Google Wants You to Consolidate. Here's When That's a Trap.

"Consolidate your campaigns." "Fewer campaigns mean more data for the algorithm." "Let Smart Bidding do the work."

This is the message Google has been pushing for three years. Simplify your account structure. Merge campaigns. Give the algorithm more data and fewer constraints. It'll figure out the rest.

For some accounts, this is genuinely good advice. For others, it's a trap that destroys margin control.

Why Google wants consolidation

Google's algorithms perform better with more data. More conversions per campaign means faster learning, more confident bidding, and better optimisation. That's not controversial - it's mathematically true.

But "better optimisation" from Google's perspective means maximising conversions or conversion value within your target. It doesn't mean maximising your profit. And when you consolidate campaigns, you lose the ability to set different targets for different product groups based on their commercial reality.

A single campaign with a 4x ROAS target treats every product the same. Your 60% margin hero product and your 15% margin clearance item both get the same bidding target. The algorithm will happily spend your budget on whichever product converts most easily - which is often your lowest-margin, most-discounted SKU.

When consolidation works

• Narrow catalogues with consistent margins. If you sell 50 products and they all have similar margins, a single campaign with one ROAS target is fine. The algorithm can't make a bad margin decision because all roads lead to similar outcomes
• Low-spend accounts with limited data. If you're spending £5,000/month and generating 100 conversions, splitting into 8 campaigns means each campaign has roughly 12 conversions per month. That's not enough for Smart Bidding to learn. Consolidation gives the algorithm what it needs
• Brand-only or single-category advertisers. If your entire catalogue is within one category with consistent economics, granularity adds complexity without benefit

When consolidation is a trap

• Wide margin ranges. If your margins range from 15% to 65% across your catalogue, a single ROAS target is commercially incoherent. Some products need a 6x ROAS to break even. Others are profitable at 2x. Blending them into one campaign guarantees the algorithm will over-invest in low-margin products
• Mixed commercial objectives. Stock clearance products and hero products have different jobs. Consolidating them means the algorithm can't distinguish between "sell this profitably" and "clear this at minimal loss"
• Seasonal or promotional complexity. If some products are on promotion and others aren't, consolidation means the algorithm bids on everything as if the economics are identical. They're not
• High-SKU retailers. If you have 5,000+ SKUs, consolidation means you've handed control of your entire catalogue to an algorithm with a single target. You've lost the ability to make commercial decisions at the product level

The middle ground

The answer isn't maximum granularity or maximum consolidation. It's structuring your account around commercial segments - groups of products with similar margin profiles, similar commercial objectives, and similar bidding requirements.

This is the SKU Jobs Framework in practice. Products that drive profit get one target. Products that drive volume get another. Products clearing stock get a third. Each segment has enough data for the algorithm to learn, but the commercial logic stays intact.

Consolidation is a tool, not a strategy. Use it where the data requires it. Resist it where the margins demand segmentation.

Your Google rep will always recommend consolidation. It makes their job simpler and your account easier for the algorithm. But your job isn't to make Google's life easier. It's to protect your margins.