Campaigns, ad groups, naming, and budget logic designed around the conversion volume you actually have.
Propose a new campaign structure for our search account. We get about 90 conversions a month.
Fourteen campaigns consolidate to five, each clearing fifteen conversions a month so tCPA has signal to work with. Brand stays separate. Migration runs over three weeks, one campaign group at a time, so learning resets do not overlap.
A campaign structure template should be shaped by how much conversion data you generate, not by an org chart. This one groups keywords by intent and volume so each campaign accumulates enough conversions for smart bidding to work, then fixes naming and budget logic so reporting stays legible.
A plan for how campaigns, ad groups, and budgets are organized: which keywords group together, where budget boundaries sit, how audiences are layered, and what everything is named so reports segment cleanly six months later.
Smart bidding needs conversions to learn from. Splitting a modest account into many tightly themed campaigns starves each one of signal, so the template consolidates until each campaign clears a workable conversion threshold, and only separates where a real budget or strategy boundary exists.
Group keywords that share intent and can honestly share one ad and one landing page. Single-keyword ad groups mostly create maintenance work now that match types are loose and assets are responsive.
Because reporting depends on it. A consistent pattern covering channel, geography, funnel stage, and theme lets you filter and pivot without manual tagging — and retrofitting names across a live account is painful enough that teams simply do not.
The agent reads your existing Google Ads account for keywords, conversion volume, and current structure, then proposes the target state alongside a migration sequence. Naming patterns and budget rules export to Sheets for sign-off, and the audit template picks up afterward to confirm the new structure behaves as intended.
For existing accounts the agent reads current structure and conversion volume; for launches, give it the keyword set and budget.
Budget boundaries, geographies that must stay separate, and any reporting splits that are non-negotiable.
Campaigns, ad groups, naming, bid strategies, and budgets arrive with the reasoning per grouping.
Changes are ordered so learning resets are staggered rather than simultaneous.
Structure is sized to your conversion volume, not to a best-practice diagram
Naming conventions are part of the plan, so reporting works later
Migration is sequenced to limit simultaneous learning resets
States the reasoning per grouping, so the plan can be argued with
One that gives each campaign enough conversions for bidding to learn while keeping budget boundaries where you actually need control. That usually means fewer, better-fed campaigns than the tightly segmented structures that were standard a decade ago.
As many as share intent and can be served by one ad and one landing page — typically five to twenty. Single-keyword ad groups add maintenance without adding relevance under modern match types.
Yes. They have different economics and wildly different conversion rates, and mixing them distorts both bidding and reporting.
Some resetting is unavoidable, which is why the migration plan sequences changes and preserves conversion history where the platform allows it.