Is there any advantage in having multiple adgroups in one campaign. Does it make more sense to put each adgroup into a separate campaign so that I can manage the overall budgets more optimally? I hate having a campaign that has a few winning adgroups, but also some losing adgroups that get lots of clicks. If I had each adgroup in a separate campaign, the proven winners could have high budgets, and the adgroups that aren't winning yet could have low budgets until I find something that works.
Thanks for the reply, Lucid. I wasn't aware of the 25 campaign constraint. Is it better to group all my winning adgroups into a campaign with a high budget, and to bundle the unproven adgroups into campaigns with low budgets? I wish I could just set budgets on the ad level, or adgroup level. I hate high CTR ads that don't convert profitably.
I’m re-thinking what I thought I knew before reading this. Thanks for a well written piece that breaks through the fog to present a clear picture on a fascinating subject.
Campaigns can be set up differently depending on many things. For the most part, look at a campaign as a category. If you sold clothes, you might have a Shirts, Shoes and Pants campaigns. Each of these would likely have many groups. You don't have to split campaigns this way but in this example, it makes logical sense to do so. In the Pants campaign, you would have different groups for jeans for example. If the total daily spend on all jeans groups is $15, make the campaign budget $15. Why split some groups to a new campaign? What would that accomplish? If you have ads that are not performing well, either CTR, conversions or both, try new ads. Moving them to a different campaign with higher or lower budget will not change that fact.