Most people are wrong about what it takes to run Google Ads profitably

I recently saw a viral tweet with a hot take about Google Ads agencies:

"Google agencies should be on flat fees.

Paying a % of spend for this channel is absolutely ridiculous."

The author made 3 arguments:

1. Branded search requires zero expertise to manage and anyone can do it.

2. It's rare that agencies actually turn a profit on non-branded campaigns

3. YouTube is all about the creative, and a junior-level person can easily set it up and manage it. Basically, brands have to do most of the work anyway.

My take on this?

Well, let’s go through each of these points.

POINT ONE

“Branded search requires zero expertise.”

I agree branded campaigns are some of the easiest to set up on Google.

But saying they require zero expertise? That's a huge stretch.

I recently audited a supplement brand doing over $100M/year.

You'd think a brand that size has the basics covered… especially something as simple as branded search.

But when our team reviewed the account, they were paying up to $15 for branded clicks.

That's 10-20X higher than what they should've been paying.

After we fixed it, their branded CPC dropped to an average of $0.18.

They could have saved at least 5-6 figures if this had been set up correctly from the start.

The thing is…

Their team never questioned it because ROAS looked fine.

That’s the dangerous part with branded campaigns.

They'll give you the illusion that everything's going great with a 10X ROAS…

So you don't think to dig deeper or optimize further…

Meanwhile, you’re overpaying for clicks that should cost a fraction of what you’re spending.

This is not a rare case btw.

We see it all the time with 8-figure brands.

So yeah, it might not take much skill to get a branded campaign up and running with decent returns.

But to squeeze every last drop of profit out of it, that takes real expertise.

Now let’s move on to the second point.

POINT TWO

“Non-branded campaigns aren't profitable on Google.”

This is where I disagree the most.

Because this is the misconception I've been fighting against for the past 5 years.

So instead of talking about the theory of "what campaigns you can run for prospecting,” let me just show you real results from our clients.

Take a look at this brand:

We scaled them from spending $2k/day in August to now over $16K/day.

In just over 3 months, Google took over Meta and became their biggest ad channel.

How does Google… a platform that supposedly just piggybacks off Meta's traffic… generate more revenue than Meta itself?

How does that make sense if you can't run prospecting profitably on Google?

Even for brands with massive brand awareness, prospecting still drives a big part of their revenue.

I believe every brand can make prospecting work on Google, and every brand should prioritize it.

If you're not profitable with it… something's broken in your setup.

POINT THREE

“Brands do all the work making YouTube creatives.”

I'll admit this is a real challenge with YouTube.

The creative is the biggest driver of success… and most of the time, the brand handles that piece. 

(This is why we’re building a creative department in-house, to handle this part for clients)

But saying brands do all the work?

That dismisses everything the agency brings to the table.

I don’t know how other agencies work behind the scenes, but here’s how we approach it…

First, we create the vision and strategy behind those creatives.

YouTube has 3 core placements: Shorts, In-stream, and Non-skippable.

Each one works very differently from the others (and from Meta).

To create effective ads, you need to understand the specific details that make each placement successful.

Most brands don't have that specialized knowledge.

So we usually have to consult them on how to make ads for each.

On top of that…

The tweet claimed "a junior-level person can easily deploy it and turn off what's not working after giving it a few weeks to spend."

This completely misses the nuances of YouTube media buying.

It's not about throwing creatives into campaigns and seeing what sticks.

It's about building a strategic match between your creative, your audience, and your landing page.

You need to figure out which audiences to target

Then tailor your ads to those people…

Build audience signals to ensure your ads reach the right viewers…

Test different landing page formats…

Structure campaigns so the algorithm doesn't favor one creative and every ad has a fair shot at performing.…

Set up tracking to see how each ad performs outside of Google and how it lifts other channels…

And dozens of other small details I won't dive into here.

So yeah, "launch some ads and turn off what doesn't work" is FAR from what it takes to make YouTube work.

Here’re my final thoughts:

Google gets a lot of bad reputation for what it can deliver.

But in reality, it’s one of the most effective channels for getting sales… through both branded and prospecting campaigns.

One that many brands (and agencies) still see as "a channel to supplement Meta" or “a way to capture easy bottom-of-funnel traffic."

That leaves a massive edge for smart brands who:

• Optimize their branded search to its full potential instead of settling for "good enough"

• Build a solid prospecting engine that actively finds and targets new audience segments

• Treat YouTube Ads seriously instead of viewing them as a "second-tier" platform compared to Meta

I think eventually, people will wake up to how profitable Google can be when you run it the right way.

And these strategies will become the common practice.

But for now, it’s still wide-open territory.

Jackson

CEO & Founder of Echelonn

How we can help:

Get a free Google ads audit: For brands spending more than $20k/mo. or making over 1 million annually, we’ll identify the key bottlenecks in your account, and turn it into a free 90-day scaling plan. Click here.

P.S. Got a friend interested in Google ads? Share the love and send them our way.

If you’re that awesome friend, you can subscribe here.