After managing over $350M in Google Ads spend across hundreds of accounts, I can tell you that campaign structure is the single most debated — and most consequential — decision a PPC practitioner makes. The right structure directly impacts how Smart Bidding learns, how budgets flow, and whether your account scales or stagnates. A common question in the r/PPC community is deceptively simple: what is your preferred Google Ads structure? The answer has changed dramatically as automation has matured, and the practitioners still clinging to 2017-era SKAG setups are leaving serious performance on the table.
Why Campaign Structure Matters More Than Ever in the Automation Era
When I first started managing accounts, structure was primarily about control — tight keyword match types, granular ad groups, manual bids. Every layer of segmentation gave you a lever to pull. Today, structure serves a fundamentally different purpose: feeding the algorithm enough data to make Smart Bidding work.
As practitioners often discuss in forums and agency circles, the shift to automated bidding has flipped the conventional wisdom on its head. Fragmented structures that made sense for manual CPC now actively hurt performance by starving individual campaigns of the conversion volume Google's models need to optimize. The math is unforgiving — Target CPA and Target ROAS bidding algorithms require a minimum of 30–50 conversions per campaign per month just to exit the learning phase reliably, and ideally 100+ to perform consistently.
Key Insight: Smart Bidding algorithms learn at the campaign level. A structure with 12 campaigns averaging 8 conversions each will dramatically underperform one with 4 campaigns averaging 24 conversions each — even with identical total spend and conversion volume.
This single insight should drive every structural decision you make in 2024 and beyond.
The Core Framework: How I Structure Accounts Today
I've tested dozens of structural approaches across e-commerce, lead gen, SaaS, and local service accounts. What I've landed on isn't a rigid template — it's a set of principles that flex based on account size and business objectives.
Tier 1: Campaign Segmentation Logic
Campaigns should be segmented based on factors that require genuinely different bidding behavior or budget isolation. That's it. If two segments wouldn't need different target CPAs or different budget allocations, they probably belong in the same campaign.
The valid reasons to split into separate campaigns:
- Different conversion goals — a "Request Demo" conversion vs. a "Contact Us" conversion with different economic values
- Dramatically different margins — luxury product lines vs. entry-level products in e-commerce
- Budget ownership — different business units or clients controlling separate spend pools
- Network separation — Search vs. Performance Max vs. Display should always be separate campaigns
- Geographic bidding differences — if NYC genuinely needs a 40% higher target CPA than rural markets
- Brand vs. Non-brand — brand campaigns almost always need separate budget protection and different ROAS targets
Tier 2: Ad Group Structure Within Campaigns
Inside campaigns, I've largely moved away from SKAGs (Single Keyword Ad Groups) to what I call Semantic Ad Groups — tightly themed clusters of 5–15 keywords that share genuine intent overlap. A Semantic Ad Group for a cybersecurity client might include "endpoint security software," "endpoint protection platform," and "endpoint detection and response" in the same group because they're describing the same solution to the same buyer.
Best Practice: Aim for 3–8 ad groups per campaign with 5–15 closely related keywords each. This gives Smart Bidding enough signal density while still allowing meaningful ad copy customization. Each ad group should have at least 2–3 Responsive Search Ads (RSAs) with distinct messaging angles to give Google's ad rotation meaningful options.
Tier 3: Match Type Philosophy
My current default match type hierarchy for most accounts:
- Broad Match as the primary workhorse — but only when paired with Smart Bidding and strong audience signals. Broad Match in 2024 is not the wild west it was in 2018. With Target CPA or Target ROAS, Google's systems use far more contextual signals before expanding to broader queries.
- Phrase Match for volume control — useful when you're in a niche where broad match consistently pulls in irrelevant verticals
- Exact Match for brand terms and ultra-high-value queries — I almost always have exact match brand keywords as a separate campaign or tightly controlled ad group
Common Mistake: Running all three match types for the same keyword in the same campaign creates internal auction competition and muddies your performance data. If you're using broad match with Smart Bidding, you typically don't need phrase match duplicates — they're often redundant and can split your conversion signals.
The Consolidation Question: How Few Campaigns Is Too Few?
This is where the r/PPC community debate gets genuinely spicy. Some practitioners advocate for extreme consolidation — one campaign for all non-brand search, full stop. I've tested this and my experience is more nuanced.
| Structure Type |
Best For |
Conversion Volume Needed |
Control Level |
| Single Non-Brand Campaign |
Smaller accounts (<$10K/mo), early-stage businesses |
30+ total/month minimum |
Low (let algorithm decide) |
| 2–4 Campaign Structure |
Mid-market accounts ($10K–$100K/mo), multiple product lines |
50+ per campaign/month |
Medium |
| 5–10 Campaign Structure |
Enterprise accounts ($100K+/mo), distinct business units |
100+ per campaign/month ideal |
High (with data to support it) |
| 10+ Campaigns |
Multi-location, multi-brand, or agency portfolio management |
Requires strong portfolio bid strategies |
Very High (high management overhead) |
The key principle: never segment more than your conversion volume can support. I've seen accounts with $30K/month in spend split across 20 campaigns each getting 3–4 conversions monthly. Smart Bidding is essentially flying blind in every one of those campaigns. Consolidating to 4–5 campaigns immediately unlocks better algorithmic performance in the vast majority of cases I've encountered.
Performance Max: Where Does It Fit in Your Structure?
You cannot have a conversation about Google Ads structure in 2024 without addressing Performance Max (PMax). As practitioners have debated extensively, PMax is simultaneously one of Google's most powerful tools and its most opaque.
My current framework for incorporating PMax:
When PMax Works Well
- E-commerce accounts with strong product feed data and clear purchase conversion tracking
- Accounts with rich first-party audience data (customer lists of 1,000+ matched users)
- Businesses with broad product catalogs where manual search doesn't capture full demand
- Accounts spending $50K+/month where PMax has sufficient budget to learn across all inventory
How I Structure PMax Alongside Search
I almost always run PMax alongside branded and non-brand Search campaigns, not as a replacement. My typical setup:
- Brand Search Campaign (Exact Match) — protects branded traffic with controlled bids
- Core Non-Brand Search Campaign(s) — captures high-intent bottom-funnel search queries
- Performance Max Campaign — handles Shopping, Display, YouTube, Gmail, and Discovery inventory with asset groups segmented by product category or audience
Key Insight: Search campaigns take priority over PMax when the same query could be served by either. This means your Search campaigns act as a "guardrail" — if your Search campaign has relevant exact or phrase match keywords, Google will prefer serving those ads over PMax for matching queries. Use this strategically to protect your highest-value search terms.
Common Mistake: Creating a single PMax campaign for an entire e-commerce catalog with 500+ products. Asset groups within PMax are your primary lever for relevance. Segment asset groups by product category, margin tier, or audience intent — don't dump everything into one generic asset group and wonder why you're seeing poor ROAS.
Bidding Strategy Alignment: Structure and Bidding Must Work Together
As the r/PPC community discussion that prompted this post touches on, bid strategy evolution has fundamentally changed how we should think about structure. You can't evaluate campaign structure independently of bidding strategy — they're two sides of the same coin.
Matching Structure to Bid Strategy
Here's how I align the two in practice:
- Target CPA — Works best when campaigns have consistent conversion values. Ideal for lead gen where all leads are treated as equal. Requires 30–50 conversions/month minimum, 100+ to perform well.
- Target ROAS — Best for e-commerce where conversion values vary. The algorithm needs enough revenue diversity to model value accurately. I've seen Target ROAS underperform on campaigns with fewer than 50 conversions/month even if ROAS targets are "met" — the variance is too high.
- Maximize Conversions — My preferred strategy for new campaigns or campaigns with <30 conversions/month. Let the algorithm spend the budget and collect data before applying a target constraint.
- Maximize Conversion Value — The e-commerce equivalent of Maximize Conversions. Use this when you're not yet confident in your ROAS target.
- Portfolio Bid Strategies — For accounts with multiple campaigns that are individually underpowered, portfolio strategies let you pool conversion signals across campaigns. This is an underused feature that can be incredibly effective for accounts in the $5K–$30K/month range.
Best Practice: When launching a new campaign, start with Maximize Conversions (no target) for the first 4–6 weeks to accumulate data. Once you have 50–100 conversions, transition to Target CPA set at roughly 20–30% above your current observed CPA. Tighten the target gradually — no more than 10–15% adjustments at a time — rather than imposing an aggressive target from day one.
Practical Structural Templates by Account Type
Lead Generation Account ($15K–$50K/month)
For a typical B2B or professional services lead gen account at this spend level, my preferred structure:
- Campaign 1: Brand (Exact Match) — Target Impression Share or Target CPA, separate budget
- Campaign 2: Core Non-Brand Search — 3–5 ad groups by service/solution theme, Target CPA with Broad & Phrase mix
- Campaign 3: Competitor/Comparison Terms — separate campaign allows different messaging and CPA targets since competitor traffic converts differently
- Campaign 4: Performance Max — if budget allows, to capture upper-funnel demand and retargeting across Google's full inventory
E-Commerce Account ($50K–$200K/month)
- Campaign 1: Brand Search — Exact match, Target ROAS set 50–100% above account average (brand converts at a premium)
- Campaign 2: High-Margin/Hero Products Search — Non-brand search for top revenue-driving SKUs, Target ROAS
- Campaign 3: Category-Level Search — Broader non-brand category terms, Maximize Conversion Value or Target ROAS
- Campaign 4: Performance Max — Hero Products — Asset groups by product category, strong product feed
- Campaign 5: Performance Max — Full Catalog — Remaining catalog with Shopping inventory focus
What to Do Next: Your Action Plan
If you're reassessing your Google Ads structure after reading this, here's where to start:
- Audit your conversion volume per campaign. Pull a 90-day report. Any campaign with fewer than 30 conversions is a consolidation candidate. List every campaign under that threshold.
- Identify your legitimate segmentation reasons. For each campaign split you currently have, ask: does this require a different budget, a different CPA/ROAS target, or a different conversion goal? If the answer to all three is no, merge it.
- Align your bid strategies to your data volume. If you're running Target CPA on campaigns with <30 conversions/month, switch to Maximize Conversions immediately. You'll likely see performance improvements within 2–3 weeks.
- Audit your PMax asset groups if running Performance Max. Ensure you have at least one asset group per major product category or audience segment. Generic single-asset-group PMax campaigns are a missed optimization opportunity.
- Implement portfolio bid strategies for underpowered campaigns rather than trying to consolidate everything into a single campaign. This gives you structural control while pooling algorithmic signal — the best of both worlds for mid-sized accounts.
The bottom line is this: Google Ads structure in 2024 is about designing a framework that works with automation rather than around it. The practitioners winning right now aren't the ones with the most granular, controlled structures — they're the ones who've given Smart Bidding enough data to do its job, while maintaining the strategic segmentation that protects their most important business objectives. That balance is where the real expertise lies.
