes gradually, starting with the highest priorities;
• isolate tests to clearly see the impact of each change;
• avoid simultaneous changes that may confuse the algorithm.

Large and sudden changes can temporarily harm performance and complicate analysis.

Conclusion

Every account may have its own unique features or unconventional solutions. However, the mistakes described here are not one-off “quirks” but systemic issues that can and should be fixed.

For an advertising account to perform at its best, it’s important to:

• avoid common mistakes;
• implement changes gradually and with testing;
• ensure accurate tracking;
• actively work with ad extensions and first-party data.

An effective PPC strategy consists of many elements, but fixing even one of these issues can be the first step toward significant performance growth.

This article available in Ukrainian.