I’m watching Google add a new layer of AI transparency to ads across Search, YouTube, and Discover. The company said its new How this ad was made section will appear inside My Ad Center, giving people a clearer view of whether AI played a role in the ad creative they see.
The panel will show whether an ad was created or modified with AI. I see this as a meaningful expansion of Google’s ad transparency tools, especially as more advertisers rely on generative AI to produce images, copy, and other campaign assets at scale.
What it looks like. I’ll be able to access the disclosure from the three-dot menu or the info icon on an ad. In the screenshot Google shared with Search Engine Land, the My Ad Center panel includes a dedicated section explaining how the ad was made.
Google will handle some disclosures. When advertisers use Google’s own generative AI ad tools, Google will automatically add the disclosure inside My Ad Center.
Google’s My Ad Center adds a clear AI disclosure, helping users see when ad creative may have been created or edited with generative AI.
For advertisers using third-party AI tools, Google said they will have control over whether to disclose AI use. Depending on local requirements, an AI label may also appear directly on the ad, either automatically or after the advertiser uses that control.
Why I care. AI-generated ads are getting easier and faster to create, so disclosure matters more than ever. I want to know when creative was made or changed with AI because requirements can vary by market, platform, and ad format.
Existing ad rules still apply. Google said its ad policies still prohibit misleading or deceptive advertising, whether AI was involved or not. This update adds more visibility into how an ad was made, but it does not change the requirement that advertisers clearly identify who they are and what they are promoting.
A bold Google logo sits atop layered, colorful digital documents, evoking the fast-moving world of search marketing, ad formats, campaign assets, and platform updates.
Earlier AI safeguards. Google already embeds imperceptible signals, including SynthID, into content created with its generative AI tools. Election advertisers are also required to disclose synthetic or digitally altered content in political ads, under a policy Google introduced in 2023.
I’m seeing OpenAI continue to build out ChatGPT Ads with a new round of updates for advertisers. In an email, ChatGPT Ads announced changes across ChatGPT Ads Manager and the broader ad experience, including custom audiences, a new overview tab, suggested ad drafts, a refreshed static ad card format, and expanded availability in Japan and South Korea.
Here is what stands out to me from the latest update.
Custom audiences: I can now upload audience lists with 25,000 or more users to include or suppress audiences from campaigns. OpenAI is also allowing bid multipliers for audiences at the ad group level, which gives advertisers more control over how aggressively they want to reach specific segments.
Overview tab: The new overview tab gives me a more centralized place to monitor account health, review recommended tasks that may improve campaign performance, and analyze key performance metrics in a larger, more flexible trend chart.
A before-and-after look at ChatGPT's refreshed static ad card, turning a small sponsored grocery prompt into a cleaner, more readable format with larger visuals and a clear Ad badge.
Suggested ad drafts: If a campaign needs broader content coverage to improve delivery, I may see an option to select “Add new ad” from the campaign view. This feature uses existing website metadata to prefill an ad draft with an image, title, and description, which I can then review, edit, and assign to a campaign and ad group. Importantly, OpenAI says this does not generate new copy or imagery with AI.
Japan and South Korea expansion: ChatGPT Ads are now live in Japan and South Korea. That means campaigns can target users in both markets, giving advertisers more reach if they do business there.
Refreshed static ad card format: OpenAI is also rolling out a refreshed static ad card across web and mobile. I see this as a cleaner, more compact format designed to be easier to read while giving visuals more prominence. This format had already started appearing in late June.
A bold Google logo sits atop layered, colorful digital documents, evoking the fast-moving world of search marketing, ad formats, campaign assets, and platform updates.
Why I care: ChatGPT Ads are still new, and OpenAI is clearly moving quickly. New targeting tools, reporting views, draft workflows, market expansion, and format tests all point to a platform that is still taking shape.
My takeaway is simple: I need to keep watching these changes closely, test them as they become available, and continue refining ad creative, audience strategy, and campaign structure as ChatGPT Ads matures.
I have watched paid search change into something far faster and less forgiving than the old reporting rhythm was built to handle. Auction dynamics shift by the hour, competitor bids move in real time, and search behavior changes across devices, times of day, and audience segments before a monthly report can even catch up.
For me, the real cost has always lived in the gap between a performance signal and the moment a person can respond. groas is built to close that gap every hour of every day, and the data shows what can happen when that response loop gets dramatically shorter.
When I sign up with groas, the process starts with a human account manager auditing the existing Google Ads account in detail. This is not a quick surface check. Campaign structure, keyword strategy, bidding logic, budget allocation, conversion tracking, quality scores, search term reports, and auction insights all get reviewed.
I see that audit as the foundation for everything that follows. groas optimizes toward the goals and account structure defined in the roadmap, so a clean conversion hierarchy, accurate tracking, and a well-organized account give the system stronger signals to work with. That early human judgment matters because it shapes the machine’s operating environment.
From there, I like that the rollout is paced across the first 60 days. The system does not start moving aggressively before it understands the account it is working in.
Weeks 1 to 2, observation: groas ingests historical performance data, establishes baselines, and maps patterns across search terms, device performance, time-of-day variance, and audience behavior. During this stage, no changes are made while the system learns the account.
Weeks 3 to 4, calibration: The system starts making targeted optimizations, including bid adjustments, negative keyword additions, match type refinements, and budget reallocations between campaigns. These are deliberate campaign-by-campaign changes, so each move can build on the last.
Weeks 5 to 6, traction: I begin to see early changes show up in the data. Performance shifts become visible across ROAS, conversion value, and wasted spend as the optimizations compound.
Weeks 7 to 8, scaling: Around the 60-day mark, the account has usually stabilized enough for groas to scale. More budget moves into the campaigns and keywords with the strongest conversion history, expanding from a proven base instead of guessing.
A Google Ads performance snapshot tracks April 2026 shifts in conversions, ROAS, conversion value and cost, highlighting the volatility behind paid search optimization.
Once groas is running, I see it work across the full account the way a skilled team would, except it does not stop. It writes and tests ad copy, deploys dynamic landing pages that adjust around each search, turns ad groups on and off when performance calls for it, moves budget where it earns the most, and adjusts bidding strategies in response to live signals.
Anything a person can do inside Google Ads, groas can do too, around the clock.
Capability matters, but results matter more.
The clearest way I can explain the value of continuous, full-surface management is through a real account groas took over. It was a high-spend search account in a tough paid search category: a U.S.-based online mobile recharge platform that lets people instantly top up prepaid mobile phones across major U.S. carriers without creating an account or paying added transaction fees.
This business operates in prepaid wireless, serving many pay-as-you-go and underbanked customers who recharge monthly or even more often, usually right when their balance runs out. That model puts Google Ads at the center of growth.
Demand is intensely intent-driven. When someone’s credit runs out, they search for a way to recharge and often buy within minutes. Capturing that moment is the whole game. But it is also a punishing channel to manage profitably because transactions are low-value and high-volume, margins are thin, and the auction is crowded with carrier brand terms and generic “recharge” and “top up” searches.
In an account like this, a few cents of wasted CPC multiplied across hundreds of daily conversions can decide whether the account is profitable or quietly leaking money.
In this account, a conversion meant a completed recharge. So the numbers are not abstract to me. Every point of ROAS and every additional daily conversion means more recharges processed and more revenue generated on the same budget base.
A Google Ads reporting view tracks PPC performance after optimization, with conversions, ROAS, conversion value and spend moving across a month of campaign activity.
The comparison looked at two account reporting periods: before groas assumed optimization and after.
Spend: up 18% to $164,000.
ROAS: up 30%.
Average CPC: down 15%.
Conversions per day: up 29%.
Conversion value: up 44%.
Cost per conversion: down 14%.
The clearest improvement was return on ad spend. ROAS rose from 1.02x to 1.32x, which is roughly a 30% improvement in value returned for each dollar spent.
A Google Ads trend chart marks the moment groas was connected, with conversion, cost, ROAS and value lines tracking performance shifts through spring 2026.
At the same time, average cost per click fell from $2.34 to $2. But the more important point is what the account did with the clicks it paid for. Conversions and conversion value both grew faster than spend, which means each dollar worked harder than it had under the previous setup.
Daily conversions rose from 571 to 739, about 29%. Daily conversion value rose even faster, from $4,702 to $6,772, or roughly 44%.
What stands out to me is that these gains came through consolidation, not expansion. groas focused spend into 10 active search campaigns, down from 17.
Budget that had been spread thinly across underperforming campaigns was redirected into the keywords and campaigns with the strongest conversion history. Fewer campaigns, lower click costs, and more value returned created a cleaner, more focused account.
That is what an account looks like when waste is removed and budget is concentrated where it can compound.
The mechanism behind results like these is speed plus breadth of attention. Under traditional management tied to weekly or monthly reporting cycles, an underperforming search term might run for 7 to 14 days before anyone acts. A target CPA can drift far from its goal between reviews. An autonomous system narrows the time between signal and response to hours while watching every campaign at once.
As groas gathers more data on audience behavior, search patterns, and conversion value, its decisions become more precise. Budget can then concentrate further into the campaigns that return the most value.
That is the structural difference I see between autonomous management and periodic manual review. Each optimization creates new data, and that data informs the next decision. A system running continuous observe-and-optimize cycles can draw more signal from the same account over time.
Rows of illuminated data cabinets and paper files stretch into the distance, capturing the pressure on marketers to turn fragmented customer data into a smarter performance engine.
Business context still belongs with the people who understand the business. When a client launches a new product line, changes pricing, or redefines which conversions matter most, that direction has to come from a person. groas optimizes toward the goal it is given, and setting that goal is strategic work.
Creative is where I see the human and machine layers working together most clearly. groas writes and tests ad copy and landing page variations at a pace no human team could match, while the people on the account define brand voice, positioning, and creative direction. The strategist shapes the message, and groas finds the specific wording and layout combinations that convert.
For businesses ready to see better results
If I am looking at a current setup that runs on monthly reports and weekly changes, I expect to find a steady gap between what the data says and what actually happens in the account. That gap is where budget gets wasted and opportunities close. In the account above, it showed up as more than 15 active search campaigns, many spending inefficiently, with budget spread too thin to compound.
groas’s onboarding is structured to keep the transition low-risk. The first two weeks are analysis only, measured changes follow, and meaningful performance shifts usually appear within the first month or two, with scaling beginning around day 60. Live campaigns keep running throughout calibration, and the initial audit grounds changes in context from the start.
For businesses that have stayed with the same agency for a long time without material improvement, I would expect the audit alone to surface issues that have gone unaddressed.
I do not think execution-layer account management scales well on its own.
Continuous optimization, bid management, negative keyword maintenance, and budget pacing take a lot of time at volume. As an agency adds clients, it usually has to add headcount or accept that some accounts get less attention than others. Most agencies know exactly which accounts are underserved.
With groas handling execution autonomously across a client portfolio, I can see the team shifting toward strategy, client relationships, and new business.
The work that differentiates an agency is also the hardest to automate. Clients see stronger results, and team capacity moves toward the work that creates the most value.
I see marketing mix modeling (MMM) becoming easier to access, but I do not think it has become easy to get right.
After several conversations about MMM adoption, I keep hearing the same concern: “We believe in MMM, but we do not know how to get started.”
My answer is that open-source platforms have lowered the barrier to entry in a meaningful way. What they have not lowered is the level of expertise required to produce results that are trustworthy, explainable, and useful for decision-making.
Open-source MMM has changed the starting point
I am seeing MMM adoption accelerate because marketers need more durable measurement methods. Almost half of U.S. marketers expect to invest more in MMM over the next year, and many now rank it as one of the most reliable measurement approaches available.
The open-source shift is real. Three production-grade libraries now give teams a practical way to approach MMM across a wide methodological spectrum.
Robyn (Meta, R): I see this as the most approachable starting point because it includes automated hyperparameter search through Nevergrad, Pareto frontier model selection, decomposition, and response curve plots. It is also the one I use most often because it is highly customizable.
Meridian (Google, Python/TensorFlow): I view Meridian as a more rigorous option, especially because it uses Bayesian inference, geo-level priors, and principled uncertainty quantification. The tradeoff is a steeper learning curve.
PyMC-Marketing (PyMC Labs, Python): I consider this the most flexible path. It offers a full probabilistic model that comes closest to academic-grade Bayesian MMM, but it also demands the most statistical fluency.
This generation of tools has removed the old $150,000 to $500,000 consulting gate that used to be the primary path into MMM. A team with R or Python expertise and reasonably clean historical data can now run a model in-house.
Open-source R and Python tools have lowered the cost of starting with marketing mix modeling, but the expertise needed to produce trustworthy, actionable MMM remains the real ceiling.
The caveat I always make explicit is this: “free tool” does not mean “free model.” The software may be free, but the domain expertise needed to configure it correctly is not. That expertise is a major part of the value.
The vendor landscape is crowded and complicated
I also see a fast-growing SaaS layer built on top of open-source MMM. To evaluate it clearly, I find it helpful to separate vendors into a few practical groups.
Data-layer-first vendors
Platforms like Rockerbox and Northbeam started with attribution and data collection, then added MMM. Their advantage is usually pipeline speed and data access, not deep modeling flexibility or customization.
Measurement-first vendors
Platforms such as Measured, Analytic Partners, Ekimetrics, and Nielsen Gracenote tend to offer more rigorous modeling and enterprise-grade capabilities, usually at a higher price point.
Google Meridian and GA360
I think Google’s decision to open-source Meridian is both a generous contribution to the field and a strategic move. When a walled garden funds and packages a measurement methodology that can be used to evaluate its own channels, I believe it is worth maintaining healthy skepticism about priors, defaults, and assumptions, even when the code is transparent.
Open-source MMM tools now span a clear trade-off: Robyn offers the most approachable starting point, Meridian adds Bayesian rigor, and PyMC-Marketing pushes deepest into statistical flexibility.
The practical vendor question I keep coming back to is simple: who owns the data layer, and does that ownership create conflicts in the modeling layer?
Challenge 1: Data access can quietly break MMM
I think data access is the most underappreciated MMM implementation blocker. A well-specified model needs more than a quick export from a dashboard.
I usually want two to three years of weekly data as a baseline, so the model can capture at least two full seasonality cycles and enough spend variation to learn from.
I need consistent channel-level spend granularity, not just a broad “digital” bucket. Search, social, display, video, and other channels need to be separated.
I need offline channels such as TV, OOH, radio, events, and direct mail, even though they often live in different systems, belong to different teams, and use incompatible time periods.
I need external covariates, including macro indicators, competitor activity, pricing data, and product launch calendars.
For B2B, I often need even more history because longer sales cycles and lower conversion volumes make the data requirements more demanding.
In practice, I often find that the real blocker is the six-week data archaeology project that happens before modeling begins. Finance owns revenue. The brand team owns TV. The agency owns digital spend. A spreadsheet from 2021 may be the only record of trade promotions.
The model is only as good as the data archaeology behind it, and that is rarely the part anyone highlights in a vendor demo.
Challenge 2: I still have to roll up my sleeves
AI assistants have lowered the syntax barrier. They can scaffold a Robyn run, generate a Meridian configuration, or help debug a PyMC model. What they cannot reliably do yet is make the judgment calls that determine whether an MMM is credible.
Rows of illuminated data cabinets and paper files stretch into the distance, capturing the pressure on marketers to turn fragmented customer data into a smarter performance engine.
I still have to decide where to land on a Pareto frontier across hundreds of model solutions, balancing NRMSE against DECOMP.RSSD tradeoffs.
I still have to know whether Nevergrad’s optimizer has meaningfully converged or simply landed in a local minimum.
I still have to configure adstock transformation parameters, including Weibull shape and scale or geometric decay, so they reflect realistic channel behavior.
I still have to diagnose why a model gives a channel an implausible contribution and decide whether the fix is a prior, a data correction, or a variable exclusion.
In other words, if I try to vibe code my way into MMM, I may end up with a model that appears to work but is wrong in ways I will not catch. The scripting is not the hardest part. The real work is validating the output, including using channel-specific incrementality experiments to calibrate the model.
Challenge 3: Human expertise is not optional
Even if the tools mature enough for AI to run a competent default MMM, I still see human expertise as essential. The irreplaceable work is encoding business context that no model can infer from the data alone.
Adstock and carryover context: I need to know whether a TV buy carries over for four weeks, paid search carries over for three days, or a brand awareness campaign decays over months. That knowledge usually lives with channel experts, not inside the dataset.
Saturation curve shape: I need to recognize when a channel is probably approaching diminishing returns before the model says so, and I need to question the model when it suggests something implausible.
Guardrails and anomaly handling: I need to explicitly model or flag COVID troughs, product launches, pricing shifts, and macro disruptions as structural breaks. AI does not automatically know a client had a pricing crisis in Q3 2022.
Interpretation sanity checks: If a model assigns 40% of contribution to TV for a brand spending $2 million on TV, I need the experience to say, “That feels wrong,” and investigate. That intuition is earned, not computed.
Organizational translation: A technically correct model has little value if I cannot explain why it recommends moving 15% of search budget to CTV in language a CMO and CFO will act on.
I start with the groundwork before the model
The best place to begin is not the model itself. I start by understanding what data is needed, who owns it, and who can help interpret it in the context of real marketing decisions.
None of that is quick or easy, but it is essential if I want meaningful insight from MMM, whether I choose an open-source library or a subscription-based platform.
As a practical first step, I would download Robyn’s demo script and experiment with sample data before applying MMM to my own business data. That kind of hands-on testing makes the strengths, limits, and judgment calls much clearer.
I’m adjusting how I refer to Google’s shopping platform now that Google has dropped “Next” from Merchant Center Next. Going forward, the product is simply called Google Merchant Center.
Google made the change official in a Merchant Center announcement, saying, “The platform you use today will simply be referred to as Google Merchant Center.” For anyone managing product feeds, shopping campaigns, or merchant accounts, this is mainly a naming update rather than a product change.
I remember when Google Merchant Center Next was introduced in 2023 as the newer version of the old Google Merchant Center. Over the past few years, more merchants, site owners, and advertisers moved into that updated experience.
At this point, it appears that Merchant Center Next has effectively become the standard experience. So Google is removing the “Next” branding and returning to the simpler name: Google Merchant Center.
Rows of illuminated data cabinets and paper files stretch into the distance, capturing the pressure on marketers to turn fragmented customer data into a smarter performance engine.
Google said users will start seeing the “Next” branding removed from Help Center articles, email communications, and the Merchant Center interface.
Google also clarified that no action is required and that the name change does not affect existing accounts. In other words, I do not need to update settings, migrate anything, or make account-level changes because of this rebrand.
Why does this matter? When I talk about Google’s merchant tools now, I can leave off “Next” and just call the platform Google Merchant Center. Honestly, that is what many of us were already calling it anyway.
AI now shows up in nearly every corner of marketing, and for every useful initiative I see, it feels like 10 vendors appear with a tool that claims to solve it.
When this wave first started, I took more vendor calls and answered more outreach than I do now. Over time, I noticed I was asking the same core questions again and again to decide whether an AI tool was actually worth deploying.
If I feel overwhelmed by AI vendor pitches, these are the five questions I use to separate useful solutions from noise. They help me understand what the tool does, whether it solves a real business problem, and whether the vendor is the kind of partner I would trust with my budget, data, and team’s time.
1. What problem does your tool solve?
I start here because I want to understand the purpose of the tool and, more importantly, whether the value it creates connects to real business outcomes.
If a vendor cannot clearly explain the challenges or use cases the tool addresses, I assume it was not purpose-built for a real problem my team faces. That applies whether I am evaluating it from an in-house perspective or on behalf of an agency. I am cautious when vendors lead with feature-heavy language but cannot explain the business benefits those features are supposed to deliver.
If a vendor can identify at least one existing team problem and explain how the tool improves business outcomes, I keep the conversation going. My next question is usually for a case study that shows how the tool was used and what results it delivered for an organization similar to mine in size, market, or vertical.
I look for benefits such as increasing output or identifying tracking gaps that speed up troubleshooting. I do not rush to buy a tool simply because it promises to save time, even if that promise is true. I need to know how I will use that extra time before I can decide whether the savings are meaningful.
2. What expertise do you have in the space where this tool solves a problem?
This answer tells me whether the vendor built the tool for advertisers or merely at advertisers.
Technical skill matters, but so does understanding how a media buyer actually spends the day. If the vendor does not have direct experience in media buying, I want to hear how the team researched the market and how those insights shaped the product.
A shallow understanding of the problem is a red flag for me. I do not expect every sales rep to have deep domain expertise, but someone on the team should. If I am seriously considering the tool, I want access to that person early in the process.
When a vendor has a credible story about identifying a problem I recognize firsthand and building a solution around it, I find that compelling. A founding mission tied to my actual challenges gives me more confidence that the tool can make a real difference in performance.
3. What case studies, real use cases, and results can you share?
In a fast-moving AI market, I treat case studies as essential. I want to know whether the vendor has a strong track record with customers like me or whether I would be one of the first teams testing the product in my space.
If I would be an early adopter, I weigh the tradeoffs carefully. I might gain an advantage by finding a growth accelerator before competitors do. I might also spend time working through bugs, giving detailed feedback, or discovering that the tool does not deliver what was promised.
If I cannot trust the tool, or if I will need to provide a lot of feedback just to make it useful, I have to decide whether the potential payoff is big enough to justify the time and money. In most cases, that bar should be high.
Rows of illuminated data cabinets and paper files stretch into the distance, capturing the pressure on marketers to turn fragmented customer data into a smarter performance engine.
If I am clearly going to be an early adopter and the vendor will not offer flexible contract terms that reduce my risk, I consider that a nonstarter. Established tools may be less flexible on pricing because they can already prove consistent value. Newer tools that take a hard line on price and contract terms are much less likely to become strong long-term partners.
For established vendors, I want specific and relevant case studies with real numbers from advertisers in a similar space, at a similar size, or with a similar use case.
For early-stage companies, the best answer is honesty. If a vendor says, “You’d be one of our first clients in this vertical. Here’s what we’ve seen elsewhere, and here’s what that partnership would look like,” I see that transparency as a positive sign.
4. Who owns my data, and how is it being used to train models?
I am still surprised by how quickly people share data with AI tools in the rush to find a competitive edge. Before I sign anything, I take data ownership and model training terms seriously.
I watch for any answer suggesting that my data could be used to train shared or third-party models without my explicit consent. I also treat vague answers, deflections, or terms of service that conflict with the salesperson’s verbal explanation as major warning signs.
I own my data, full stop.
The vendor should be able to clearly explain where my data is stored, how long it is retained, whether it is used for model training, and what happens to it if I stop using the tool. If model training is involved, I want that training limited to refining my own instance. Most importantly, I want those commitments in the contract, not just in a conversation. If the language is missing, I insist that it be added before I sign.
5. What does implementation actually look like, and what does success require from our team?
Before I commit budget, I need to understand the real cost of adopting the tool. That cost is not just the subscription price. It includes the time, internal lift, integration work, training, QA, and possible disruption to the existing martech stack.
If the tool requires resources my team does not have, or if I cannot realistically dedicate the time needed to use it well, I do not consider it a smart investment yet. A lot of wasted martech spend could be avoided by asking this question and taking the answer seriously.
I do not expect every tool to fit every organization, but I do expect implementation to be clear and the product to be intuitive enough for the team to adopt. If people cannot understand it, trust it, or fit it into their workflow, it will not create the value the vendor promised.
I do not let AI hype rush my decision
I know firsthand that many AI tools sound too good to be true, and often they are. I still want to stay curious and ambitious, but I balance that with caution.
I also remind myself that AI adoption is still early. If a tool feels too expensive, too difficult to onboard, or too rigid in its contract terms compared with its track record, I am willing to wait. A better option may appear in the next few months.
When I am unsure, I ask for a free trial. If integrating the tool will not create too much work for the team, a trial can be the best way to decide whether I have found a real competitive advantage or just another AI pitch dressed up as one.
I am seeing OpenAI roll out the ability to upload audience lists inside ChatGPT Ads. The new option appears under the “Tools” section and is labeled “Audiences.”
My read is that this gives advertisers a way to target campaigns based on the audience lists they upload to the platform, which should make ChatGPT Ads more useful for more precise ad targeting.
A new Audiences area appears in ChatGPT Ads Manager, inviting advertisers to upload customer lists for campaign targeting and audience filtering.
More details. I can upload raw or hashed emails and phone numbers and use them as audience filters for campaigns running on ChatGPT Ads.
A ChatGPT Ads audience upload form shows how advertisers can add customer lists, choose identifier type, and submit CSV or TXT files for campaign targeting.
What it looks like. I spotted screenshots of the feature from Craig Graham and Joss Froggatt on LinkedIn. Here is what the Audiences option looks like in the platform:
A glowing Google search bar cuts through streams of digital data, capturing the fast-moving world of search, shopping visibility, and SEO innovation.
Why I care. I see this as another sign that OpenAI is continuing to build more customization and targeting controls into its new ChatGPT Ads platform.
For advertisers and marketers, audience uploads could make the platform more practical and more performance-focused. If the targeting works well, it may help improve conversions, strengthen ROI, and make ChatGPT Ads a more serious option in paid media plans.
When I see Microsoft Advertising campaigns struggle to scale, the issue is often not the platform itself. It is usually that the account is being treated as a copy of a strategy built somewhere else.
Importing campaigns can get me live quickly, but it is only the beginning. Real performance comes when I add human judgment, Microsoft-specific structure, clean measurement, business-specific controls, and enough creative assets to help AI understand what I am actually selling.
The strongest accounts I see have a shared pattern: import is the starting point, visual creative opens more demand, and AI works best when I give it the right structure, signals, measurement, and guardrails.
Here is how I approach Microsoft Advertising when I want more than a simple campaign import.
Note: I’m a Microsoft employee, and I have written this as objectively as possible. I have also included community-sourced hidden gems where they help highlight useful features.
1. I start with import, but I do not stop there
Import is useful because it removes friction. It can bring over campaign structure, assets, and settings from Google, Meta, or Pinterest so I can launch faster. The mistake is assuming that a successful import means the Microsoft Advertising strategy is finished.
Imported campaigns often preserve yesterday’s assumptions. I still need to make Microsoft-specific decisions about budget, bidding, audiences, creative, measurement, reporting, and AI-powered opportunities.
Decide whether sync helps or holds the account back
One of the first choices I review is whether future changes from the source platform should keep syncing into Microsoft Advertising. If I only want to mirror another platform, automatic sync can reduce maintenance. If I want to build a Microsoft-specific strategy, automatic sync can quietly overwrite the optimizations I make after launch.
To see the full list of import settings, I go to Manual import > Advanced settings. From there, I review which settings should stay, which should change, and which Microsoft-specific opportunities were never part of the original structure.
Review budgets, bids, currency, and Microsoft-only options
Imported budgets may not match the opportunity or efficiency available in Microsoft Advertising, especially when I can consolidate campaigns and use ad-group-level controls instead.
Imported bids can also carry assumptions from another platform. I want Microsoft Advertising to have room to optimize for its own auction dynamics, audiences, and conversion data.
A PPC expert highlights LinkedIn Profile Targeting as a Microsoft Advertising hidden gem, especially for B2B campaigns that need to reach senior decision influencers.
Review Microsoft-specific settings after import
Import cannot choose Microsoft-specific opportunities for me. After launch, I review the settings that can materially change performance.
LinkedIn profile targeting: I can bid up or down, observe performance, and use LinkedIn profile data as a Performance Max audience signal across Company, Industry, Job Function, and Seniority.
Ad-group-level scheduling and location targeting: I can override campaign-level schedules and location targets at the ad group level, including whether ads serve in the user’s time zone or the account’s time zone.
Impression-based remarketing: I can target, exclude, or adjust bids based on someone seeing my ad. It does not require an existing email list or pixel, and members can remain on the list for up to 30 days after a single impression.
Multimedia ads: These visual-heavy ads have their own auction, can appear on the same SERP as my text ad, and may also serve in Copilot.
Cross-account portfolio bidding: If I need to launch a new account for the same brand, I can let it benefit from conversion data in an existing account.
Microsoft Clarity: I can use this free behavioral analytics tool to understand how people and AI engage with my site, where landing pages create friction, and which grounding queries may connect AI systems to my content.
Creative and editorial considerations: Microsoft has stricter advertising policies than many platforms, but it also allows useful capabilities such as exclamation points in headlines and disclaimers of up to 500 characters that do not take up ad space. If I enable disclaimers, my ads will only serve when the disclaimers can appear alongside them.
2. I build the signal foundation before optimizing
Account-level settings can look overly technical, but I treat them as the foundation for AI performance. They determine whether automation learns from clean data or from messy, misleading signals. Settings such as business attributes also help me communicate why customers should choose the business.
Verify conversion tracking and attribution before changing bids
Even the best bidding strategy cannot make up for incomplete conversion data. Before I blame bids, keywords, audiences, or creative, I verify that conversion and attribution data are flowing correctly.
Microsoft Click ID (MSCLID): This helps connect ad clicks to conversion activity.
View-through conversions: These help me understand the role visual creative plays before a conversion happens.
Simplified conversion setup: This enables intelligent conversion action creation.
Without verified tracking, it is easy to diagnose the wrong problem. What looks like a bidding issue may actually be incomplete or inconsistent conversion data.
If the organization relies heavily on UTM parameters, I also validate how auto-tagging and manual tagging interact. My goal is clean reporting, not duplicated parameters or attribution confusion caused by mislabeling.
Treat creative inputs as signals
When enabled, Microsoft Advertising can use images from landing pages to create more relevant ad experiences. If the site has strong, brand-safe, well-maintained imagery, this can improve creative coverage without forcing me to manually build every variation for every campaign type.
AI-optimized creative works best when the site already gives it good material. If the pages include images I would not want in ads, or if the imagery is sparse, text-heavy, or poorly matched to the offer, I upload the assets I want the system to use. Auto-retrieved images reduce friction, but they do not replace creative strategy.
Use account-level negatives carefully
Account-level negatives can eliminate unwanted traffic patterns across the account. Microsoft supports phrase and exact match negatives. If I need to remove a root problem, phrase match is often the better option. If I need to block a specific search term, exact match may work better. Neither negative match type accounts for close variants.
I only use account-level negatives for terms I am confident should not serve anywhere in the account. More nuanced exclusions belong at the campaign or ad group level.
3. I use structure and controls to help AI perform
Microsoft Advertising gives me useful controls, but my goal is not to micromanage every lever. I want to give AI cleaner inputs, stronger guardrails, and fewer structural problems to solve.
Microsoft reports a 20% reduction in low-quality Search Partner Network impressions, crediting earlier invalid activity detection, stronger quality signals, and tougher enforcement.
Concentrate signals instead of fragmenting them
Ad-group-level location and ad schedule settings can reduce the need to create duplicate campaigns or split budgets across multiple accounts.
I have seen advertisers create separate campaigns only to support different geographies or schedules. In many cases, I can manage those settings at the ad group level, simplify the structure, and concentrate conversion volume.
That matters because automated bidding usually performs better with stronger, more consistent signals. When possible, I aim for at least 30 conversions in 30 days. That level of signal gives automated bidding a better chance to make stable decisions than a fragmented structure with thin conversion volume.
Use scheduling, location, and disclaimers as guardrails
I always review location targeting. Microsoft Advertising supports geographic targets, radius targeting, and exclusions, but city-, county-, metro-, or DMA-level strategies may be more practical than forcing ZIP codes.
If Microsoft does not support a specific location target, it defaults to the next-highest level, such as ZIP code to city or city to DMA. If I need narrow targeting, I look closely at exclusions.
Avoid unnecessary learning volatility
Large bid or budget changes can create volatility while the system adjusts. As a general rule, I try to keep bid or budget changes below 15% over a 14-day period when I want to avoid unnecessary learning disruption. Larger changes may still be necessary, but I make them intentionally.
Seasonality adjustments help when I expect a temporary conversion rate change because of a sale, event, promotion, or other short-term spike. Data exclusions help when conversion tracking breaks or reports misleading data that I do not want automated bidding to learn from. These tools are not bidding hacks. They protect automation from learning the wrong lesson.
Use conversion value rules whenever possible
The cleanest way I can communicate value to the bidding algorithm is through conversion value rules grounded in accurate conversion tracking. These rules let me create if/then logic for devices, audiences, and locations, then add a monetary amount or multiply conversion value.
Microsoft supports bid adjustments across audiences, devices, demographics, locations, and time. Multiple adjustments can compound. If a user qualifies for several categories at once, the bid may become more aggressive than I intended.
Before I add another layer, I ask whether I truly want to spend more to reach that audience, in that location, on that device, at that time. If I want the algorithm to understand value, meaningful conversion values and conversion value rules are usually stronger signals. If values are not reliable, CPA-oriented bidding with carefully chosen adjustments can still work.
Microsoft Advertising reports network-level gains, with indexed conversion rates up 45% and indexed cost per conversion down 1.5%, tied to cleaner traffic quality.
4. I use audiences, inventory, and creative to shape demand
Microsoft’s differentiated audiences, inventory, and creative formats can help me generate and shape new demand instead of only capturing demand that already exists.
Use LinkedIn profile targeting intentionally
LinkedIn profile targeting is still one of the most distinctive audience capabilities in Microsoft Advertising. I can apply bid adjustments based on company, industry, job function, and seniority.
Multiple targets within the same LinkedIn profile category act as “or” statements, while targeting across categories narrows the signal. A company target plus a seniority target is more restrictive than two company targets. That can be powerful when intentional and expensive when accidental because bid adjustments compound.
For B2B advertisers, this can be especially useful, but it is not limited to enterprise brands. Any business selling to specific professional audiences can use these signals to prioritize valuable traffic.
For example, if I am trying to reach someone traveling for work with local experiences or travel gear, I might bid up on a “Business development” job function in an industry with a conference happening in the next two to three weeks.
Build audiences from exposure, not just site visits
Traditional remarketing depends on someone visiting my website. Impression-based remarketing gives me another option: building audiences from people who have been exposed to my advertising.
A prospect may not click the first time they see the brand, especially in formats such as Audience ads, Premium Streaming, or Multimedia ads. Impression-based remarketing lets me continue the conversation later instead of treating the first exposure as a failed interaction. An impression can become the starting point for an audience strategy.
Reevaluate search partners and exclusions
Many advertisers disable search partners because they assume the inventory behaves like display network expansion on other platforms. I do not start with that assumption. Search partner inventory is still search inventory, and Microsoft provides publisher visibility, so I can evaluate it directly.
Recent Microsoft studies have shown a 45% improvement in conversion rates and a 20% reduction in low-quality impressions tied specifically to Search Partner inventory, independent of advertiser optimization.
If specific publishers are not performing, I use the available controls. I can manage unlimited exclusion lists at the MCC account level, and each list can exclude up to 2,500 URLs. If I need to protect a campaign’s ability to target a placement, such as when Performance Max and Audience ads run together, I exclude domains surgically instead of cutting off useful inventory.
A PPC strategist highlights a practical Microsoft Advertising tactic: run multimedia ads separately from branded search to expand visibility without self-competition.
Use Multimedia ads to expand SERP presence
Multimedia ads participate in their own auction and can appear in prominent visual placements on the search results page. A traditional search ad and a Multimedia ad can both appear for the same brand, increasing my presence on the SERP.
I can enable Multimedia ads at the campaign level and then use ad-group-level decisions to direct budget toward or away from the format.
They matter because they can amplify visual presence, serve as ads in Copilot, and qualify for impression-based remarketing. Their value is not limited to direct-click performance. They can connect search visibility, visual storytelling, and remarketing strategy.
Use Audience ads to expand reach
I use Audience ads, including display, native, and video, as a controlled way to expand reach, support full-funnel strategy, and build remarketing inputs that inform other parts of the account.
Audience ads support audience strategies, placement preferences, content category controls, and creative preview before launch. For organizations that require legal, brand, product, or executive approval, preview capability can make review much easier.
Use creative and editorial details to reduce friction
Microsoft Advertising has editorial policies I need to understand instead of assuming every platform evaluates ads the same way. Claims such as “best,” “number one,” or other superiority language need clear landing page support.
Microsoft Advertising also allows some emphasis I might not expect, such as one exclamation point in headlines, but that flexibility does not remove the need for substantiated claims and clean final URLs.
Editorial issues are often misdiagnosed as platform friction. In many cases, the issue is one specific asset rather than the entire ad. Final URL problems are more fundamental and can prevent an ad from serving at all.
Extensions and visual assets can help brands communicate more value before users reach the landing page, especially in competitive categories where plain text may not provide enough differentiation.
5. I treat PMax, AI Max, and Copilot as AI opportunities with guardrails
I find Microsoft’s approach to AI most useful when I view it as augmentation rather than replacement. Human-centered AI should help me scale thoughtfully while preserving consent, transparency, and trust.
A marketer highlights how Microsoft Clarity surfaces real user friction, from mobile testing gaps to visitors tapping images they mistake for links, offering useful context for ad and landing page optimization.
Know what Performance Max is designed to enable
Performance Max can be powerful, but it requires a different mindset from traditional campaign structures. Asset groups are not ad groups. There is no asset-group-level equivalent to ad-group negatives, and I cannot force one asset group to take priority over another.
Performance Max is built for AI-driven allocation. If strict control is the priority, traditional Search, Shopping, and Audience campaigns may provide clearer governance. When I want to influence Performance Max, I focus on the inputs that matter most.
Strong audience signals: I include impression-based remarketing and LinkedIn profile targeting, which are unique to Microsoft.
Relevant creative: Copilot can pull creative from the landing page and adapt existing creative with tonal shifts, rewrites, or formatting improvements.
Thoughtful search themes: I avoid duplicating exact match keywords as search themes because exact match keywords take priority in the auction.
Meaningful conversion tracking: I make sure conversion tracking and conversion values are accurate because Performance Max needs conversions to perform effectively.
Clear landing pages: The landing page must communicate the offer clearly. If it does not, the algorithm may struggle to match the right queries, and people may struggle to do business with me.
If I run the same search theme as an exact match keyword, there is a strong chance the exact match keyword will serve instead of the Performance Max campaign. I prefer to use search themes as testing grounds rather than duplicates.
Performance Max website URL reporting gives me URL-level visibility into spend, clicks, impressions, and conversions. That gives me more to work with than impression-only reporting and can make automated campaign testing easier to justify.
Separate campaigns when budget separation matters
If budget separation matters, I create distinct campaigns instead of forcing multiple business objectives into one Performance Max campaign. Microsoft’s capacity of 300 Performance Max campaigns, compared with Google’s 100, can be useful when budget priorities genuinely need separation.
For example, if I have two equally important products with drastically different tROAS goals, I would not want them to share budgets because I cannot specify which asset group or product should take priority. Separate campaigns with distinct budgets and tROAS goals are usually a cleaner fit.
My rule is simple: if related assets and audiences can share a budget, I consolidate Performance Max campaigns to strengthen conversion volume. If budget separation matters, I build that control at the campaign level instead of trying to force it through asset groups.
Evaluate AI Max and Copilot for new opportunities
AI Max now addresses many of the use cases that once made Dynamic Search ads valuable. If my goal is to let Microsoft AI better match queries, creative, and landing pages, AI Max may be the better place to test.
That does not mean I abandon existing high-performing campaigns. It means I stay intentional about whether I am investing in legacy dynamic functionality or AI-powered capabilities built on Microsoft’s latest technology.
Ads can appear in relevant Copilot experiences when Microsoft determines there is clear commercial intent and the ad may help the user. Ads have served in Copilot since 2024. The goal is not to force ads into AI answers. It is to preserve a useful experience for the user.
A glowing Google search bar cuts through streams of digital data, capturing the fast-moving world of search, shopping visibility, and SEO innovation.
Copilot is not a separate campaign type I manually opt into. Performance Max, AI Max, exact, phrase, and broad match search campaigns, Multimedia ads, and Shopping ads are all eligible to serve in Copilot. Performance Max and AI Max have the easiest time serving there because they can adapt to AI-driven experiences.
Use generative AI as a creative workflow and diagnostic tool
Copilot can help me brainstorm, rewrite, refine, and adapt creative across Performance Max, responsive search ads, Multimedia ads, Audience ads, and other campaign types. It does not replace the marketer. It reduces friction between strategy and iteration.
Ad Studio can generate new creative assets and make adjustments such as background modifications, seasonal refinements, location-specific tailoring, and additional aspect ratios. I see its best use as accelerating iteration once the creative strategy is already clear.
AI-generated assets can also help me diagnose how clearly the site communicates. If the outputs accurately represent the business, the site is probably sending clearer signals. If they repeatedly miss the mark, the landing pages, messaging, or content structure may be confusing both AI systems and people. The Performance Max campaign generator can be a useful diagnostic shortcut for the same reason.
6. I use reporting and Clarity before blaming the auction
No amount of AI, bidding nuance, or audience strategy can compensate for poor measurement. Microsoft Advertising provides strong reporting visibility, and I use it before making media-only decisions.
Use transparent reporting to make better decisions
Microsoft provides visibility into every search term that generates a click as part of its transparency approach. I use that visibility to understand what is really happening behind performance changes.
Genuinely wasteful: There may be no business case for targeting that search.
An AI-driven match: The query may look questionable until I examine the customer journey with behavioral analytics.
A landing page issue disguised as a traffic problem: Before I add a negative keyword, I evaluate post-click behavior to see whether the landing page or conversion tracking is the real issue.
Use Microsoft Clarity before making campaign changes
Microsoft Clarity answers one of the most important questions in campaign diagnostics: what happens after the click? It can show whether users engage with the page, get confused, abandon forms, run into technical issues, or complete actions that are not being tracked correctly.
I want Clarity in the diagnostic process before I make major campaign changes.
If people arrive and get stuck, the issue may be the landing page experience.
If they complete the desired action but conversions do not appear in Microsoft Advertising, the issue may be tracking.
If they arrive and immediately disengage, the issue may be creative alignment, traffic quality, or the offer itself.
Clarity can also help me understand how AI systems interact with my content, including the grounding queries that led AI systems to cite the domain and recommendations for improving citation opportunities.
If AI systems cite the domain as relevant, that can validate the content strategy. If they do not, or if the queries reveal mismatches, that may point to gaps in how the content communicates value.
I apply Microsoft-specific optimizations deliberately
I can import existing campaign structures and assets while still taking advantage of Microsoft-specific capabilities. AI can play a central role, act as an occasional assist, or be used selectively, but scaling becomes harder without some level of AI adoption.
Testing Microsoft Advertising does not require a massive investment. It does require getting the fundamentals right: conversion tracking, bid-to-budget ratios, and creative that reflects the channel’s visual nature.
When I get those fundamentals right, Microsoft Advertising gives me search term transparency, GDPR-compliant impression-based audiences, and opportunities to reach people across the surfaces where they work, live, and play.
I am seeing OpenAI roll out a new feature that lets ChatGPT Ads generate ads for advertisers, and I suspect AI is doing the heavy lifting behind it. The option appears under “Add new ad” and includes a prompt to “generate ads for you.”
From there, I can choose to let ChatGPT create the ad, then review it, edit it, and approve it before it goes live on the ChatGPT Ads platform.
ChatGPT Ads Manager preview highlights OpenAI's generated ad workflow, where marketers can review an AI-created variation before activating it for a campaign.
What it looks like. Anthony Higman posted a screenshot of the feature on X, showing how the ad creation flow appears inside the platform.
A ChatGPT Ads dropdown highlights the quick Duplicate Ad option, pointing marketers to a faster way to copy an existing ad for review, edits, and reuse.
In the screenshot, the interface says, “We generated an ad variation based on your website and campaign settings. Review, edit as needed, and activate when you’re ready.” I can then move forward by selecting “Review and create.”
Old search marketing tools give way to a faster, connected future, with data streams, AI icons, and a glowing search hub symbolizing SEO innovation and community growth.
I also noticed that Higman spotted a quick duplicate ad option, which could make it easier to create variations faster.
Why I care. It makes sense to me that OpenAI would use AI to help advertisers create ads more quickly. If the tool reduces friction, it could lead to more ads being created, submitted, and activated on ChatGPT Ads, which would also help OpenAI generate more revenue from ChatGPT.
As a marketer, I would still be careful with AI-generated ads. I would review every version closely to make sure the messaging fits the brand, supports the campaign strategy, and aligns with performance goals, including ROI.
I believe the lines between paid media, PR, and SEO have officially disappeared.
When I look at baked-in YouTube sponsorships, native UGC, and third-party review incentives, I no longer see them as separate from SEO. I see them as the modern equivalent of buying a high-DA backlink. When I fund these channels, I am investing in the information sources that shape how AI systems understand, evaluate, and recommend a brand.
A recent social media screenshot made this shift especially clear to me. A B2B brand was offering a $250 Amazon voucher to anyone who wrote a review on G2.
To a growth marketer, that may look like a familiar user acquisition tactic. But as an SEO, I saw something more important: a direct investment in the semantic infrastructure AI systems use to judge brands.
The evolution of the authority signal
To understand why I consider a $250 G2 voucher or a paid YouTube sponsorship an SEO strategy, I have to look at how LLMs now define authority.
Authority used to feel transactional and mathematical. You built or bought hyperlinks, and those links helped determine how trusted a page or brand appeared to search engines.
When I moved from link building into digital PR and influencer marketing, I realized Google was getting smarter. I could not rely on links alone. I needed unlinked brand mentions, high-tier media coverage, and contextual relevance. In many ways, I was optimizing for Google’s Knowledge Graph.
Today, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems and LLMs do not just count links or parse knowledge graphs. They look for semantic consensus across the web.
When an AI engine like Perplexity or ChatGPT answers a user query, it crawls the data ecosystems it trusts most for that specific topic. For software, that often means G2 and Reddit. For consumer products, it may mean TikTok transcripts, YouTube, and forums.
So when I pay $250 for a G2 review, I am buying a dense, text-based data point that an LLM can use to understand my brand’s sentiment, use cases, and vector positioning. I am strengthening the signals AI systems may use when deciding whether to recommend my brand.
The permanent ad: Why sponsorships and UGC are the new organic infrastructure
This reality breaks the traditional separation between paid media and SEO.
The path to AI search visibility now runs beyond links: from PageRank and PR mentions to consistent brand signals across the datasets LLMs rely on.
Historically, paid ads were temporary. I turned off the budget, the traffic stopped, and SEO had to carry the long-term work. If I run a dynamic programmatic ad on YouTube or a banner ad on a website, that old model still applies because LLM web scrapers generally ignore dynamic ad placements.
But baked-in influencer sponsorships, native user-generated content, and podcast reads behave differently because they become part of the content itself.
First, there is the hardcoded transcript. When a YouTuber reads a native sponsor segment such as, “I use Brand X to manage my business taxes,” that message is baked into the video file, and YouTube automatically transcribes it.
Then comes LLM ingestion. When an LLM crawls the web, or when a multimodal AI watches the video, those spoken words can be indexed. The AI can associate the brand with the semantic concept of business taxes.
That creates a new half-life for paid media. Long after the campaign ends and the initial views slow down, the transcript can remain part of the information an LLM can access.
As someone who spent years bridging the gap between digital PR and SEO, I used to judge a campaign’s ROI by immediate referral traffic, brand search lift, and backlink quality. Now, I also have to think about the algorithmic half-life of my creative assets.
Activating the convincer: Bringing paid and PR into the visibility supply chain
The visibility supply chain treats content like an industrial product that passes through strict organizational “gates” before it enters the digital ecosystem. In that model, companies need a strategic duo: the hacker, or technical architect, and the convincer, or cross-departmental visibility advocate.
This convergence of paid media and AI visibility is exactly where I believe the convincer has to step in.
If my paid media team is buying YouTube sponsorships based only on demographic reach, or if my product marketing team is buying G2 reviews just to hit a quarterly quota, we may be damaging LLM visibility without realizing it.
The reason is simple: LLMs need information density and semantic alignment.
If a user writes a rushed, generic review like “Great tool, highly recommend!” just to receive a $250 voucher, it may pass the human layer, but it fails the machine layer. To a RAG system, that sentence is low-density noise.
Old search marketing tools give way to a faster, connected future, with data streams, AI icons, and a glowing search hub symbolizing SEO innovation and community growth.
The convincer’s job is to realign the review strategy and help internal teams understand how every initiative can build LLM visibility.
For example, I would rather incentivize users to write detailed, context-rich problem-and-solution statements, such as: “We used Brand X to solve our cross-border compliance issues in Europe.” That gives AI the entity-relationship mapping it needs to recommend the brand for cross-border compliance.
The new marketing playbook: Optimizing dataset partnerships
If I want a brand to be recommended by AI systems, I have to study where the major AI players are getting their data.
We know OpenAI and Google have struck multimillion-dollar deals to train on Reddit’s real-time firehose. We know Grok trains on X. We also know Apple and others are licensing major journalistic archives.
That means target audience research is no longer just about finding where customers spend time. For me, it is also about dataset matching.
If I am planning an influencer campaign, a digital PR push, or a community-building initiative, I need to ask one critical question: Is this content entering a data pipeline that the primary LLMs trust and crawl in real time?
Stop optimizing pages. Start optimizing budgets.
I no longer believe SEO can be isolated inside a technical department or limited to a content blog. That does not reflect how AI visibility is built anymore.
The next time I sit in a budget allocation meeting and see a line item for influencer marketing, podcast sponsorships, or third-party review incentives, I will not treat it as temporary media buying.
I will reframe it as infrastructure. I am building the digital foundation of a brand’s AI persona. I am buying the AI equivalent of backlinks. If I do not intentionally structure those paid assets to feed the visibility system, I am leaving the brand’s future visibility up to chance.
