Discovering the Bug: Anomalies in a Performance Max Campaign

During our campaign evaluations, the ROImonks team identified irregularities within one of our client’s Google Ads Performance Max campaigns. We observed an unexpected surge in Google Ads clicks, which was out of sync with the typical performance metrics we monitor daily.

This spike raised red flags, especially as GА4 and website data did not show any increase in clicks or traffic. It was clear that this irregularity was limited to Google Ads.

Initial Investigation: Google’s Response

Our analysis indicated that the increase in clicks did not lead to site visits or other interactions. The high number of clicks led to low conversion rates, suggesting that these weren’t genuine interactions but bot traffic or indications of an underlying bug.

The recommendation of the Google Account Manager was to open a ticket with the Google support. The initial response of Google Support attributed the spike in clicks to a couple of possible reasons:

1. An increased number of ads being shown on YouTube, particularly due to the wider reach and various formats available within Performance Max campaigns.
2. New asset groups that were added to the campaign which could have led to a spike in the clicks. Hence, those clicks shouldn’t be “Invalid clicks“.
3. Finally, Google assured us that those were invalid clicks, that their system detects invalid traffic with your ads, and they automatically filter these out of your reports, so they don’t affect your account statistics.

Overall, Google recommended to focus on the global costs and clicks performance rather than fluctuations. Since keywords and ads change and evolve, spikes or drops in traffic aren’t abnormal behavior. They recommended keeping the campaign running as this spike in clicks should not affect campaign performance.

While this might have been an explanation, our team wasn’t convinced. We have enough experience to know that this could not be caused by YouTube or new asset groups. In addition, Invalid clicks column on Google Ads did not show nearly as many invalid clicks as we should have expected, according to Google. However, we trusted Google to keep the campaign running.

What Happened Next: Campaign Underperformance

We trusted Google and kept the bugged Performance Max campaign running for an entire month. In the end, we had to stop the campaign because we did not find a way to return to the performance prior to the bug.

In the meantime, we escalated our case to the Google Account Manager, and were constantly going back and forth with Google’s support letting them know that the campaign was underperforming relative to the pre-bug period.

We wanted to simply stop the campaign because of this abnormal behavior, but Google’s internal team and Account Manager insisted that there was nothing abnormal and we should continue spending on this campaign.

At first, Google kept saying this was not a bug and those were invalid clicks, and giving us generic campaign optimization tips. However, as time went on and the financial underperformance of the campaign became more apparent, Google’s internal team finally admitted that we should stop the bugged campaign.

During this period, we spent £22,149.07 on this Performance Max campaign, following Google’s guidelines, with conv. value / cost of just 1.94. If we compare this bugged period with the same amount of days before the bug, this campaign was generating conv. value / cost of 4.31, which is much higher than during the bugged period.

As you can see on the attached screenshots, our client lost 55.09% of returns because of this bug on Google’s side. 

Making Our Case: Requesting Refund and Convincing Google

We understand that mistakes and bugs happen, but our client lost a lot of money because of this bug. 

Moreover, we noticed the issue right away and were in touch with Google’s support team for a month. Even though we wanted to stop the campaign, Google’s internal team insisted on continuing to spend on this campaign. 

Backed by data and our in-depth analysis, we approached Google Ads Support and Google Account Manager with a firm stance. We highlighted the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the ad performance, emphasizing the negative financial impact. We requested a refund of the campaign’s spend for the period of the bug.

With the right arguments and persistent communication, we managed to convince the Google Account Manager and Google’s internal team that this in fact was a bug. These discussions involved collaboration with gTech Global Customer Care and entailed thorough evaluations from both ends. Eventually, Google reconsidered their initial stance and agreed with us. 

The Breakthrough: Securing the Credit Adjustment

Google Ads Support and Account Manager, recognizing the validity of our claims, admitted that it was indeed a bug and initiated the Credit Adjustment process. A few months later, we secured £22,149.07 in Google Ads credit for our client.

Final thoughts

At ROImonks, our relationship with clients goes beyond doing marketing. We advocate, protect, and ensure our clients receive the best possible outcomes, even when faced with unprecedented challenges. When anomalies arise, we don’t simply put them in the reports, we go further to investigate and resolve them.

This case study highlights that in the complex and evolving landscape of digital advertising, significant discrepancies in data are not a cue to overlook or accept. They signal a need for a detailed analysis. With the right experts, you can overcome challenges and make much more informed decisions about your business.

Does this hands-on, problem-solving attitude resonate with you? If so, the team at ROImonks would be happy to hear from you and discuss how we can help you.