Google Ads Reveals When To Rethink Your Campaign Segmentation Strategy

Google used a recent Ads Decoded podcast episode on YouTube to clarify how advertisers should approach campaign consolidation in Google Ads. The conversation between Ginny Marvin and Brandon Ervin focused on performance-driven account structures rather than consolidation as a standalone goal.

Google clarifies guidance on campaign consolidation

During the episode, Ervin stressed that campaign consolidation is not an objective on its own. The real aim is to achieve equal or better performance with less structural complexity where it makes sense.

He explained that Google’s automation and Smart Bidding systems now handle many tasks that previously required manual segmentation. Older, highly granular structures were rational when accounts were managed manually or with limited automation. Today, those same structures can restrict how machine learning systems operate and limit the signals available to them.

Ervin also addressed concerns about losing control when consolidating campaigns or ad groups. He said, “Control still exists. It just looks different than it did before.” Marvin described the shift as a necessary “mindset shift” for advertisers adapting to AI-driven tools.

The full podcast discussion provides additional detail on how Google recommends balancing automation with account structure decisions.

Key details from the Ads Decoded discussion

• Ervin is Director of Product Management for Search Ads at Google. His remit covers core Search and Shopping automation, including query matching, Smart Bidding, Dynamic Search Ads, budgeting, and AI-driven systems.
• He confirmed that segmentation is still appropriate when it reflects how a business operates. Examples include distinct product lines with separate budgets, different business objectives, and regions that mirror operational structures.
• Ervin distinguished between segmentation driven by current business logic and segmentation kept only because it worked in earlier account setups. Structures maintained solely for historical reasons may no longer support Google’s automation effectively.
• He advised advertisers to check whether their campaigns generate enough conversion data for automated bidding. Around 15 conversions over 30 days was cited as a useful minimum to help bidding systems learn.
• He noted that this conversion volume does not need to come from a single campaign. Shared budgets and portfolio bidding strategies can combine data from multiple campaigns to reach the suggested level.

Background and context

For many years, search advertisers commonly used highly segmented campaign and ad group structures. These often included match-type splits, tightly themed ad groups, layered bidding strategies, and granular regional divisions. According to Ervin, “What people were doing before was quite rational.”

The podcast linked these older structures to a time when manual control was central to paid search management. Ervin contrasted that approach with the current role of Smart Bidding and other AI systems within Google Ads, indicating that these systems can now outperform most manual management in many scenarios.

“The big shift we’ve seen with the rise of Smart Bidding and AI, the machine in general can do much better than most humans. Consolidation is not necessarily the goal itself. This evolution we’ve gone through allows you to get equal or better performance with a lot less granularity.”

Marvin and Ervin emphasized that campaign structure should connect clearly to budgets, goals, and reporting needs. Segmentation is supported when it reflects product lines, objectives, or regions that the business already uses. Consolidation was presented as one way to improve signal strength for AI systems, not as a universal rule every advertiser must follow.

Source citations

• Google Ads Decoded podcast episode featuring Ginny Marvin and Brandon Ervin on YouTube: Ads Decoded episode
• Google Ads Help Center - Smart Bidding overview and documentation: Google Ads Smart Bidding documentation