Why So Many Agencies Keep Screwing Up Google Ads and Google Audits (And What to Do Instead)

Google Ads is not hard because it is “mysterious.” It is hard because it is unforgiving.

A few small setup mistakes can quietly bleed budget for months. A few missing measurement pieces can make “good” results look bad (or bad results look good). And a few structural choices can lock an account into mediocrity no matter how much you spend.

I have audited Google Ads accounts managed by solo freelancers, boutique agencies, and large agencies. The pattern is consistent: most underperformance is not about clever hacks. It is about fundamentals that were skipped, rushed, or never revisited.

Below are the biggest reasons agencies mess this up, the most common failure points I see in audits, and what “good” actually looks like.

1) Google Ads is now an engineering system, not a “set it and forget it” channel

Modern Google Ads is a mix of:

• machine learning (bidding and targeting automation),

• creative and asset performance,

• landing page behavior,

• tracking integrity,

• and customer economics.

Many agencies still operate like it is 2016: build campaigns, pick keywords, write ads, and wait.

That approach fails because Google increasingly rewards accounts that provide clear signals:

• clean conversion tracking,

• high-quality creative and assets,

• structured campaigns with strong intent separation,

• and a steady cadence of optimization.

When those signals are weak, the algorithm “learns” the wrong thing fast.

2) Most agencies are built to scale labor, not outcomes

This is the uncomfortable truth.

A lot of agencies are optimized for:

• onboarding quickly,

• managing many accounts per person,

• reporting activity,

• and retaining clients.

They are not optimized for:

• rigorous measurement,

• deep research into your customer and market,

• landing page collaboration,

• or aggressive clean-up when something is not working.

Google Ads rewards depth. Agency operating models often reward speed.

3) The #1 root cause of failure: broken or misleading tracking

If conversion tracking is wrong, every “optimization” is a guess.

Common audit findings:

• primary conversions are set to low-intent events (page views, time on site, button clicks)

• duplicate conversions firing (inflated results, then performance collapses later)

• calls not tracked properly (or tracked with poor attribution)

• lead forms tracked, but not qualified leads

• offline revenue never connected back (for service businesses and high-ticket sales)

• GA4 and Google Ads are not aligned on what counts as success

If the account is not trained on the right outcomes, Smart Bidding will chase noise. You can spend $200K and still not know what you bought.

What good looks like: One clear primary conversion that represents real business value, plus secondary conversions for diagnostic visibility. Clean deduping. Call tracking. A path from lead to qualified lead to closed revenue whenever possible.

4) Campaign structure is often either too messy or too “pretty”

I see two extremes:

Overbuilt structure

Hundreds of ad groups, dozens of match types, endless micro-segmentation. It looks organized, but it starves campaigns of data. Nothing learns fast enough.

Underbuilt structure

One search campaign, broad keywords, one landing page, and “let Google figure it out.” That turns into irrelevant queries, confused messaging, and inflated CPCs.

What good looks like: Simple structure with strong intent separation. Usually:

• brand protection (low-bid exact match)

• non-brand high intent (tight theme, clear promise, aligned landing page)

• mid-intent discovery (more flexible, but still controlled)

• remarketing that is not cannibalizing your best traffic

• Performance Max used intentionally, not as a default

5) Ignoring Performance Max in the age of AI leaves a huge lever unused

Some agencies either avoid Performance Max entirely because it feels like a “black box,” or they treat it as a lazy default and let it run without strategy. Both are mistakes.

In the current version of Google Ads, Performance Max is one of the most direct ways to benefit from Google’s AI across inventory (Search, YouTube, Display, Discover, Gmail, Maps). If you are not testing it intentionally, you are often forcing Search campaigns to do jobs they are not designed to do, like prospecting, remarketing, or creative-led discovery at scale.

The problem is not that Performance Max is “good” or “bad.” The problem is that it needs clean inputs and clear boundaries. Without that, it will happily spend your money in places that look great on paper and do not move the business.

Common agency failure modes:

• They refuse to use Performance Max at all, so scaling stalls once Search demand is capped.

• They run it with weak assets and generic messaging, then blame the channel when results are soft.

• They let it cannibalize brand and high-intent Search traffic, so it “wins” attribution without adding incremental value.

• They optimize to low-quality conversions, which trains the system to find more low-quality leads.

What good looks like:

• Performance Max has a specific job (incremental growth, remarketing, new customer acquisition, or ecommerce scale).

• Brand is protected and separated, so you can see what is truly incremental.

• Conversion tracking is clean and aligned to real value, not noisy micro-events.

• Assets are built like a campaign: multiple angles, strong proof, enough variety for the system to learn.

• Audience signals are used as starting points, not constraints—and performance is reviewed with an incrementality mindset, not just ROAS screenshots.

Used well, Performance Max is one of the few tools in Google Ads that actually behaves like an AI-native growth system. Ignoring it is increasingly a competitive disadvantage.

6) Match types and search terms are mismanaged (or ignored entirely)

Broad match can work. Broad match can also destroy your account.

Many agencies either:

• avoid broad match entirely (and miss volume), or

• lean on broad match without guardrails (and pay for garbage).

The biggest red flag: no disciplined search terms review.

If nobody is reviewing search terms weekly, you are paying for queries you would never knowingly choose.

What good looks like: A thoughtful approach:

• use exact and phrase for core intent

• test broad only when tracking is strong and negatives are disciplined

• maintain negative keyword hygiene as a living system, not a one-time task

7) Bad creative and weak assets are treated like a minor detail

Agencies often treat ads as “copywriting,” then move on.

But Google rewards:

• message match (query → ad → landing page)

• strong assets (sitelinks, callouts, structured snippets, images where applicable)

• consistent testing (not constant random changes)

Weak ads are not just a brand issue. They raise CPCs and lower conversion rates.

What good looks like:A few clear angles tested on purpose:

• problem-aware (what pain are we solving?)

• outcome-driven (what changes after using you?)

• proof-led (reviews, credentials, guarantees, outcomes)

• objection handling (pricing, time, eligibility, process)

8) Landing pages are treated as “not our job”

Google Ads performance is often limited by:

• slow load times

• weak above-the-fold clarity

• generic messaging

• missing trust points

• forms that are too long or too vague

• no segmentation by intent or service line

If your landing page is not doing its job, your ads are forced to carry the full burden.

What good looks like:A conversion path that fits the buyer:

• one promise

• one audience

• one primary action

• proof near the CTA

• minimal friction

• and analytics that reveal where users drop off

9) Reporting shows activity, not truth

Many clients receive reports full of:

• impressions, clicks, CTR, CPC

• and maybe “conversions” that do not map to revenue

Meanwhile, the real questions go unanswered:

• Which campaigns drive qualified leads?

• What is the cost per qualified lead?

• What is the conversion rate by landing page?

• What is the lead-to-close rate by source?

• What is the actual return?

What good looks like: A reporting system tied to business outcomes, with a short list of KPIs that drive decisions.

Why this keeps happening

Most Google Ads mistakes are not because the manager is unintelligent. They happen because:

• Incentives are misaligned. Agencies are rewarded for retention and margin, not rigor.

• Tracking is hard and often political. It touches websites, CRMs, call systems, and sales teams.

• Google pushes automation. Automation works best with clean inputs. Most accounts do not have them.

• Clients rarely see the engine. They see a dashboard, not the underlying structure and assumptions.

A practical “Google Ads sanity check” you can run this week

If you want a quick gut-check, answer these:

1. Can you explain exactly what your primary conversion is and why it matters?

2. Are you confident conversions are not duplicated or inflated?

3. When was the last time someone reviewed search terms and added negatives?

4. Is brand traffic separated from non-brand?

5. Do your ads match your landing page promise clearly?

6. Do you have separate landing experiences for distinct services or intents?

7. Can you tie leads back to qualified leads and closed revenue?

8. If Performance Max is running, can anyone tell you what it is truly driving?

9. Are you seeing “learning limited” warnings because the structure is too fragmented?

10. Does your reporting tell you what to do next, or just what happened?

11. If Performance Max is not running, is that a deliberate choice backed by data—or just fear of the black box? If it is running, can you prove it is incremental and not cannibalizing Search?

If more than a few of these are “not sure,” your account likely has foundational leakage.

The Orr Consulting approach (and why it usually finds money on day one)

When I come in as a fractional CMO or consulting partner, I start with an audit because most accounts are carrying avoidable waste.

A strong audit typically covers:

• measurement and conversion integrity

• campaign structure and intent separation

• SEO, AEO, and GEO audit along with search terms and negative keyword system

• bidding strategy alignment to the real goal

• audience and geo targeting logic (especially for local and regional businesses)

• creative and asset coverage

• landing page performance and message match

• budget allocation and marginal returns by segment

The goal is not to “make it look cleaner.” The goal is to make it make money, and to make performance explainable.

Ready to stop guessing?

Google Ads can be a growth engine, but only when the fundamentals are right. Most uwhy-so-many-agencies-keep-screwing-up-google-ads-and-what-to-do-insteadnderperformance is fixable. You just need someone to look at the system like a business operator, not a dashboard manager.

If you want Orr Consulting to audit your account, you will walk away with:

• a prioritized fix list (fast wins first)

• a clear restructuring plan (if needed)

• tracking recommendations you can hand to your web or analytics team

• and a forward plan tied to qualified leads and revenue, not vanity metrics

If you want an audit, send your monthly spend range and your business type (local service, healthcare, ecommerce, or B2B). I’ll tell you what I would prioritize first.