Account Structure Still Matters — Even When Google Says It Does Not

What Google Recommends

Google’s official guidance pushes toward consolidation: fewer campaigns, fewer ad groups, broader keywords, and more automation. The logic is that Smart Bidding needs volume to optimize, and fragmented structures starve algorithms of data. Their Search Campaign guide recommends 2-3 RSAs per ad group with Good or Excellent Ad Strength.

Where I Agree

Consolidation works for most small and medium accounts. If you have 50 ad groups each getting 3 clicks per day, no algorithm can optimize that. Merging related themes, using broad match, and letting Smart Bidding allocate across a larger data set usually improves performance. Ad Strength optimization also helps—more headline and description variations give Google more combinations to test.

Where I Disagree

For large accounts ($50K+ monthly spend), granular structure still matters. Brand campaigns need separate budgets from non-brand. High-value product categories need their own campaigns for budget control. Geographic targeting often requires campaign-level separation. And the biggest issue: Ad Strength is a directional signal, not a performance metric. I have seen Excellent Ad Strength RSAs underperform Poor Ad Strength ads that had a single perfectly crafted headline for a specific audience. Do not rewrite working ads just to improve an Ad Strength score.

The real architecture skill in 2026 is knowing where to give Google control and where to maintain it. Use automated bidding but control budgets. Use broad match but control negatives. Use responsive search ads but pin your best-performing headlines.