Solved: Google Ads ROAS Tanking After External Marketer

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out! I've had a look at the situation with your Google Ads account. It's a pretty common story, actually. An account looks like it's doing okay for a bit, then it just falls off a cliff. The good news is that the reasons are usually quite clear once you know what to look for, and it's almost always fixable.

I'm happy to give you some initial thoughts and guidance on what I think is going wrong and how you might start to turn things around. It looks like the main issue stems from a very chaotic campaign structure that's probably burning through your budget on the wrong kind of traffic.

We'll need to look at why your performance actually tanked...

Right, let's get straight to it. That drop in performance over the last three weeks isn't a random blip. Tbh, I'm sceptical that the initial 2.0 ROAS was ever sustainable with that structure. It's more likely the algorithm found some low-hanging fruit—some easy, cheap conversions—and now that they've been harvested, the fundamental flaws in the setup are being exposed.

You're relying heavily on automated bidding strategies like 'Maximize conversion value' across your non-brand campaigns. Now, these strategies aren't inherently bad, but they need to be fed the right data and given strict guardrails. Without them, they are just powerful engines without a steering wheel. The algorithm's job is to find what it *thinks* are conversions at the best value. Over time, especially with broad targeting, it can start to optimise towards lower-quality traffic that might convert once but has a low order value, or it might just be finding users who are less valuable in the long run. This is a classic pattern: an initial surge followed by a slow, painful decline in ROAS as the machine learning runs out of quality signals and starts chasing rubbish.

The problem is your marketer has essentially told Google, "Here's my money, go find me some sales," without giving it a proper map. The result is that Google has gone off-roading, and now you're stuck in the mud. The structure itself is a mix of conflicting signals. You've got a hyper-specific campaign for one product type, then three others that are incredibly broad and uncontrolled. It's not a strategy; it's just throwing things at the wall. This lack of a coherent structure based on user intent is almost definatly the reason you're seeing performance collapse.

I'd say your campaign structure is the root of the problem...

Let's break down the current setup, because it's a bit of a mess, really.

b-brand-search: This is fine. Target Impression Share is a solid choice for protecting your brand terms and ensuring you show up when people search for you directly. This is the only part of the structure that makes complete sense, and it's why it's still performing. These are your warmest leads.

b-broad-match: Honestly, this campaign should be paused immediately. A campaign running *only* broad match keywords with a 'Maximize conversion value' bid is one of the fastest ways to burn money I know of. You are paying Google to show your ads for all sorts of irrelevant search queries that are only vaguely related to your actual keywords. For every one good search term it finds, it'll find twenty bad ones. Unless you have a team member spending hours every single day combing through the search query reports and adding hundreds of negative keywords, this campaign is a guaranteed ROAS killer. It's the source of your low-quality traffic.

b-dsa-search: Dynamic Search Ads can work, but only if your website is perfectly structured with clear, unique titles and content on every page. If it's not, the DSA campaign will just pull in irrelevant pages, create poor headlines, and match your ads to search queries that have nothing to do with what you sell. It's another layer of uncontrolled automation that often performs poorly unless managed with an iron fist (e.g., targeting only specific categories of your site, heavy use of negative targets).

b-performance-max: PMax is the ultimate black box. It can be incredibly powerful, but it's also notorious for cannibalising your other campaigns, especially brand and high-performing search terms. When you launched it, it probably found some easy wins. But now, it could be spending your budget on low-performing Display or YouTube placements without you even knowing it, dragging down the overall ROAS. A sudden drop after a few weeks is very common with PMax if it's not been set up with very strong audience signals and asset groups.

Your current structure looks less like a planned marketing funnel and more like a chaotic experiment. Here’s a visual representation of the problem.

You probably should rethink your entire targeting strategy...

The core concept you need to build your new structure around is search intent. Not all searches are created equal. Someone typing "what are stickers made of" is in a completely different mindset to someone typing "buy custom vinyl stickers online". Your current structure treats them all the same, which is why your non-brand campaigns are failing.

Your marketer has built campaigns based on *match types* (a Broad campaign, a Phrase Match campaign), not on *customer journey*. This is a fundamental mistake. You need to segment your campaigns based on how close a user is to making a purchase.

• High Intent (Bottom of Funnel): These are people searching for your brand name or specific product SKUs. They know you, they want you. Your brand campaign captures this. This is where you should get your highest ROAS.
• Medium Intent (Middle of Funnel): These are people searching for the *type* of product you sell, but not your brand specifically. E.g., "waterproof laptop stickers," "die-cut sticker printing." They have a problem and are looking for a solution. This is where you should be using Phrase and Exact match keywords to capture relevant, solution-aware traffic. Your single `b-PRODUCT_TYPE-REGION` campaign is a small attempt at this, but it needs to be expanded into your main strategy, replacing Broad and DSA.
• Low Intent (Top of Funnel): These are people with a related interest but no immediate purchase intent. E.g., "cool sticker design ideas." Your Broad Match campaign is almost certainly spending most of your money here, and these people rarely buy on their first visit. For most e-commerce businesses, you shouldn't spend significant money here until your Mid and Bottom funnel campaigns are fully optimised and profitable.

The performance difference between these intent levels is not small. It's massive. A high-intent keyword will always have a better conversion rate and ROAS than a low-intent one. By lumping them all together, you're just averaging down your performance to the lowest common denominator.

You'll need a structure built on intent, not just match types...

So, what's the solution? You need to tear down the current structure and rebuild it from the ground up, based on the principles of search intent and the customer journey. Here’s a blueprint I would suggest starting with:

Campaign 1: Brand Search (Bottom of Funnel)

• What it does: Exactly what your current brand campaign does. It targets people searching specifically for your company name.
• Keywords: Your brand name in Exact and Phrase match.
• Bidding: Target Impression Share is fine, or Target Outranking Share if you have a specific competitor you want to beat on your brand terms. The goal is dominance.

Campaign 2: Generic/Non-Brand Search (Middle of Funnel)

• What it does: This is your main acquisition engine. It targets people searching for the products you sell, but not your brand. This campaign will replace your Broad, DSA, and specific Phrase Match campaigns.
• Structure: Break this down into logical Ad Groups based on your product categories. For example, an Ad Group for 'Vinyl Stickers', another for 'Paper Labels', another for 'Bumper Stickers'.
• Keywords: Use tightly themed Phrase and Exact match keywords within each ad group. No Broad Match here at all. Research what your customers are actually searching for.
• Bidding: Start with 'Maximize conversions' with a Target CPA (Cost Per Acquisition) goal. Once you have enough data (50+ conversions), you can switch to 'Maximize conversion value' with a Target ROAS. This gives the algorithm a clear performance target to hit, rather than just letting it run wild.

Campaign 3: Standard Shopping (Middle/Bottom of Funnel)

• What it does: Shows your products directly in the search results. For an e-commerce business, this is absolutely essential and often provides the best non-brand ROAS. I don't see one in your current setup, which is a massive missed opportunity. Your PMax campaign might be running some shopping ads, but having a separate Standard Shopping campaign gives you much more control.
• Structure: Segment by product category or even by individual product ID if you have clear winners and losers. This allows you to set different budget priorities and bids for your most profitable products.
• Bidding: Again, start with a Target ROAS goal.

Campaign 4: Remarketing (All Funnels)

• What it does: Targets people who have already visited your website but didn't buy. This is another huge missing piece. These are warm leads who just need a nudge.
• Audiences: Target 'All Visitors', 'Product Viewers', and especially 'Cart Abandoners'. You can show them a special offer, like a 10% discount, to entice them back.
• Platforms: Run this across the Search network (as RLSA - Remarketing Lists for Search Ads) and the Display network with simple banner ads.

This structure gives you control. It aligns your budget with user intent and allows you to clearly see what's working and what's not. You can allocate more budget to your Mid-Funnel campaigns once they're proven, and you stop wasting money on the low-intent traffic that's killing your ROAS right now.

We'll need to look at your offer and landing pages...

Here’s the brutally honest part. Even the best ad account structure in the world can't fix a website that doesn't convert. You mentioned your ROAS tanked, which means for every £1 you put in, you're getting less than £1.10 back in revenue. After you account for your cost of goods, shipping, and other overheads, you're almost certainly losing money on every single sale from these ads.

The ads are only half the battle. Their job is to bring qualified traffic to your site. It's your site's job to convert that traffic into a sale. I often see people obsessing over clicks and CPCs, but they completely ignore their on-site conversion rate. A tiny improvement in your conversion rate can have a much bigger impact on your ROAS than any amount of campaign tweaking.

Think about the user journey. Someone clicks your ad. What do they see?

• Is the landing page fast to load, particulerly on mobile?
• Does the product photography look professional? Do you show the products in use?
• Are your product descriptions persuasive and clear? Do they answer all potential questions?
• Is your pricing competitive? How does it compare to others in the ad results?
• Does your site look trustworthy? Do you have customer reviews, trust badges, clear contact information?

If the answer to any of these is 'no' or 'I'm not sure', then that's where you need to focus. A 1% increase in your conversion rate can be the difference between a failing campaign and a profitable one.

Use this calculator below. Play with the 'Website Conversion Rate' slider. See how a small change from, say, 1.5% to 2.5% can dramatically change your final ROAS, even if ad spend and order value stay the same. This is often where the real money is made.

I'd say you need to be realistic about ROAS...

The last point is about what a "good" ROAS actually is. You mentioned that 2.0 was "pretty good," but was it profitable? A lot of businesses don't actually know their numbers well enough to answer that.

ROAS is a vanity metric if you don't understand your profit margins. Let's do some simple maths.

ROAS = Revenue / Ad Spend

But what you should care about is Profit, which is:

Profit = Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) - Ad Spend

Let's say your products have a 50% gross margin. This means for every £100 in revenue, £50 is your cost to produce and ship the product, and £50 is your gross profit.

• If your ROAS is 2.0, you spend £50 to make £100 in revenue. Your profit is £100 (Revenue) - £50 (COGS) - £50 (Ad Spend) = £0. You're breaking even.
• If your ROAS is 1.1, you spend £90.91 to make £100 in revenue. Your profit is £100 (Revenue) - £50 (COGS) - £90.91 (Ad Spend) = -£40.91. You're losing a lot of money.

You need to know your break-even ROAS. The formula is simple: 1 / Gross Profit Margin %.

• If your margin is 50% (0.5), your break-even ROAS is 1 / 0.5 = 2.0x.
• If your margin is 30% (0.3), your break-even ROAS is 1 / 0.3 = 3.33x.
• If your margin is 70% (0.7), your break-even ROAS is 1 / 0.7 = 1.43x.

Any ROAS below this number means you are losing money on every ad-driven sale, even before considering other business overheads. It's really important to know this number so you can set realistic Target ROAS goals in your campaigns and judge performance accurately. A 2.0 ROAS isn't "good" if your break-even point is 3.0.

This is the main advice I have for you:

There's a lot to take in here, I know. It's a significant change from what you're doing now. To make it clearer, here is a summary of my main recommendations for you to start turning the account around.

Implementing this new structure is a significant undertaking. It requires careful keyword research, ad copy creation, and a deep understanding of how to manage Google's bidding algorithms. The "set it and forget it" approach your previous marketer seems to have taken has led you to where you are now.

An account needs constant attention, especially in the first few months of a new structure. It involves daily monitoring of search query reports, adjusting bids and budgets based on performance, and continuously testing new ad copy and landing pages. This is the difference between simply running ads and managing a profitable customer acquisition system.

We've turned around accounts like this for many clients. For instance, one client with a medical job matching software had a cost per user acquisition on Google and Meta Ads of over £100. We were able to reduce that cost to just £7. It's not about secret tricks; it's about applying a sound, logical strategy and managing the details meticulously.

If you'd like to discuss how we could help you implement this kind of strategy and get your account back to consistent profitability, we offer a free, no-obligation initial consultation. We can take a deeper look at your account together and lay out a more detailed roadmap for you.

Regards,

Team @ Lukas Holschuh