Blended Targets Are a Scaling Trap
When branded and generic campaigns share a ROAS target, the good subsidises the bad. You cannot see where value is created and where it is destroyed.
The Blending Problem
A 5:1 blended ROAS might be 15:1 branded and 2:1 generic. The branded performance makes the generic look acceptable. Without separation, you cannot make informed decisions about either.
Why Blending Happens
Blended targets are convenient. One number to track. One target to hit. One conversation with stakeholders. The simplicity is appealing, especially when reporting to people who do not understand the nuances.
Blending also flatters performance. When strong performers are mixed with weak performers, the average looks better than the reality. Reports show success while profitability suffers.
Agencies particularly benefit from blending. It obscures underperformance in generic campaigns behind branded performance they did not create. The numbers look good. The questions do not get asked.
"A blended target is a permission slip to overspend on underperforming campaigns. It says 'as long as the average is fine, do not look closely.' That is expensive comfort."
The Hidden Cross-Subsidy
Consider an account spending £50,000 monthly with 5:1 blended ROAS. Breakdown:
Branded: £15k spend
- • Revenue: £225,000
- • ROAS: 15:1
- • Contribution: £210,000
- • (Mostly cannibalised)
Generic: £35k spend
- • Revenue: £25,000
- • ROAS: 0.7:1
- • Contribution: -£10,000
- • (Actually losing money)
The blended 5:1 hides that generic campaigns are generating losses. Branded performance masks generic underperformance. Without separation, this loss continues indefinitely.
Segmented Target Framework
Different campaign types deserve different targets based on their role in the funnel and their expected incrementality.
Segment-Appropriate Targets
- Branded:High ROAS target (8:1+) but limited budget since incrementality is low
- Generic Search:Moderate target (4-6:1) reflecting higher incrementality and competition
- Shopping:Product-specific targets based on margin and return rates
- Prospecting:Lower target (2-3:1) accepting lower efficiency for demand creation
The Scaling Implication
Blended targets prevent intelligent scaling. When you want to grow, where do you add budget? Blended metrics provide no guidance. You might increase spend on the weakest performers simply because they have capacity.
Segmented targets reveal opportunity. You can see which campaigns have headroom below their efficiency ceiling. You can identify which channels deserve incremental investment and which are already overextended.
Implementation Challenges
Segmented reporting requires more work. You need clear campaign naming conventions, consistent tracking, and discipline in maintaining separation. Blended is easier. Segmented is more useful.
Stakeholder education is also required. CFOs and CMOs accustomed to single numbers need to understand why multiple targets are necessary. The conversation is harder but leads to better decisions.
The Accountability Shift
Segmented targets create accountability. When generic campaigns have their own target, underperformance cannot hide. When branded campaigns are measured separately, their contribution is visible.
This transparency can be uncomfortable. It reveals that some campaigns are not working. It shows that some spend is wasted. But visibility is the prerequisite to improvement.
The Bottom Line
Blended targets are comfortable lies. They hide underperformance behind strong performers. They prevent intelligent budget allocation. They allow losses to continue unchallenged. Segmented targets reveal truth. Truth enables action.
Want transparent reporting?
We never blend metrics that should be separated.
Get our insights in your inbox
Plain-English thinking about Google Ads. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.