Campaign Structure Hygiene Check
Flag messy naming, duplicate themes, or bloated structures that make optimization and reporting harder than it should be.
It is mixed. Core search and remarketing are cleanly separated with dedicated naming conventions, but exploratory test campaigns and display prospecting are muddying account reporting. Here is the breakdown from Google Ads and GA4 for 16/04/2026 - 15/05/2026:
| Campaign | Spend | Conv. | ROAS | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand Exact Core | GBP 6,410 | 1,140 | 5.7x | Clean and strong |
| Campaign Promo 25 Broad Test | GBP 4,520 | 460 | 2.6x | Test phase only |
| Remarketing Basket 30D | GBP 3,760 | 298 | 4.9x | Well structured |
| Display Prospecting Broad UK | GBP 5,180 | 86 | 1.4x | Too noisy |
Brand Exact Core and Remarketing Basket 30D are tidy because the naming tells you the intent and the performance is strong enough to justify them. That is the sort of structure that helps a manager move quickly.
Campaign Promo 25 Broad Test is fine for testing, but it should not stay in the same bucket forever. Once a test has a winner, the structure should move toward clarity and scale. Display Prospecting Broad UK is generating substantial noise with low return (1.4x ROAS) and should be partitioned into a separate awareness budget.
Clear naming and hygiene aren't just cosmetic—they prevent budget leaks when bidding strategies auto-optimize. Separate your experimental tests from evergreen revenue drivers so underperforming broad campaigns don't mask core ROAS.