Podcast Summary: "Let's Audit an Account with 29.6% Optimization Score"

The Paid Search Podcast | Episode 491
Host: Chris Schaeffer
Date: December 8, 2025

Overview

In this episode, Chris Schaeffer tackles the contentious topic of Google Ads Optimization Score by auditing a real client account with a notably low score of 29.6%. Chris demonstrates the disconnect between Google's optimization recommendations and what actually leads to business success in paid search—illustrating that a low optimization score can disguise a highly effective, well-managed, and profitable Google Ads account.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction & Context: What Does a 29.6% Optimization Score Really Mean?

• Chris sets the stage: The account being audited has an optimization score of only 29.6%. Chris underscores how, by Google’s standards, this would be considered "failing" and presumably underperforming (00:19).
• He challenges this assumption by promising to “lift the curtain” and show the real story behind the numbers.

2. Actual Account Performance: The Reality Behind the Score

• Account Background: Chris has managed the account for years; it’s for a fence company focused on specialized fencing.
• Performance Facts:
  • Conversion Rate: 13% over last 150 days
  • Impression Share: 50% (client appears in half of all relevant searches)
  • First Position Rate: 40%
  • Leads Count: Hundreds over the measured period
  • Growth: Business scaling, opening in new cities, increasing spend, “dominating” competitors
  • Auction Insights: Next best competitor at only 18% impression share; most are below 10% (05:39–07:10)
• Account Health:
  • Search terms are "clean"—virtually no need to add negative keywords
  • Automated bidding running at “maximize conversions”—no target CPA as system runs so well
  • Client is expanding and repeatedly hitting growth targets

“This is not an account that is failing. This is an account… at the top of their market. The nearest competitor is at 18% impression share; they're at 50%… They have left every other competitor in the dust.”
— Chris Schaeffer, (06:00)

3. Peeling Back the Optimization Score: Google’s Recommendations & Their Pitfalls

a) Maximize Conversion Value (09:33)

• Google's Recommendation: Switch from maximize conversions to maximize conversion value (for +24% score).
• Chris Pushes Back: The client doesn’t (and can’t) assign dollar values to leads at the campaign level. Switching would result in undesirable bidding behavior.

“This would be an absolute disaster because this client gets leads and there is no value that's set up for these leads.”
— Chris, (10:01)

b) Enable “AI Max” for Search Campaigns (+20%) (12:27)

• Explanation: Turns over significant campaign control to Google’s AI.
• Chris’ View: Unreliable, brings in untargeted traffic, endangers relevance and budget control.

“AI is code word for lazy growth… It looks shiny, it sounds cool, but it’s trash.”
— Chris, (14:32)

c) Set Target CPA (+17%)

• Chris is neutral: Useful in some cases, but questioned why basic bid strategy change is so “optimizing.”
• Big Insight: Recommendations are mostly about expanding spend and reach, not improving efficiency or targeting.

d) Add Broad Match Keywords (+8%)

• Criticism: With search terms already extremely clean, broad match would “write a blank check” and lower quality.

“Why would they need broad match keywords when I told you... my search terms are so clean?”
— Chris, (18:01)

e) Launch Performance Max Campaign (+10%) (19:07)

• Risks: Money wasted on non-search, low-intent placements (YouTube, Discover, Gmail, etc.)

“You know who’s ready to hire a fence contractor? People who are searching for fence contractors... not someone checking their Gmail.”
— Chris, (20:07)

f) Enable Search Partners (+3%)

• Verdict: Chris calls Search Partners “a breeding place for spam” and irrelevant clicks (22:03).

g) Add Suggested Keywords (+2%)

• Examples: “Privacy netting,” “wireless underground fence,” “underground fencing for pets”—all totally irrelevant to the business (24:49–26:16).
• Humorous Riff: Chris is baffled by terms like “privacy netting”—pokes fun at absurdity.

“What the frick is privacy netting?... If you want privacy, you don’t put up a net. I don’t even know what that is.”
— Chris, (25:16)

h) Add Company Name to Ads (+2%)

• Chris’ View: Ridiculous, “insulting” suggestion—mass-applied, one-size-fits-all AI logic.

“This is so lazy. This is, this AI bullcrap that makes absolutely no sense.”
— Chris, (29:05)

4. Meta-Insight: What Optimization Score REALLY Measures

• Expansion vs. Focus:
  • Google’s optimization score is heavily biased toward encouraging:
    • Broader targeting
    • More automation/AI
    • More campaign types
    • Increased ad spend
  • There’s little emphasis on:
    • Tightening keyword targeting
    • Eliminating waste
    • Actual business goals/helpful nuance

“Every time it expands my campaign, Google insists that that is an optimization score improvement... Expansion is optimization… Not depth, but width.”
— Chris, (20:34, 20:55)

• Why? Chris likens it to the bakery recommending more donuts—not a conspiracy, just a reflection of Google’s business incentives (03:09, 21:20).

5. Do Any Recommendations Hold Value?

• Lightning Round: Chris finds only rare instances where Google's recommendations are remotely useful, but most are either irrelevant or counterproductive.

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On trusting Google:

  “No one cares about your business like you. Your employees don’t really care about your business. Google certainly doesn’t…” (04:12)

• On “AI Max”:

  “It’s just… they’ve added chrome. They put chrome on top of my crappy part and said it’s an improvement.” (14:32)

• On broad match keywords:

  “…almost like writing a blank check.” (17:55)

• On the core issue:

  “Optimization does not mean optimization the way that you see it. It means optimization for them.” (21:34)

• On irrelevant suggestions:

  “Privacy netting… maybe they’re having a mental breakdown and… want to put a screen so the aliens can’t read their mind.” (27:13)

Important Timestamps

• 00:19 – Introduction, setting up the optimization score “myth”
• 05:04 – Actual business and campaign performance breakdown
• 09:33 – Beginning of Google’s recommendations, critique starts
• 10:54 – Deep dive into dangers of maximize conversion value bidding
• 12:55 – Chris explains why AI Max can hurt the account
• 15:51 – Critique of target CPA recommendation
• 17:06 – “Expanding” vs “focusing”—Google’s optimization philosophy
• 19:07 – Performance Max campaign pitfalls
• 22:03 – Search Partners warning
• 24:49 – Keyword suggestion absurdities
• 28:00 – Chris defines true optimization: “making money, getting leads, selling products”
• 29:43 – “Optimization score leads you down the wrong path”
• 30:58 – Episode wrap-up and actionable takeaway

Conclusion & Takeaway

Chris closes with a powerful warning about misinterpreting optimization scores:

• A high optimization score does NOT equal a high-performing or efficient account—sometimes quite the opposite.
• Most recommendations serve Google’s interests by expanding reach and spend, not optimizing for your unique business context or bottom line.
• Be skeptical: Use business results and “on-the-ground” account metrics (like conversion volume, cost per conversion, search term quality) as your real optimization benchmark—not a generic Google score.

"There you go—the tale of a 29.6 optimization score in Google Ads and the truth about how I see it and what optimization score really means and how you should interpret it."
— Chris Schaeffer, (30:58)

Find Chris for an audit: chrisschaeffer.com
Podcast website: paidsearchpodcast.com