/ Google Search ads audit

A Search audit that localizes loss before changing bids

Type: Demonstration report · Mode: Synthetic, internally consistent data · Period: Synthetic 30 day window

We trace query, keyword, ad, landing, sale and tracking so higher bids do not compensate for irrelevance.

1 · fix1 · separate1 · rewrite

About this report and how to read the metrics

Metrics and names are synthetic. They demonstrate depth and arithmetic, not a client result.

Reading the metrics

A conversion is a goal action recorded by the advertising platform. Fractional values result from attribution. CPA is cost per conversion. ROAS is conversion value per unit of advertising spend, not profit. Conversion value depends on the account's measurement settings.

01 / in short

Summary

The observed loss is localized to mixed intent and weak message match. Bidding is not confirmed as the primary problem.

Stop leakage: Separate noncommercial terms without importing generic negative lists.
Clarify routes: Separate brand and nonbrand, then route each intent to the closest page.
Protect: Do not rewrite a brand campaign with confirmed commercial outcomes for Quality Score alone.

All metrics

Metric	Value
spend · synthetic snapshot	90,000
Ads conversions · CPA 500	180
confirmed in CRM · qualified CPA 714.29	126
search queries · classified by intent	2,400

02 / audit map

What we checked.

Each tile is one area we checked. Select it to open the finding.

01 / terms and CRM modelFixDifferent intents compete in one groupThe observed loss is localized to query and landing. Some terms may assist sales, so exclusions require journey review.02 / campaign reportSeparateBrand hides weak nonbrand economicsAverage CPA does not show the cost of new demand. Separation alone does not guarantee growth.03 / RSA and rendered landingsRewriteRSA promises more than the landing provesMessage mismatch may reduce conversion. Three aligned pages remain the control.

03 / where to start

First steps.

First, what every later decision depends on.

01Classify terms and split brand reporting.→ All 2,400 terms are classified, and brand and non-brand segments have separate baseline metrics.
02Fix intent to landing congruence.→ 8 / 8 routes pass QA.
03Test broad or value bidding after maturity gate.→ Tracking is stable, the negative list is documented and data volume meets the stated test threshold.

The full plan is in the detailed review below.

04 / findings

Every finding in three lines.

Numbers and evidence for your marketer sit under “details”.

Fix01 / terms and CRM model · confidence high

Different intents compete in one group

What we see

18,000 of 90,000 spend, or 20%, went to informational and service terms without a commercial outcome.

Why it matters

The observed loss is localized to query and landing. Some terms may assist sales, so exclusions require journey review.

What we do

Search lead classifies actual terms. Acceptance: every negative has query evidence and qualified CPA is rechecked after 14 days.

details for the specialist

Details: Source: terms and CRM model. Period: 30 days. Status: synthetic. Confidence: high. Coverage: 2,400 terms and 90,000 spend.

Separate02 / campaign report · confidence high

Brand hides weak nonbrand economics

What we see

Brand and nonbrand share budget and target, making the average cheaper.

Why it matters

Average CPA does not show the cost of new demand. Separation alone does not guarantee growth.

What we do

Google lead separates budgets and reporting without changing bids. Acceptance: independent goals, negatives and landing map with unchanged total budget.

details for the specialist

Details: Source: campaign report. Period: 30 days. Status: synthetic. Confidence: high. Coverage: all Search campaigns.

Rewrite03 / RSA and rendered landings · confidence medium

RSA promises more than the landing proves

What we see

Five of eight pages lack the key proof used in the ad. Ad strength is not business evidence.

Why it matters

Message mismatch may reduce conversion. Three aligned pages remain the control.

What we do

The copywriter and CRO specialist create intent-specific proof blocks. Acceptance: 8 / 8 routes align promise, proof and CTA while bidding stays unchanged.

details for the specialist

Details: Source: RSA and rendered landings. Period: snapshot. Status: synthetic. Confidence: medium. Coverage: 12 ads and 8 pages.

Full findings table

Findings

Area	Finding	Evidence	Why it matters	What we do	Confidence	Decision	Details
terms and CRM model	Different intents compete in one group	18,000 of 90,000 spend, or 20%, went to informational and service terms without a commercial outcome.	The observed loss is localized to query and landing. Some terms may assist sales, so exclusions require journey review.	Search lead classifies actual terms. Acceptance: every negative has query evidence and qualified CPA is rechecked after 14 days.	high	Fix	Source: terms and CRM model. Period: 30 days. Status: synthetic. Confidence: high. Coverage: 2,400 terms and 90,000 spend.
campaign report	Brand hides weak nonbrand economics	Brand and nonbrand share budget and target, making the average cheaper.	Average CPA does not show the cost of new demand. Separation alone does not guarantee growth.	Google lead separates budgets and reporting without changing bids. Acceptance: independent goals, negatives and landing map with unchanged total budget.	high	Separate	Source: campaign report. Period: 30 days. Status: synthetic. Confidence: high. Coverage: all Search campaigns.
RSA and rendered landings	RSA promises more than the landing proves	Five of eight pages lack the key proof used in the ad. Ad strength is not business evidence.	Message mismatch may reduce conversion. Three aligned pages remain the control.	The copywriter and CRO specialist create intent-specific proof blocks. Acceptance: 8 / 8 routes align promise, proof and CTA while bidding stays unchanged.	medium	Rewrite	Source: RSA and rendered landings. Period: snapshot. Status: synthetic. Confidence: medium. Coverage: 12 ads and 8 pages.

05 / limitations and scope

Limitations and scope

Limitations: Budget growth remains conditional without real margin.

Coverage: All active Search campaigns, 2,400 terms and all primary conversions.

Sources:

Campaigns, keywords and search terms
RSA, assets and landing pages
Bids, budgets and change history
Conversions and synthetic CRM

06 / detailed review

Full data for your marketer.

Every table and calculation from the audit. Owners can skip it.

Plan

What	Who	Result	Horizon
Classify terms and split brand reporting.	Search lead	All 2,400 terms are classified, and brand and non-brand segments have separate baseline metrics.	7 days
Fix intent to landing congruence.	Copywriter and CRO specialist	8 / 8 routes pass QA.	30 days
Test broad or value bidding after maturity gate.	Google Ads lead	Tracking is stable, the negative list is documented and data volume meets the stated test threshold.	90 days

Measurement

Status: Platform conversions overstate the commercial result

90,000 spend / 180 conversions = CPA 500. CRM confirms 126 outcomes, so qualified CPA is 90,000 / 126 = 714.29.

What already works

Preserve the brand campaign with confirmed commercial outcomes

Evidence: Brand routes produce commercial outcomes without a current tracking defect.

Decision: Separate its budget and keep it as the control.

Target state and change rules

Target state: Queries are split by intent, brand no longer masks non-brand, and bidding uses confirmed quality.

How we test: CRM signal and negatives come first, followed by one staged bid change at a stable budget.

When we roll back: The strategy returns if qualified CPA breaches the agreed threshold or confirmed volume falls.

Full audit map

16 checks

The three decisions above give an executive summary. The complete review register below shows the checks behind those decisions.

This page shows 16 of 16 checks in the demonstration register. A client report also links each check to its source, accountable role, and working artifact.

Measurement and the CRM gate

The platform counts an action while the business confirms only part of it as a qualified result.

Check	Priority	Decision	What we established	What we established
GS-01	P0	Reconcile	Connect the Ads conversion to the CRM stage.	180 platform conversions and 126 confirmed outcomes produce different CPAs.
GS-02	P1	Import	Return qualified without personal data.	Bidding needs lead quality rather than form submission alone.
GS-03	P1	Protect	Do not change bids before signal verification.	A new target on an incomplete conversion automates the wrong objective.
GS-04	P2	Explain	Document the attribution-window difference.	Ads and CRM can correctly show different values.

Search Terms and negatives

The main lever is intent classification instead of bulk negative-keyword additions.

Check	Priority	Decision	What we established	What we established
GS-05	P1	Classify	Label 2,400 queries by intent.	18,000 of 90,000 spend went to queries without a commercial outcome.
GS-06	P1	Exclude with evidence	Add negatives only for confirmed mismatches.	Some informational queries may assist a sale.
GS-07	P2	Map	Route each intent to the correct landing page.	A relevant query loses alignment on a general page.
GS-08	P2	Repeat	Recheck waste after 14 days.	Read the effect with budget and bids unchanged.

Architecture, brand, and RSA

Brand is separated for clarity, and every ad promise must be supported on the landing page.

Check	Priority	Decision	What we established	What we established
GS-09	P1	Separate	Give brand and non-brand separate budgets.	A blended CPA hides the cost of new demand.
GS-10	P1	Align	Tie each RSA promise to landing-page evidence.	Five of eight synthetic pages lack the main proof used in the ad.
GS-11	P2	Protect	Keep three aligned routes as the control.	They provide comparison after weaker pages change.
GS-12	P3	Ignore score as outcome	Do not treat Ad strength as a business result.	An interface score does not prove lead quality or profit.

Bidding, Impression Share, and migration

Automation changes after the objective is clean and within a controlled budget.

Check	Priority	Decision	What we established	What we established
GS-13	P1	Record	Capture baseline CPA, qualified CPA, and volume.	All three are needed to avoid buying cheaper but weaker leads.
GS-14	P1	Migrate in stages	Change one strategy in one group.	Moving every campaign at once removes the control.
GS-15	P2	Verify	Read lost IS beside economics.	A lost impression is not lost profit without a marginal outcome.
GS-16	P2	Roll back	Restore the strategy when qualified CPA degrades.	Rollback follows business quality rather than the platform conversion.

Method and appendices

Classifier for 2,400 search queries
Brand / non-brand and negative-keyword map
RSA → promise → proof → CTA
Bid migration and rollback protocol

What the client gets

Query to landing map
Conversion and CRM reconciliation
Brand and nonbrand decision
RSA and asset review
Tests with stop conditions

/ next step

Next step with UPLIFY

Need the cause of expensive Search, not just lower bids?

We identify the funnel stage, evidence, counter evidence and a safe test.

Discuss an audit for your business