Google Seizes Control of Search Ad Copy

Responsive Search Ads (RSA) Become the Only Option in Search Ad Campaigns

Google deprecated traditional extended text ads (ETAs), shifting to the responsive search ad format only within search campaigns in July, 2022. So from that date forward,  advertisers have not had full control of what ad copy appears in search campaigns, or where each unit of ad copy is served within the ad.

This was a seismic change in Google Ads. Google seized control of the presence of each unit of ad copy in each ad, as well as the sequence in which copy is delivered within the ad structure, down to the individual auction level. Instead of the advertiser making these decisions, Google’s automation does.

This radically changed the control relationship between Google and search advertisers. Up until now, the ad copy served and what position each ad unit is served within the ads have been determined by the advertiser.

There are numerous marketing, brand, performance, and regulatory considerations where the presence and position of ad headlines and descriptions may better serve a business in a certain sequence. Ad delivery automation is not capable of sentient reasoning with these types of overarching factors.

RSA-Only Fully Rolls Out

Now that the transition is here, advertisers and their agents are learning they will no longer be able to simulate ETA ads by selectively pinning ad copy. Advertisers and agencies lose much of their control over ad copy for all ad auctions occurring in search campaigns. This would be agreeable if it had been demonstrated that RSAs outperform in operating margin, volume, and return on ad spend (ROAS). But it has not.

Consider the fashion in which it has been evaluated to date. The most important metric is not being used, and a baseline without RSAs is absent. When an RSA is running within an ad group against ETA ads, we are not looking at a controlled, observable experiment.

Why Might This Concern the Advertising Community?

It is often said that there is resistance from the advertising community to the arrival of PPC automation. The premise is, “Do not be fearful of change. Automation is good. You will get used to it.”

This line of reasoning with the advertising community misses the mark. For the most part, the advertising community understands that machine learning software innovations will not replace them. Most are technology enthusiasts and view software automation innovations positively.

What they are concerned with instead is having visibility into their campaigns and the ability to maintain some control as technology proves itself. If the automation actually outperforms what advertisers have done manually, they will be enthusiastic about it. But there has been a lack of visibility and observability in RSA, and that is a good example of where the concerns about automation actually originate.

Assessing RSA Using Operating Margin and an ETA Baseline

The operating margin for a PPC campaign is calculated using the same metrics as ROAS but calculated differently. ROAS is a ratio obtained by dividing conversion value by the ad spend. The operating margin metric is far more effective and is calculated by subtracting the ad spend amount from the conversion value. Its conversion value is adjusted for ad spend. This is more important than ROAS to any advertiser because it is the amount of money put into the top line by a campaign or account.

ROAS is more frequently the most important PPC metric because it is a normalized metric, or ratio, that can be understood immediately, even by non-technical managers. But it can also hide poor campaign management. For example, you can boast that ROAS increased from 800 to 900% in a month while also bankrupting the advertiser because their conversion dollar volume may be contracting sharply. RSA performance for advertisers must be considered in light of operating margin, conversion dollar volume, and broader PPC reporting, or false conclusions may be reached about their performance.

Does RSA Consume ETA Conversion Volume?

Google recommends always running one RSA and two ETA ads in each ad group and pushes advertisers hard for the early introduction of an RSA. Instead, Blastoff runs a pair of ETA-only ads to establish a baseline. Then we introduce an RSA once the ETA ads have enough clicks to reach the statistical power level needed to establish confidence in the numerical data.

Is the reason RSAs look good because they consume ETA conversion volume when brought into an ETA ad group? Or are they actually superior? We would like to see experiments run showing operating margin comparisons for pairs of ETA ad groups in various sectors, with no RSA ads, then with an RSA ad in the ad group as recommended by Google. I have never seen this topic addressed, although it is a measure of the quality of the RSA automation.

Are Mandatory RSAs Fair to Google’s Advertisers?

Most advertisers will be turning control of how their ad copy is served, the ad unit, over to Google’s black-box RSA automation algorithms. This would be fine if it had actually been shown to improve results for advertisers. But after working with RSA ads since they were introduced, we are not convinced this is a good thing for advertisers and their service provider community.

Our question: If a single, truly viable direct competitor to Google existed, would Google still be able to impose this radical change upon its customer base? Or would advertisers flee to the competing platform?

For related paid search topics, see our articles on PPC performance, adaptive optimization, and PPC campaign management.

Message @BlastoffLabs on Twitter, or contact us via email.