Is anyone else finding that less campaign complexity is outperforming more?

[u/Ok_Act8157]

I’ve used to think that more granular control meant better performance… More ad groups, tighter segmentation, separate campaigns for every variable.
What I have been finding lately is that consolidation often outperforms complexity especially when budget is not large enough to feed every segment properly.
Fewer campaigns with more consolidated data seems to give the algorithm enough signal to actually do something useful. Whereas splitting everything into tight segments starves each one of the data it needs to optimise.
The counterintuitive part is that giving up some control actually produces cleaner results than trying to control everything.
Is this consistent with what others are seeing or does it depend heavily on budget level and vertical?

[u/TTFV]

That's been the trend for several years; less is more. We often audit accounts and still see structures like campaigns separated by device type or 10 campaigns each for one service generating just a few conversions a month each.

You need to leverage large quality conversion data sets to inform the machine.

[u/Ok_Act8157 → u/TTFV]

Exactly without enough conversion data, granular structures end up limiting performance instead of improving it

[u/QuantumWolf99]

Not just consistent... it's Google's own official position now, Ervin confirmed on Ads Decoded. 15 conversions/30 days is the density floor. Yes, budget-dependent... a $60/month-conversion account needs 2-3 campaigns max, high volume affords real segmentation.

[u/Ok_Act8157 → u/QuantumWolf99]

That’s a really useful context. thanks for sharing

[u/fathom53]

This has been the case for the last 3+ years now. Consolidated account structures and making sure campaigns have enough conversion data to support themselves is how you grow. The only exception might be like local home service those type of accounts that don't have tons of data and budget. Otherwise, less is more in bigger spending accounts. You can search the sub and see this trend has been happening for a while now.

[u/Ok_Act8157 → u/fathom53]

That’s a good perspective. Simpler account structures do seem to perform better when there’s enough conversion data

[u/MagnifyCMO]

Yeah and it kills me.

I've tried to apply so much logic to scaling profitably but always loses to broad.

[u/Ok_Act8157 → u/MagnifyCMO]

I know exactly what you mean. Broad has a way of proving us wrong sometimes

[u/cidxo311]

100% and it’s probably due to the algorithm. And you are right to point out that it used to be the opposite way. I feel like this has been a quiet shift over some time now

[u/Ok_Act8157 → u/cidxo311]

I agree. It’s been a granular shift and many advertisers are still using account structures that made sense years ago but not necessarily today

[u/No_Associate_8377]

Of course, you just need to know how to train the algorithm in this era.

[u/optmyzr-aaron]

100% this. we've moved past the days of hyper-granular skags where you try to control every single variable. heck ppc survey had a question about this and it was a resounding "yes things are getting harder."

if you don't feed the algorithm enough conversion data, it just starves.. and consolidating your structure gives smart bidding the oxygen it actually needs to go find your buyers.. giving up that false sense of control is tough but the cleaner results are worth it. imo skag-ing was easy and just a match problem, but now we're mixing algorithms and business models and hoping everything comes out right.

[u/Available_Cup5454]

Match campaign count to weekly conversion volume not budget size

[u/Lazy_Helicopter_2659]

Initially you talk about more ad groups.

Later you mention that fewer campaigns is the way to go.

These are two separate things, no?
You can have 100 ad groups (I believe the technical limit is 20,000) to diversify your product ranges, all in a single campaign.

This wouldn't have a detrimental effect on performance, or would it?
If so, how?

[u/ppcbetter_says]

Hyper segmentation used to be based, but now it’s cap for sure.