In a series of social media posts dated December 19, 2024, multiple advertising professionals have documented concerning communication practices from Google Ads account strategists targeting small business advertisers. According to Collin Slattery, founder of Taikun Digital and a Google Ads specialist since 2009, these communications often leverage misleading metrics to create unnecessary alarm among clients.
The posted screenshots reveal messages warning advertisers that their "campaigns have lost over 70% of auctions entered due to low ad rank." According to Slattery's analysis, these messages fail to acknowledge that bid adjustments and target Return on Ad Spend (ROAS) settings naturally impact auction participation rates.
Travis Rice, another industry professional, reported receiving "a sweep of scare voicemails to c-suite people attached to the account," creating situations that required immediate clarification with clients. This pattern of communication has intensified recently, as noted by Blastoff Labs on December 20, 2024: "Google's 'reps' have been more aggressively going around agencies, emailing & calling to drop scare bombs."
The timing of these communications arrives three days before the end of 2024, a period traditionally associated with budget planning for many businesses. Industry professionals highlight that smaller clients, who may lack extensive experience with digital advertising platforms, appear particularly targeted by these communications.
Brad Ploch, commenting on the situation, highlighted an example where account strategists suggested potential conversion values of "$10 million" while glossing over the associated cost requirement of "$30 million," demonstrating the misleading nature of some recommendations.
The communications have sparked criticism regarding the dual role of Google's account strategists. While officially positioned as strategic advisors, their actions suggest a sales-focused approach. "Someone who is an 'account strategist' would understand your bid is a key component of ad rank, and that your target ROAS impacts your bid," Slattery noted in his post.
Anthony Higman, addressing the broader implications, pointed to changes in Google's certification testing: "You should see the propaganda in the new certification test and how it all lines with this BS propaganda." This statement suggests systematic issues in how Google presents performance metrics and recommendations to advertisers.
Several professionals have noted that experienced agencies have learned to identify these patterns. According to Blastoff Labs, "most have been burned before and are savvy to it now!" However, this awareness primarily exists among experienced practitioners, leaving smaller businesses potentially vulnerable to misleading communications.
The issue extends beyond individual communications to raise questions about the metrics used to evaluate ad performance. The focus on auction participation rates without context of targeting parameters, bidding strategies, and ROAS goals presents an incomplete picture of campaign effectiveness.
The discussion has gained significant traction in the advertising community, with the original post receiving over 1,095 views within hours of posting. This engagement level suggests widespread recognition of the issue among advertising professionals.
Industry veterans emphasize the importance of understanding the context behind performance metrics. Target ROAS settings, bidding strategies, and campaign objectives all influence auction participation rates, making raw auction participation data potentially misleading when presented in isolation.
This situation highlights the complex relationship between advertising platforms and their users, particularly regarding the dual role of platform representatives as both strategic advisors and sales professionals. It also underscores the importance of comprehensive education about digital advertising metrics and their interpretation.