The burning question is whether you should remove underperforming locations from your Performance Max Campaigns or leave it to the magic of machine learning.
It’s a dilemma that performance marketers struggle with, and there’s no one-size-fits-all answer.
Now, based on my experience here is what I recommend.
If you notice a contrast between the performance of two groups of locations – one thriving, and the other struggling over an extended period, it might be time to consider creating separate campaigns.
The idea is to remove the underperforming locations from the performing ones and allocate a smaller budget to a dedicated campaign for those struggling locations.
Here is the reasoning behind this approach.
Performance Max Campaigns often allocate the majority of the budget to locations that are already performing well. This is of course to maximize results in locations that are delivering the best outcomes.
However, the downside is that underperforming locations might not receive the attention that they need to improve.
Hence, the suggestion is to create a separate campaign with a smaller budget for those underperforming locations.
Now, you might be wondering, does this strategy actually work?
Well, from my own experience, separating campaigns for underperforming locations did yield positive results. Maybe not phenomenal, but the return on ad spend was marginally positive.
NOTE: You should only go down this path if you have the budget for experimenting. If your budget is tight, a simpler solution might be to exclude the underperforming locations from the campaign altogether.
Another point to keep in mind is that you should only stop underperforming location campaigns if, even after receiving a dedicated budget, they still don’t show signs of improvement.
Just about being strategic and data-driven in decision-making.