A recent meeting of 50 PPC agency leaders has unveiled widespread concerns about deteriorating relationships between Google and advertising agencies. The gathering revealed systematic issues that are creating significant challenges for agency operations and client management.
"The Google x Agency relationship seems really on the rocks at the moment," according to Ian Harris, who hosted the meeting of PPC agency leaders. Harris reports that agencies are facing persistent challenges in maintaining client relationships due to Google's aggressive outreach tactics.
According to documented discussions on LinkedIn, agencies are experiencing a consistent pattern of interference with their client relationships. "Every week it seems, a client will phone you up and say: 'Hey, I just had a phone call from GOOGLE! They told me you guys don't know what you're doing!'" Harris shared in his LinkedIn post.
The interference extends to direct account modifications. Andy Youngs, Co-Founder at The PPC People & Creative Lead at Website Design Ltd, recently experienced this firsthand: "We've just had a Google Rep actively make changes to a client account, without authorisation from us or the client."
Agencies report facing increasingly aggressive communication from Google representatives. Maggie Carroll shared a recent email she received from a Google representative that stated: "We haven't heard from you after multiple ways of contacting you, this is our last resort, we'll now contact your client if you do not get in touch with us."
Sam Pascoe, posting in the LinkedIn thread, noted that avoiding Google's representatives often leads to more aggressive behavior: "I find that ignoring them just makes things worse - they take 'initiative' and start contacting your clients directly, or making changes to the account without letting you know. They can also make changes that don't show in the change history!"
The problems appear to be structural rather than isolated incidents. According to Jack Porter-Smith's LinkedIn comment, these issues began at a specific point: "This started July 1st 2022 and has been relentless since. They've done more damage to agency/Google relationships in the past year than the previous decade."
Pete Fairburn observed in the LinkedIn discussion that the conflict stems from fundamentally different objectives: "Google's driving force is to make money for Google. An Agency's driving force should be to make money for their client in the most cost effective way possible."
The situation is further complicated by Google's use of third-party contractors. According to discussions documented in the LinkedIn thread, many of the representatives causing these issues are employed by third-party companies, though they use google.com email addresses in their communications.
Harris notes that agencies feel they're "going belly-to-belly with a £1.3 trillion business that's hell bent on unpicking their hard work." The situation has become so concerning that agencies report spending significant time managing Google's interference rather than focusing on client campaigns.
Some agencies have developed defensive strategies. According to Sam Pascoe's LinkedIn comment, his agency requires all recommendations to be submitted in writing: "Our go-to is a simple template reply along these lines: 'Thanks for your invitation to have a call. Please could you instead send over all recommendations in a reply to this email, so we have everything in writing.'"
The recent unauthorized account changes incident, which prompted an official response from Google's Ads Liaison Ginny Marvin, appears to be part of a larger pattern. While Marvin confirmed that in this specific case, Google "did not properly follow our processes for ensuring approvals are granted before making changes," agencies report that such interventions are becoming increasingly common.
According to the LinkedIn discussion, the tensions are affecting agencies of all sizes. The meeting of 50 "decently sized PPC agencies" revealed this was "a major problem for people," suggesting the issues are industry-wide rather than isolated incidents.
The situation represents what many agency leaders describe as a fundamental shift in their relationship with Google. As one agency professional noted in the LinkedIn thread, these aggressive tactics and unauthorized interventions are straining what was previously a collaborative partnership between agencies and the platform.
The documented experiences from multiple agency leaders suggest that the relationship between Google and its agency partners has reached a critical point, with implications for the future of digital advertising management and client service delivery.
Direct client contact tactics
According to the LinkedIn discussion documented in the sources, Google representatives employ several aggressive outreach methods. They persistently contact agencies' clients directly, often suggesting the agencies are underperforming. As Ian Harris reported from the meeting of 50 PPC agency leaders, representatives frequently tell clients, "you guys don't know what you're doing!"
The documents reveal a concerning pattern of direct account interference. According to Andy Youngs' experience, Google representatives make unauthorized changes including: "Writing new ad copy, adjusting headline pinning and changing a bidding strategy." Most troublingly, these modifications "don't even show in the account change history," making them difficult for agencies to track and monitor.
When agencies resist Google's initial contact attempts, representatives escalate their approach. According to Maggie Carroll's LinkedIn post, they send threatening emails with ultimatums: "We haven't heard from you after multiple ways of contacting you, this is our last resort, we'll now contact your client if you do not get in touch with us." This pattern of escalation demonstrates a systematic approach to pressuring agencies.
Technical intervention methods
The documented changes made by Google representatives include:
- Unpinning ad headlines
- Adding more images from the asset library
- Correcting business names and adding logos
- Adding new headlines to existing ads
These changes are often justified by representatives claiming they will help boost ad performance, making them stronger, more informative, and more competitive.
The LinkedIn discussion revealed that Google representatives use multiple communication channels to maintain pressure on agencies. According to Sam Pascoe's account, agencies receive "numerous 'this is your last chance' emails from Google's reps in the last fortnight, each threatening to contact our clients directly."
The documents indicate that many of these aggressive tactics come from third-party contractors working on Google's behalf. While they use google.com email addresses and present themselves as Google employees, Lee Hart noted in the LinkedIn thread that "it's actually a 3rd party company that employs these people (not google directly)."
Representatives consistently push for specific changes to campaign strategies, regardless of existing agency approaches. According to Ian Harris's LinkedIn post, these typically include demands to:
- Switch on broad match
- Increase spend in Performance Max
- Make immediate strategic changes without consideration for existing campaign performance
One of the most concerning tactics documented is the ability of Google representatives to make changes that bypass normal account tracking systems. Sam Pascoe noted that representatives can "make changes that don't show in the change history," indicating a level of system access that circumvents standard accountability measures.
The representatives employ what agencies describe as a deliberate strategy to undermine agency-client relationships. According to the LinkedIn discussion, they contact clients repeatedly, making them feel guilty about ignoring Google's recommendations. As Harris noted, "Your clients feel bad because they're ignoring Google."
These tactics, documented across multiple agency leaders' experiences, represent a systematic approach to intervention in agency-managed accounts. The consistency of these reports, from the meeting of 50 PPC agency leaders and subsequent LinkedIn discussions, suggests these are not isolated incidents but rather part of a broader strategy that has been in place since July 1, 2022, as dated by Jack Porter-Smith.
The combined evidence from agency leaders' testimonies presents a picture of coordinated pressure tactics designed to influence both agencies and their clients, often circumventing established account management protocols and professional relationships in the process.