<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="How to make SEO reports more actionable" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>Turn keyword research, audits, and technical findings into clear recommendations stakeholders can prioritize and execute.


<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="How to make SEO reports more actionable" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-to-make-SEO-reports-more-actionable-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>
<p><a href="https://searchengineland.com/guide/seo-reporting">SEO reports</a> often contain solid research, including keyword data, technical findings, competitor insights, content gaps, and recommendations. The problem starts when <a href="https://searchengineland.com/guide/seo-stakeholders">stakeholders</a> finish reading and still don&#8217;t know what should happen next.</p>



<p>For example, a report might say internal linking should be improved, but not which pages should be linked, who should make the changes, when the work should happen, or what results to expect. It might identify a crawl issue, but not explain whether fixing it matters more than the content or commercial page gaps already blocking growth.</p>



<p>This is where many SEO reports lose impact. The analysis may be correct, but the decisions and action plan are still unclear.</p>



<p>A strong SEO report should help readers understand what matters now, why it matters to the business, and what should happen next. It should reduce the need for another round of interpretation before work can begin.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-research-is-useful-but-it-s-not-the-final-output">Research is useful, but it’s not the final output</h2>



<p>Keyword research, SERP analysis, technical crawls, competitor reviews, and content audits are all important SEO activities. They uncover gaps, risks, and opportunities that would otherwise remain hidden.</p>



<p>But those inputs shouldn&#8217;t dominate the final report.</p>



<p>Stakeholders don&#8217;t need to see every export, screenshot, or crawl detail. They need the conclusions that come from the research. They need to understand which findings matter, which improvements can wait, and which actions deserve priority.</p>



<p>For example, a crawl might identify 300 pages with missing meta descriptions. That finding is only useful if the report explains whether those pages matter. Missing descriptions on low-value archive pages may not deserve immediate attention. Missing descriptions on high-intent service pages with strong impressions may be worth fixing quickly.</p>



<p>The same applies to keyword gaps. A list of 200 missed keywords is less useful than identifying the five opportunities that align with commercial intent, existing authority, and realistic execution capacity.</p>



<p>A useful SEO report shows the work behind a recommendation only when it helps stakeholders understand why it deserves priority.</p>



<p><strong><em>Dig deeper: <a href="https://searchengineland.com/stop-reporting-traffic-464083">Stop reporting traffic and activity. Start reporting progress.</a></em></strong>



<p><a href="https://www.semrush.com/lp/semrush-one/en/?utm_campaign=ic_semrush_one&amp;utm_source=searchengineland.com&amp;utm_medium=overlay&amp;onboarding=off" target="_blank">
  <div>

    <div>

      <div id="semrush-one-headline" class="headline-responsive">
        Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand <span>shows up</span>.
      </div>
      <p id="semrush-one-subhead">
        The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.
      </p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span id="semrush-one-cta">Start Free Trial</span>
    </div>

    <div>
      <div>Get started with</div>
      <img decoding="async" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/semrush-one.webp" alt="Semrush One Logo">
    </div>
  </div>
</a>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-where-seo-reports-lose-stakeholders">Where SEO reports lose stakeholders</h2>



<p>Most SEO reports lose momentum when the findings are too generic, the recommendations aren&#8217;t actionable, or the priorities aren&#8217;t clear. The following are among the most common reasons reports fail to drive action.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-takeaway-could-apply-to-any-website">The takeaway could apply to any website</h3>



<p>Many SEO reports lose impact when the main takeaways are too broad.</p>



<p>Phrases like &#8220;improve content quality,&#8221; &#8220;strengthen internal linking,&#8221; and &#8220;target high-intent keywords&#8221; may be correct, but they don&#8217;t tell the reader anything specific about their site compared to others. These recommendations are too broad because they could apply to almost any website.</p>



<p>A stronger takeaway explains what&#8217;s different about the website, the market, or the opportunity.</p>



<p>For example:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Weak:</strong> &#8220;Create more bottom-funnel content.&#8221;</li>



<li><strong>Strong:</strong> &#8220;Competitors are winning comparison and pricing-intent queries, while your site mostly ranks for educational searches. The next content priority should be three comparison pages that connect to existing high-traffic guides.&#8221;</li>
</ul>



<p>The second version gives stakeholders a clearer reason to act. It explains the gap, the business relevance, and the first move.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-recommendation-stops-before-the-work-begins">The recommendation stops before the work begins</h3>



<p>A recommendation can sound useful but still be difficult to execute.</p>



<p>&#8220;Improve internal linking to commercial pages&#8221; is a common example. It identifies the right area, but leaves too many open questions:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Which pages should link?</li>



<li>Which commercial pages matter most?</li>



<li>Who updates the copy?</li>



<li>When should it be done?</li>



<li>How will impact be measured?</li>
</ul>



<p>A more useful recommendation would look like this:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>“<strong>Week 1:</strong> Map the top 10 informational pages by organic clicks to the three commercial pages with the highest lead value.</li>



<li><strong>Week 2:</strong> Add contextual links using descriptive anchor text. SEO owns the mapping and QA. Content owns the copy updates. Review impact after four to six weeks through crawl depth, impressions, and ranking movement.”</li>
</ul>



<p>That level of detail helps work begin without another strategy meeting.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-priorities-are-listed-not-sequenced">Priorities are listed, not sequenced</h3>



<p>Many reports list 15 or 20 recommendations at the same level of importance. This creates confusion because stakeholders can&#8217;t tell what should happen now, what comes next, and what can wait.</p>



<p>Priority should account for impact, effort, dependency, and timing.</p>



<p>For example, while fixing broken links might be easy, it may not be the highest-impact task. Consolidating cannibalized pages may take longer, but it could create more commercial value if those pages are competing for the same high-intent queries.</p>



<p>A useful report explains the order of operations. It shows which actions create momentum first, which actions depend on other teams, and which improvements should be treated as later-stage work.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-tool-outputs-are-mistaken-for-strategy">Tool outputs are mistaken for strategy</h3>



<p>Automated audits can surface useful issues, but they lack business context.</p>



<p>A tool can flag missing schema, duplicate titles, slow pages, and broken links. However, it can&#8217;t reliably determine which issue matters most for a specific business at a specific moment.</p>



<p>For example, a tool may flag site speed as a critical issue. But if competitors in the niche are equally slow and the bigger gap is weak commercial content coverage, site speed may not deserve top priority.</p>



<p>Tools identify potential issues. SEO judgment determines which issues deserve action.</p>



<p><strong><em>Dig deeper: <a href="https://searchengineland.com/why-most-seo-failures-are-organizational-not-technical-468167">Why most SEO failures are organizational, not technical</a></em></strong>



<div class="nl-inline-form border py-2 px-1 my-2">
	
	<div class="row align-items-center nl-inline-container">
		<div class="col-12 col-lg-3 col-xl-4 pe-md-0 pb-2 pb-lg-0">
			<p class="inline-form-text text-center mb-0">Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.</p>
		</div>
		<div class="col-12 col-lg-7 col-xl-6  pe-lg-0">
			<div class="form-nl-inline">
				<form id="mktoForm_16298"></form> 
				
				
			</div>
		</div>
		<div class="col-12 col-lg-2 col-xl-2 ps-1">
			<p class="text-center mb-0"><a class="nl-terms" href="https://searchengineland.com/termsofuse" target="_blank" aria-label="opens in a new tab">See terms.</a>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>




<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-cyan-bluish-gray-color has-css-opacity has-cyan-bluish-gray-background-color has-background"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-tailor-reports-to-the-stakeholder">Tailor reports to the stakeholder</h2>



<p>A common reason SEO reports fail to drive action is that they treat every stakeholder the same.</p>



<p>The same finding may need to be explained differently depending on who has to act on it. A CEO, a marketing lead, a developer, and a content manager don&#8217;t need the same level of detail. They need the same truth translated into the context of their decisions.</p>



<p>For a CEO or founder, the report should focus on business opportunity, risk, resource needs, and expected impact.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Example: </strong>&#8220;The site is losing visibility in commercial comparison searches where competitors are capturing high-intent demand. The top priority is building three comparison pages and linking them from existing high-traffic informational content. The pages can be published within four to six weeks, with early visibility signals reviewed after indexing.&#8221;</li>
</ul>



<p>For a marketing lead, the report should connect SEO work to demand generation, campaigns, and content direction.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Example: </strong>&#8220;The blog attracts early-stage visitors, but these pages don&#8217;t support product discovery. The next step is adding commercial pathways from the top informational pages into product, demo, or comparison content.&#8221;</li>
</ul>



<p>For a developer or product team, the report should remove ambiguity from the technical requirement.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Example: </strong>&#8220;Update canonical tags on these 12 filtered category URLs to point to the main category page. Acceptance check: The canonical target returns 200, is indexable, and appears consistently in rendered HTML.&#8221;</li>
</ul>



<p>For a content team, the report should make page-level action clear.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Example: </strong>&#8220;Update this guide to include a comparison section, add two internal links to commercial pages, and answer the pricing-related query that competitors cover but the page currently misses.&#8221;</li>
</ul>



<p>A strong SEO report presents the findings in a way that each stakeholder can act on.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-what-a-decision-ready-seo-report-should-show">What a decision-ready SEO report should show</h2>



<p>A useful SEO report should clearly answer a small number of questions. These questions may vary by stakeholder, but the underlying purpose stays the same: helping people decide what to do next.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-start-with-the-opportunity">Start with the opportunity</h3>



<p>Where can SEO create business value? This could be a topic cluster where competitors are weak, a set of underperforming commercial pages, or an existing content asset that attracts demand but doesn&#8217;t support conversion.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-identify-the-main-constraint">Identify the main constraint</h3>



<p>Is growth blocked by crawlability? Content depth? Competitor dominance? Something structural in how the site maps to buyer intent?</p>



<p>The answer shapes everything that follows.</p>



<p>For example, a B2B site may have strong informational rankings but weak visibility for comparison queries. In that case, the problem isn&#8217;t simply a content gap – it&#8217;s a missing bridge between educational demand and commercial intent.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-define-the-first-move">Define the first move</h3>



<p>The report should explain which action deserves priority and why it should happen before other work. This is where impact, effort, dependency, and timing matter.</p>



<p>For example, instead of saying &#8220;create a buyer guide,&#8221; the report should specify which guide to create, which SERP pattern justifies it, which existing pages should link to it, who owns the draft, when it should go live, and what signals should be reviewed after launch.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-establish-how-progress-will-be-measured">Establish how progress will be measured</h3>



<p>Early signals may include indexing, crawl depth, impressions, or ranking movement. Later signals may include qualified traffic, demo requests, assisted conversions, or pipeline influence.</p>



<p><strong><em>Dig deeper: <a href="https://searchengineland.com/seo-goals-strategy-planning-453492">SEO execution: Understanding goals, strategy, and planning</a></em></strong>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-turn-every-finding-into-a-clear-next-step">Turn every finding into a clear next step</h2>



<p>Every important finding in an SEO report should answer three simple questions:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>What did we find?</li>



<li>Why does it matter?</li>



<li>What should happen next?</li>
</ul>



<p>This helps prevent findings from sitting in the report as observations with no clear path forward.</p>



<p>Consider a report that identifies five high-traffic informational pages with no links to relevant commercial pages. That&#8217;s a useful finding, but without interpretation, stakeholders only know what exists. They don&#8217;t know why it matters or what action it should trigger. The site is already winning organic visibility, but the journey from education to action is weak.</p>



<p>The next step should be specific.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Example:</strong> &#8220;Add contextual links from those five informational pages to the two most relevant commercial destinations. Content owns the updates. SEO reviews the mapping and anchor text. Measure changes in crawl depth, impressions, clicks, and assisted conversions after four to six weeks.&#8221;</li>
</ul>



<p>This turns a finding into work that can be assigned, implemented, and reviewed.</p>



<p>If a finding can&#8217;t be connected to a next step, it may belong in a supporting document rather than the main report.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-what-to-cut-from-seo-reports">What to cut from SEO reports</h2>



<p>SEO reports often become clearer when they remove material that doesn&#8217;t help the reader make a decision.</p>



<p>Tool screenshots are a common example. A screenshot can support a point when it shows a clear pattern, but adding screenshots for every issue usually makes the report harder to read. </p>



<p>The same applies to large keyword exports, crawl tables, and raw audit scores. These details are useful as supporting material, but they shouldn&#8217;t dominate the main report.</p>



<p>Generic best-practice advice should also be removed or rewritten. &#8220;Add schema,&#8221; &#8220;improve page speed,&#8221; and &#8220;optimize title tags&#8221; only help when the report explains why those actions matter for this site right now.</p>



<p>Long methodology sections can usually be shortened. Methodology matters when trust, reproducibility, or stakeholder education is needed. But most senior stakeholders don&#8217;t need to see the entire research process. They need the conclusion that came from it.</p>



<p>Before adding something to the main report, ask whether it helps the reader understand the priority or take the next step. If it doesn&#8217;t, it&#8217;s likely better placed in an appendix or supporting document.</p>



<p><strong><em>Dig deeper: <a href="https://searchengineland.com/seo-reporting-black-box-era-463461">SEO in the black box era: Why reports will look more like Mad Men than Search Console</a></em></strong>



<p><a href="https://www.semrush.com/lp/semrush-one/en/?utm_campaign=ic_semrush_one&amp;utm_source=searchengineland.com&amp;utm_medium=overlay&amp;onboarding=off" target="_blank">
  <div>

    <div>

      <div id="semrush-one-headline-bottom" class="headline-responsive">
        See the <span>complete picture</span> of your search visibility.
      </div>
      <p id="semrush-one-subhead-bottom">
        Track, optimize, and win in Google and AI search from one platform.
      </p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span id="semrush-one-cta-bottom">Start Free Trial</span>
    </div>

    <div>
      <div>Get started with</div>
      <img decoding="async" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/semrush-one.webp" alt="Semrush One Logo">
    </div>
  </div>
</a>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-best-seo-reports-make-the-next-step-obvious">The best SEO reports make the next step obvious</h2>



<p>SEO reporting should reduce uncertainty. After reading a report, stakeholders should understand what matters most and what work should move forward.</p>



<p>That doesn&#8217;t mean every recommendation needs to come with a perfect forecast. SEO rarely works with that level of certainty. But each recommendation should explain the expected direction of impact and the signals that will be used to evaluate progress.</p>



<p>A useful report connects research to decisions. It shows the business context behind the finding, the rationale for prioritizing the recommendation, and the practical path to execution.</p>



<p>When reports stop at analysis, they create more work for the readers. When reports translate analysis into action, they help teams move faster.</p>



<p>The strongest SEO reports leave stakeholders with a clear priority, a practical next step, and a way to judge whether the work is moving in the right direction.</p>

SEO reports often contain solid research, including keyword data, technical findings, competitor insights, content gaps, and recommendations. The problem starts when stakeholders finish reading and still don’t know what should happen next.
For example, a report might say internal linking should be improved, but not which pages should be linked, who should make the changes, when the work should happen, or what results to expect. It might identify a crawl issue, but not explain whether fixing it matters more than the content or commercial page gaps already blocking growth.
This is where many SEO reports lose impact. The analysis may be correct, but the decisions and action plan are still unclear.
A strong SEO report should help readers understand what matters now, why it matters to the business, and what should happen next. It should reduce the need for another round of interpretation before work can begin.
Research is useful, but it’s not the final output
Keyword research, SERP analysis, technical crawls, competitor reviews, and content audits are all important SEO activities. They uncover gaps, risks, and opportunities that would otherwise remain hidden.
But those inputs shouldn’t dominate the final report.
Stakeholders don’t need to see every export, screenshot, or crawl detail. They need the conclusions that come from the research. They need to understand which findings matter, which improvements can wait, and which actions deserve priority.
For example, a crawl might identify 300 pages with missing meta descriptions. That finding is only useful if the report explains whether those pages matter. Missing descriptions on low-value archive pages may not deserve immediate attention. Missing descriptions on high-intent service pages with strong impressions may be worth fixing quickly.
The same applies to keyword gaps. A list of 200 missed keywords is less useful than identifying the five opportunities that align with commercial intent, existing authority, and realistic execution capacity.
A useful SEO report shows the work behind a recommendation only when it helps stakeholders understand why it deserves priority.
Dig deeper: Stop reporting traffic and activity. Start reporting progress.




  
shows up.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
Where SEO reports lose stakeholders
Most SEO reports lose momentum when the findings are too generic, the recommendations aren’t actionable, or the priorities aren’t clear. The following are among the most common reasons reports fail to drive action.
The takeaway could apply to any website
Many SEO reports lose impact when the main takeaways are too broad.
Phrases like “improve content quality,” “strengthen internal linking,” and “target high-intent keywords” may be correct, but they don’t tell the reader anything specific about their site compared to others. These recommendations are too broad because they could apply to almost any website.
A stronger takeaway explains what’s different about the website, the market, or the opportunity.
For example:
Weak: “Create more bottom-funnel content.”
Strong: “Competitors are winning comparison and pricing-intent queries, while your site mostly ranks for educational searches. The next content priority should be three comparison pages that connect to existing high-traffic guides.”
The second version gives stakeholders a clearer reason to act. It explains the gap, the business relevance, and the first move.
The recommendation stops before the work begins
A recommendation can sound useful but still be difficult to execute.
“Improve internal linking to commercial pages” is a common example. It identifies the right area, but leaves too many open questions:
Which pages should link?
Which commercial pages matter most?
Who updates the copy?
When should it be done?
How will impact be measured?
A more useful recommendation would look like this:
“Week 1: Map the top 10 informational pages by organic clicks to the three commercial pages with the highest lead value.
Week 2: Add contextual links using descriptive anchor text. SEO owns the mapping and QA. Content owns the copy updates. Review impact after four to six weeks through crawl depth, impressions, and ranking movement.”
That level of detail helps work begin without another strategy meeting.
Priorities are listed, not sequenced
Many reports list 15 or 20 recommendations at the same level of importance. This creates confusion because stakeholders can’t tell what should happen now, what comes next, and what can wait.
Priority should account for impact, effort, dependency, and timing.
For example, while fixing broken links might be easy, it may not be the highest-impact task. Consolidating cannibalized pages may take longer, but it could create more commercial value if those pages are competing for the same high-intent queries.
A useful report explains the order of operations. It shows which actions create momentum first, which actions depend on other teams, and which improvements should be treated as later-stage work.
Tool outputs are mistaken for strategy
Automated audits can surface useful issues, but they lack business context.
A tool can flag missing schema, duplicate titles, slow pages, and broken links. However, it can’t reliably determine which issue matters most for a specific business at a specific moment.
For example, a tool may flag site speed as a critical issue. But if competitors in the niche are equally slow and the bigger gap is weak commercial content coverage, site speed may not deserve top priority.
Tools identify potential issues. SEO judgment determines which issues deserve action.
Dig deeper: Why most SEO failures are organizational, not technical




	
	
Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.
 
				
				
			
See terms.
		
Tailor reports to the stakeholder
A common reason SEO reports fail to drive action is that they treat every stakeholder the same.
The same finding may need to be explained differently depending on who has to act on it. A CEO, a marketing lead, a developer, and a content manager don’t need the same level of detail. They need the same truth translated into the context of their decisions.
For a CEO or founder, the report should focus on business opportunity, risk, resource needs, and expected impact.
Example: “The site is losing visibility in commercial comparison searches where competitors are capturing high-intent demand. The top priority is building three comparison pages and linking them from existing high-traffic informational content. The pages can be published within four to six weeks, with early visibility signals reviewed after indexing.”
For a marketing lead, the report should connect SEO work to demand generation, campaigns, and content direction.
Example: “The blog attracts early-stage visitors, but these pages don’t support product discovery. The next step is adding commercial pathways from the top informational pages into product, demo, or comparison content.”
For a developer or product team, the report should remove ambiguity from the technical requirement.
Example: “Update canonical tags on these 12 filtered category URLs to point to the main category page. Acceptance check: The canonical target returns 200, is indexable, and appears consistently in rendered HTML.”
For a content team, the report should make page-level action clear.
Example: “Update this guide to include a comparison section, add two internal links to commercial pages, and answer the pricing-related query that competitors cover but the page currently misses.”
A strong SEO report presents the findings in a way that each stakeholder can act on.
What a decision-ready SEO report should show
A useful SEO report should clearly answer a small number of questions. These questions may vary by stakeholder, but the underlying purpose stays the same: helping people decide what to do next.
Start with the opportunity
Where can SEO create business value? This could be a topic cluster where competitors are weak, a set of underperforming commercial pages, or an existing content asset that attracts demand but doesn’t support conversion.
Identify the main constraint
Is growth blocked by crawlability? Content depth? Competitor dominance? Something structural in how the site maps to buyer intent?
The answer shapes everything that follows.
For example, a B2B site may have strong informational rankings but weak visibility for comparison queries. In that case, the problem isn’t simply a content gap – it’s a missing bridge between educational demand and commercial intent.
Define the first move
The report should explain which action deserves priority and why it should happen before other work. This is where impact, effort, dependency, and timing matter.
For example, instead of saying “create a buyer guide,” the report should specify which guide to create, which SERP pattern justifies it, which existing pages should link to it, who owns the draft, when it should go live, and what signals should be reviewed after launch.
Establish how progress will be measured
Early signals may include indexing, crawl depth, impressions, or ranking movement. Later signals may include qualified traffic, demo requests, assisted conversions, or pipeline influence.
Dig deeper: SEO execution: Understanding goals, strategy, and planning



Turn every finding into a clear next step
Every important finding in an SEO report should answer three simple questions:
What did we find?
Why does it matter?
What should happen next?
This helps prevent findings from sitting in the report as observations with no clear path forward.
Consider a report that identifies five high-traffic informational pages with no links to relevant commercial pages. That’s a useful finding, but without interpretation, stakeholders only know what exists. They don’t know why it matters or what action it should trigger. The site is already winning organic visibility, but the journey from education to action is weak.
The next step should be specific.
Example: “Add contextual links from those five informational pages to the two most relevant commercial destinations. Content owns the updates. SEO reviews the mapping and anchor text. Measure changes in crawl depth, impressions, clicks, and assisted conversions after four to six weeks.”
This turns a finding into work that can be assigned, implemented, and reviewed.
If a finding can’t be connected to a next step, it may belong in a supporting document rather than the main report.
What to cut from SEO reports
SEO reports often become clearer when they remove material that doesn’t help the reader make a decision.
Tool screenshots are a common example. A screenshot can support a point when it shows a clear pattern, but adding screenshots for every issue usually makes the report harder to read. 
The same applies to large keyword exports, crawl tables, and raw audit scores. These details are useful as supporting material, but they shouldn’t dominate the main report.
Generic best-practice advice should also be removed or rewritten. “Add schema,” “improve page speed,” and “optimize title tags” only help when the report explains why those actions matter for this site right now.
Long methodology sections can usually be shortened. Methodology matters when trust, reproducibility, or stakeholder education is needed. But most senior stakeholders don’t need to see the entire research process. They need the conclusion that came from it.
Before adding something to the main report, ask whether it helps the reader understand the priority or take the next step. If it doesn’t, it’s likely better placed in an appendix or supporting document.
Dig deeper: SEO in the black box era: Why reports will look more like Mad Men than Search Console




  
complete picture of your search visibility.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
The best SEO reports make the next step obvious
SEO reporting should reduce uncertainty. After reading a report, stakeholders should understand what matters most and what work should move forward.
That doesn’t mean every recommendation needs to come with a perfect forecast. SEO rarely works with that level of certainty. But each recommendation should explain the expected direction of impact and the signals that will be used to evaluate progress.
A useful report connects research to decisions. It shows the business context behind the finding, the rationale for prioritizing the recommendation, and the practical path to execution.
When reports stop at analysis, they create more work for the readers. When reports translate analysis into action, they help teams move faster.
The strongest SEO reports leave stakeholders with a clear priority, a practical next step, and a way to judge whether the work is moving in the right direction.

Turn keyword research, audits, and technical findings into clear recommendations stakeholders can prioritize and execute.

How to make SEO reports more actionable

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-real-people-actually-prompt-AI-—-and-what-it-means-for-GEO.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="How real people actually prompt AI — and what it means for GEO" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-real-people-actually-prompt-AI-—-and-what-it-means-for-GEO.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-real-people-actually-prompt-AI-—-and-what-it-means-for-GEO-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-real-people-actually-prompt-AI-—-and-what-it-means-for-GEO-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-real-people-actually-prompt-AI-—-and-what-it-means-for-GEO-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>Survey data reveals how users combine short queries with personal context — and why that changes how brands earn visibility in AI search.

Most people aren’t using AI the way GEO discussions often assume. Two surveys of AI users conducted by Stella Rising found that many prompts still look remarkably similar to traditional search queries. (Disclosure: I’m the VP of SEO at Stella Rising.)



One survey focused on a beauty-oriented consumer panel in August 2025, while the other surveyed a broader general-audience population in January 2026. Across both studies, prompts were short, often keyword-driven, and much closer to a Google search than the elaborate prompt templates popular in AI marketing circles.
At the same time, a growing share of users are adding personal context, such as their budget, location, profession, age, health concerns, or preferences. Those details give AI systems far more information than a traditional search query ever could, creating a new layer of personalization that influences recommendations and brand visibility.
The combined findings suggest that GEO strategies need to account for both realities: Many AI searches still resemble classic keyword queries, while the highest-value recommendations increasingly emerge from prompts rich with personal context. That’s where the opportunity — and the measurement challenge — lies.
A lot of people are still typing like it’s 2008
The biggest takeaway across both surveys is that the median AI user is still throwing a keyword over the wall and hoping for the best.
In the general-audience study from January:
Two-thirds of respondents reported writing prompts of 15 words or fewer. 
Only 12% wrote something that would qualify as a “real” prompt by the standards of an AI influencer thread. 
About 60% phrased their queries as questions, while only 9% gave a direct command. 
That mirrors what Pew Research has been seeing more broadly — 34% of all U.S. adults now use ChatGPT, roughly double the 2023 share, and 58% of adults under 30 use it.
When we ran a scenario task asking respondents to write the prompt they’d send if they needed a new pair of shoes, the median answer was eight words. Real examples from the panel included:
“Shoes nearby”
“Tennis shoes”
“Nike”
“Ladies tennis shoes size 7 near me”
“Best price for hiking shoes”
This lines up with Semrush’s clickstream data on ChatGPT’s search mode, which shows the average prompt length is 4.2 to 8.7 words, essentially the same as a Google query.
Longer, structured prompts tend to appear only when users are doing something other than search, such as drafting, coding, or creative work.
For AEO and GEO work, that’s the part to internalize. If you’re optimizing for prompts like “Compare the top five orthopedic-approved walking shoes under $150 for plantar fasciitis with 4.5+ star ratings,” you’re optimizing for the wrong distribution. 
Real prompts run 71% longer than the synthetic ones marketers tend to invent, but the median is still only 12 words, Otterly.AI’s analysis found.

  
shows up.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
The shift between the two surveys
In the August 2025 survey, we classified roughly 50% of the free-text prompts as “SEO-keyword-shaped,” meaning short, ambiguous, and brand-and-attribute-driven. By the time the January 2026 survey came back, that share had dropped closer to 30%. The remaining 70% had grown longer and more contextualized.
A few findings are worth carrying forward:
24.5% of all prompts include the word “best.” If you’re not appearing in “best [category]” responses, you’re missing one of the highest-intent slots.
28% of prompts mention price or budget constraints. Users aren’t just shopping. They’re shopping with a number in their head.
16% of prompts are explicitly location-based. The “near me” query pattern has successfully migrated from Google to LLMs.
32% of prompts include personal attributes (e.g., size, profession, health condition, life stage, etc.). This is the most important number on the page, and we’ll come back to it.
On location specifically, the 16% figure lines up with what Local Falcon’s 2025 research showed for AI search overall: AI Overviews now appear on 92% of informational local queries, but only on 15% of simple local-pack queries. The intent is moving into LLMs faster than the supply of optimized local content for AI engines.
One caveat: These were two different surveys with two different audiences. The January 2026 general-audience sample was structurally more transactional than the August 2025 beauty-focused panel, which partially explains why fewer prompts looked like keyword-style searches and more looked like full requests. I wouldn’t over-index on the “prompts are evolving” narrative, but I’d absolutely take the directional read.
The user embedding layer is where this gets interesting
The 32% figure (prompts containing real personal context) is the most under-discussed finding in the dataset.
Nearly one-third of users are willingly handing LLMs information that no Google query would normally carry, such as their size, job, training plan, living situation, or kids’ ages. We see prompts in the data like:
“What shoes would you recommend for daily standing at work?”
“Find me a cost-effective pair of running shoes that I can order on Amazon. My size is men’s 10.”
“Please tell me the top five shoes for wide feet in a size eight for women that are comfortable, stylish, under $120, and that younger people won’t make fun of for a Gen X person like me.”
That last one alone packs in gender, foot width, size, budget, style intent, generational identity, and a real social anxiety. No traditional search query was ever going to surface all of that.
This is the user embedding layer at work. When someone interacts with ChatGPT or Gemini repeatedly, the model builds a profile of who they are, which increasingly persists through memory. The user is, in effect, training the assistant on themselves. Once that trust is established, they stop writing surface queries and start writing requests that assume the assistant knows them.
That shift has two implications for how brands should think about visibility:
The prompts that drive purchase decisions are often not the ones that show up in a SERP or keyword tool. A real Gen X woman asking about wide-fit, $120, “won’t-get-made-fun-of” sneakers will never appear as a tracked SERP keyword. But that’s the prompt that decides whether your shoe ends up in the recommendation set.
The value of a brand citation increases substantially when it appears inside a context-rich prompt. If the model is already factoring in user attributes, the brands it surfaces are prefiltered for relevance. That’s a much higher-quality impression than a generic blue link.
Where synthetic prompts fit — and where they don’t
A common tactic in GEO prompt research is to construct synthetic personas (“I’m a 38-year-old product manager training for a half marathon in Boston who prefers brands focused on sustainability…”) and then use those personas to stress-test which brands an LLM surfaces under different scenarios. There’s real merit to the approach. If the user embedding layer is doing the heavy lifting in the answer, the only way to simulate the answer is to simulate the user.
But synthetic prompts don’t capture everything. Real prompts are messy, layered, and influenced by recent conversation history, persistent memory, and signals the model has picked up over weeks of use. You can craft a 50-word persona and still miss the nuance of a user who has been talking to ChatGPT about their day, preferences, and family for 6 months.
Instead, use synthetic prompts to map the personas your brand needs to be visible to, but don’t treat the resulting visibility scores as ground truth. Combine them with real prompt data wherever possible. That can mean customer interviews, social search patterns, support tickets, or regex pulls of question-shaped queries from Google Search Console.
What to actually track
This naturally leads to the next question: Should you track SEO keywords in your AI visibility platform if one-third of real prompts look like SEO keywords?
The answer is yes, with one filter.
Across the last quarter, our team has seen web retrieval rates on tracked prompts climb sharply. On several client accounts, more than 90% of monitored prompts now trigger live web search inside ChatGPT or Google’s AI Mode. 
When that happens, the LLM is effectively running a real-time SERP and synthesizing the result. That means the short, keyword-shaped prompts we identified — roughly 30% of the total — are still very much in play. They behave like AI-flavored Google queries and should be tracked accordingly.
The filter is this: Don’t waste tracking slots on prompts that are pure head terms or single-brand queries. Those are likely to be answered from model weights or short canned responses rather than retrieval, and they won’t give you a useful read on visibility.
Here’s a practical setup:
A synthetic-persona prompt set that exercises the user embedding layer, mapped to the personas your brand actually needs to win. Use this to surface which competitors a model defaults to under different user conditions.
A real-prompt set sourced from question-shaped GSC queries, customer panel inputs, and regex-extracted “who/what/where/can/should” patterns. These are the short, retrieval-triggering prompts most users still write.
A small qualitative library of messy, context-rich real prompts pulled from the type of work we did for the study. Use it to sanity-check whether your content actually answers the question the user is asking, not the question your keyword tool says they’re asking.
At that point, you’re not just tracking AI visibility. You’re tracking it across the full spectrum of how real users get to your content, from a three-word “good walking shoes” query to a 40-word “I’m a 60-year-old with plantar fasciitis…” request.
Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.
 
				
				
			
See terms.
		
What the broader data tells us about AI search
A handful of additional findings from the January 2026 survey help explain why these prompt patterns matter.
Users increasingly trust AI recommendations
Up to 68% of users trust ChatGPT’s recommendations more than Google’s, with most citing detail, lack of ads, and personalization as the reasons. 
NIM’s research has found ChatGPT often produces more efficient, accurate consumer decisions than Google.
A January 2026 study reported that trust in Google weakens as AI usage rises. 
Yext’s 2026 research puts ChatGPT’s share of “top-quality source” responses at 35% among heavy AI users.
AI search is becoming a daily habit
Half of active AI users use these tools daily or several times per day to complete tasks they used to do on Google.
Search Engine Land reported 37% of consumers now start searches with an AI tool instead of Google.
OpenAI’s February 2026 numbers put ChatGPT’s weekly active users at 900 million — more than double a year earlier.
Citations still drive traffic
85% of users click through to cited sources at least some of the time; 21.9% always do. The mention is not the end of the funnel. 
Conductor’s 2026 benchmarks showed AI referral traffic up 357% year-over-year. 
Semrush reported outbound referrals from ChatGPT up 206% in 2025. 
Emarketed saw AI-referred visitors converting at 4.4x the rate of standard organic. 
Volume is still small (Conductor pegs it at around 1.08% of total traffic), but it punches well above its weight class.
Voice may finally be having its moment
34% of users are now using voice chat daily or more often. This is the first dataset I’ve seen that actually delivers on the “voice search will matter” promise we’ve been hearing for a decade. 
It’s worth pairing all of this with Ahrefs’ latest AI Overviews CTR research: The presence of an AI Overview correlates with a 58% lower clickthrough rate for the top-ranking page. The traffic that does come through is qualified. The traffic that doesn’t is gone
AI search is settling into a richer, more personalized form. The intent stack is the same one Google has always served. What’s new is the embedding layer and the tracking demands it entails. That creates a clear set of priorities for SEO and GEO teams.

  
complete picture of your search visibility.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
What changes — and what doesn’t
Here are three things you can do with this information if you’re an SEO lead, content lead, or strategy lead:
Audit your prompt-tracking setup: If it’s all synthetic prompts or all keyword-shaped prompts, you’re missing half the picture. Build the layered framework outlined above.
Map your content to the user embedding layer: For your top categories, list the personas (e.g., age, life stage, profession, condition, budget) most likely to carry real prompts into AI search. Then check whether your PDPs, blog content, and FAQs actually answer those people’s questions.
Don’t abandon the SEO-keyword work: Roughly one-third of real prompts still look like classic search queries. With web retrieval running at 90%+ on many of the prompts we monitor, the gap between an SEO keyword and an AI prompt is narrower than the GEO discourse implies.
The behavior change is real. The sophistication of AI thought leaders’ prompting is partly here and partly oversold. Most people are still doing Google-style searches. They’re just searching inside an interface that knows more about them.
If that’s where the audience is, that’s where we have to optimize.
Methodology
Both studies referenced in this article were conducted by the Stella Rising team. You can read it in “New Data: How Consumers Use LLMs for Search in 2026 (And What It Means for GEO).” 
The August 2025 study surveyed 178 members of Stella’s Glimmer Insights community, 113 of whom were active LLM users. 
The January 2026 study surveyed 524 active LLM users via Centiment, defined as having used ChatGPT, Copilot, or Gemini in the previous 30 days, with a margin of error of approximately ±4.3% at the 95% confidence level. 
Given its smaller size and category-specific composition, the August 2025 panel should be viewed as directional rather than statistically representative of the broader U.S. AI user population.

Survey data reveals how users combine short queries with personal context — and why that changes how brands earn visibility in AI search.

How real people actually prompt AI — and what it means for GEO

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="11 PPC errors uncovered in recent B2B audits" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>From broken conversion tracking to unmanaged automation, these common mistakes continue to waste budget, leads, and valuable learning signals.


<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="11 PPC errors uncovered in recent B2B audits" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/11-PPC-errors-uncovered-in-recent-B2B-audits-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>
<p>As algorithms take over ad platforms, truly expert marketers are being scrutinized — and rightly so.</p>



<p>Managing ad accounts looks very different today than it did even a few years ago. Platforms have shifted heavily toward automation, with products like <a href="https://searchengineland.com/meta-advantage-campaign-setup-leads-campaigns-451713">Meta&#8217;s Advantage+</a> and Google’s <a href="https://searchengineland.com/google-performance-max-431821">Performance Max </a>leveling parts of the playing field and changing what skilled account management actually looks like.</p>



<p>I&#8217;ve conducted many B2B account audits recently, both for companies with in-house teams and for businesses transitioning from other agencies. One thing keeps standing out: operators who truly understand these systems are still surprisingly rare.</p>



<p>Even with all the technology available today — and more on the way — many smart B2B marketers are still making expensive mistakes. Here are some of the most common ones I&#8217;ve encountered lately on LinkedIn and Google.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-mistakes-advertisers-are-still-making-on-linkedin">Mistakes advertisers are still making on LinkedIn</h2>



<p><a href="https://searchengineland.com/linkedin-advertising-a-comprehensive-guide-439831">LinkedIn</a> has become a crucial platform for reaching B2B audiences, yet advertisers keep making mistakes like these.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-1-using-no-audience-targeting">1. Using no audience targeting</h3>



<p>Yes, I’m still encountering this rookie mistake. The impact is always what you’d expect: Ads are being shown to entry-level folks, college students, interns, and completely irrelevant companies instead of your target customer.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-2-letting-audience-targeting-run-without-adjusting-over-time">2. Letting audience targeting run without adjusting over time</h3>



<p>LinkedIn’s professional targeting is unique, but it’s not airtight. For instance, it’s common to see sales professionals and titles sneak into campaigns with “growth” included in the targeting. </p>



<p>Account managers who aren’t paying attention will continue to spend money to show ads to irrelevant audiences.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-3-using-all-automated-default-settings">3. Using all automated default settings</h3>



<p>I see this error from time to time, so it’s definitely not a one-off “oops.”&nbsp;</p>



<p>LinkedIn is no different than other platforms. If you leave options like audience expansion turned on, your ads will show on cheaper, lower-quality inventory. Any desired actions will take the path of least resistance (usually the least qualified).</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-4-setting-and-forgetting-creative-without-rotating-in-new-themes">4. Setting and forgetting creative without rotating in new themes</h3>



<p>Any experienced LinkedIn advertiser knows LinkedIn’s ad structure makes creative testing difficult, so you need to be proactive about refreshing creative.</p>



<p>Replacing tiny elements won’t move the needle, either, so failing to produce and use a bank of theme variations is a miss.</p>



<p><strong><em>Dig deeper: <a href="https://searchengineland.com/b2b-linkedin-ads-tests-run-471267">5 B2B LinkedIn Ads tests to run in 2026</a></em></strong>



<p><a href="https://www.semrush.com/lp/semrush-one/en/?utm_campaign=ic_semrush_one&amp;utm_source=searchengineland.com&amp;utm_medium=overlay&amp;onboarding=off" target="_blank">
  <div>

    <div>

      <div id="semrush-one-headline" class="headline-responsive">
        Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand <span>shows up</span>.
      </div>
      <p id="semrush-one-subhead">
        The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.
      </p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span id="semrush-one-cta">Start Free Trial</span>
    </div>

    <div>
      <div>Get started with</div>
      <img decoding="async" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/semrush-one.webp" alt="Semrush One Logo">
    </div>
  </div>
</a>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-mistakes-advertisers-still-making-on-google">Mistakes advertisers still making on Google</h2>



<p>Now we’re getting to the most common issues I’ve seen lately. Here are some of the mistakes our audits have uncovered in Google Ads accounts.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-5-running-conversion-focused-bid-strategies-without-conversion-data">5. Running conversion-focused bid strategies without conversion data</h3>



<p>I’ve audited accounts running ads with conversion-focused bid strategies, yet they have zero conversion data integration (or even any conversion actions specified). This mistake leads the algorithm to prioritize the absolute easiest actions and the cheapest audiences.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-6-leaving-display-and-search-partners-turned-on">6. Leaving Display and Search Partners turned on</h3>



<p>This oversight diverts budget from high-intent search inventory into reliably cheaper, lower-performing placements.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-7-forgetting-to-use-sitelinks">7. Forgetting to use sitelinks</h3>



<p>By forgetting to use sitelinks, you inevitably cede a ton of real estate and limit ways to appeal to users.&nbsp;</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-8-letting-spend-run-on-non-converting-keywords-nbsp">8. Letting spend run on non-converting keywords&nbsp;</h3>



<p>If you’ve zoned out and are continuing to spend money on keywords that aren’t converting for months on end without making any adjustments to the ads themselves, you’re flushing money down the toilet.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-9-running-all-campaigns-in-broad-match-only-nbsp">9. Running all campaigns in broad match only&nbsp;</h3>



<p>Similarly, you’re wasting money if you’re running all of your campaigns in broad match only, with no phrase or exact match to be found.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-10-letting-pmax-for-b2b-run-with-no-guardrails-beyond-remarketing-lists">10. Letting PMax for B2B run with no guardrails beyond remarketing lists</h3>



<p><a href="https://searchengineland.com/performance-max-b2b-best-practices-392158">PMax for B2B</a> has gotten a little more viable over the past year, thanks to a slew of moderately useful new functions. </p>



<p>However, if you’re not even doing the basics of enhanced conversions and OCT, I would turn those campaigns off ASAP or hand them over to marketers who can use PMax to improve lead quality.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Otherwise, this mistake means you’re setting yourself up to spend on junk leads.&nbsp;</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-11-not-testing-ai-max-nbsp">11. Not testing AI Max&nbsp;</h3>



<p>Google is rapidly changing how ads are matched, served, and optimized. If you don&#8217;t test these systems early, you risk falling behind competitors who are giving Google more automation signals and learning data.</p>



<p>Success with AI-driven campaign types depends on proper measurement, quality inputs, and ongoing oversight. Those responsibilities haven&#8217;t gone away as automation has increased.</p>



<p><strong><em>Dig deeper: <a href="https://searchengineland.com/google-ads-mistakes-avoid-449288">Top 10 Google Ads mistakes to avoid in 2026</a></em></strong>



<div class="nl-inline-form border py-2 px-1 my-2">
	
	<div class="row align-items-center nl-inline-container">
		<div class="col-12 col-lg-3 col-xl-4 pe-md-0 pb-2 pb-lg-0">
			<p class="inline-form-text text-center mb-0">Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.</p>
		</div>
		<div class="col-12 col-lg-7 col-xl-6  pe-lg-0">
			<div class="form-nl-inline">
				<form id="mktoForm_16298"></form> 
				
				
			</div>
		</div>
		<div class="col-12 col-lg-2 col-xl-2 ps-1">
			<p class="text-center mb-0"><a class="nl-terms" href="https://searchengineland.com/termsofuse" target="_blank" aria-label="opens in a new tab">See terms.</a>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>




<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-cyan-bluish-gray-color has-css-opacity has-cyan-bluish-gray-background-color has-background"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-automation-still-needs-expert-oversight">Automation still needs expert oversight</h2>



<p>An important layer across channels that often gets overlooked is what happens after someone provides their information. Having a strong follow-up sequence for leads is critical to campaign success, as is passing back the right data to properly tie performance to ad spend.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Omitting this crucial step does more than cloud the true potential ROAS of the campaigns. It also means you’re getting less down-funnel data that could be fed back into the platforms to teach the algorithms to work harder on your behalf.</p>



<p>Even experienced marketers are making these mistakes. They tend to be good at what used to be critical, such as SKAGs and exhaustive negative keyword management, but they’re not adapting to use the controls still available to them in a more automated landscape.</p>



<p>These mistakes aren’t just one-off “oopsies” that cost brands money before they’re caught and corrected. To me, they’re flashing red lights signifying that the account isn’t in good hands, especially if you&#8217;ve got more than one of these scenarios in play, or if one has persisted over time.</p>



<p>Yes, account management involves much more automation than it did in the past. But these platforms still need quality inputs, proper measurement, and ongoing oversight to perform at their best.</p>



<p>Keep that in mind before you decide that paring back to a B-level resource and AI can help save you money in the fixed-cost column.</p>

As algorithms take over ad platforms, truly expert marketers are being scrutinized — and rightly so.
Managing ad accounts looks very different today than it did even a few years ago. Platforms have shifted heavily toward automation, with products like Meta’s Advantage+ and Google’s Performance Max leveling parts of the playing field and changing what skilled account management actually looks like.
I’ve conducted many B2B account audits recently, both for companies with in-house teams and for businesses transitioning from other agencies. One thing keeps standing out: operators who truly understand these systems are still surprisingly rare.
Even with all the technology available today — and more on the way — many smart B2B marketers are still making expensive mistakes. Here are some of the most common ones I’ve encountered lately on LinkedIn and Google.
Mistakes advertisers are still making on LinkedIn
LinkedIn has become a crucial platform for reaching B2B audiences, yet advertisers keep making mistakes like these.
1. Using no audience targeting
Yes, I’m still encountering this rookie mistake. The impact is always what you’d expect: Ads are being shown to entry-level folks, college students, interns, and completely irrelevant companies instead of your target customer.
2. Letting audience targeting run without adjusting over time
LinkedIn’s professional targeting is unique, but it’s not airtight. For instance, it’s common to see sales professionals and titles sneak into campaigns with “growth” included in the targeting. 
Account managers who aren’t paying attention will continue to spend money to show ads to irrelevant audiences.
3. Using all automated default settings
I see this error from time to time, so it’s definitely not a one-off “oops.” 
LinkedIn is no different than other platforms. If you leave options like audience expansion turned on, your ads will show on cheaper, lower-quality inventory. Any desired actions will take the path of least resistance (usually the least qualified).
4. Setting and forgetting creative without rotating in new themes
Any experienced LinkedIn advertiser knows LinkedIn’s ad structure makes creative testing difficult, so you need to be proactive about refreshing creative.
Replacing tiny elements won’t move the needle, either, so failing to produce and use a bank of theme variations is a miss.
Dig deeper: 5 B2B LinkedIn Ads tests to run in 2026




  
shows up.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
Mistakes advertisers still making on Google
Now we’re getting to the most common issues I’ve seen lately. Here are some of the mistakes our audits have uncovered in Google Ads accounts.
5. Running conversion-focused bid strategies without conversion data
I’ve audited accounts running ads with conversion-focused bid strategies, yet they have zero conversion data integration (or even any conversion actions specified). This mistake leads the algorithm to prioritize the absolute easiest actions and the cheapest audiences.
6. Leaving Display and Search Partners turned on
This oversight diverts budget from high-intent search inventory into reliably cheaper, lower-performing placements.
7. Forgetting to use sitelinks
By forgetting to use sitelinks, you inevitably cede a ton of real estate and limit ways to appeal to users. 
8. Letting spend run on non-converting keywords 
If you’ve zoned out and are continuing to spend money on keywords that aren’t converting for months on end without making any adjustments to the ads themselves, you’re flushing money down the toilet.
9. Running all campaigns in broad match only 
Similarly, you’re wasting money if you’re running all of your campaigns in broad match only, with no phrase or exact match to be found.
10. Letting PMax for B2B run with no guardrails beyond remarketing lists
PMax for B2B has gotten a little more viable over the past year, thanks to a slew of moderately useful new functions. 
However, if you’re not even doing the basics of enhanced conversions and OCT, I would turn those campaigns off ASAP or hand them over to marketers who can use PMax to improve lead quality. 
Otherwise, this mistake means you’re setting yourself up to spend on junk leads. 
11. Not testing AI Max 
Google is rapidly changing how ads are matched, served, and optimized. If you don’t test these systems early, you risk falling behind competitors who are giving Google more automation signals and learning data.
Success with AI-driven campaign types depends on proper measurement, quality inputs, and ongoing oversight. Those responsibilities haven’t gone away as automation has increased.
Dig deeper: Top 10 Google Ads mistakes to avoid in 2026




	
	
Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.
 
				
				
			
See terms.
		
Automation still needs expert oversight
An important layer across channels that often gets overlooked is what happens after someone provides their information. Having a strong follow-up sequence for leads is critical to campaign success, as is passing back the right data to properly tie performance to ad spend. 
Omitting this crucial step does more than cloud the true potential ROAS of the campaigns. It also means you’re getting less down-funnel data that could be fed back into the platforms to teach the algorithms to work harder on your behalf.
Even experienced marketers are making these mistakes. They tend to be good at what used to be critical, such as SKAGs and exhaustive negative keyword management, but they’re not adapting to use the controls still available to them in a more automated landscape.
These mistakes aren’t just one-off “oopsies” that cost brands money before they’re caught and corrected. To me, they’re flashing red lights signifying that the account isn’t in good hands, especially if you’ve got more than one of these scenarios in play, or if one has persisted over time.
Yes, account management involves much more automation than it did in the past. But these platforms still need quality inputs, proper measurement, and ongoing oversight to perform at their best.
Keep that in mind before you decide that paring back to a B-level resource and AI can help save you money in the fixed-cost column.

From broken conversion tracking to unmanaged automation, these common mistakes continue to waste budget, leads, and valuable learning signals.

11 PPC errors uncovered in recent B2B audits

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="Google zero" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>Google’s AI answers keep more users on-platform, with AI Overviews reducing CTRs and AI Mode could soon accelerate the trend.

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="Google zero" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/05/google-zero-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>
<p>Google searches ended without a click 68.01% of the time in the U.S. during the first four months of 2026, according to new SparkToro research based on Similarweb clickstream data. That’s up from 60.45% in 2024, a 7.56-point increase in two years.</p>



<p><strong>Fewer searches result in clicks. </strong>The share of searches generating at least one click fell 9.51 percentage points between 2024 and 2026 (a 22.9% decline), according to SparkToro. This includes clicks to organic results, paid ads, and Google-owned properties such as Maps and YouTube, but excludes follow-up searches within Google.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Over the same period, the share of searches that led to another Google search rose 7.2 percentage points. </li>



<li>This trend reflects Google’s growing ability to answer questions directly in search results while encouraging users to refine or continue their searches within Google, according to SparkToro.</li>
</ul>



<p id="h-ai-overviews-may-be-contributing-to-the-trend"><strong>AI Overviews and zero click. </strong>SparkToro believes AI Overviews are likely contributing to the increase in zero-click searches, though the study doesn&#8217;t isolate the extent to which the overall rise between 2024 and 2026 can be attributed specifically to AI Overviews.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>AI Overviews now appear on more than 20% of Google searches, according to the research. When they do, click-through rates drop by nearly 60%.</li>
</ul>



<p><strong>AI Mode and zero click. </strong>It appears to have played only a limited role during the January to April study period. SparkToro found that just 0.34% of searches transitioned into AI Mode during that time.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>However, Google said at I/O 2026 that AI Mode had surpassed 1 billion monthly users and that query volume was more than doubling each quarter, suggesting its impact on search behavior could grow significantly.</li>
</ul>



<p id="h-zero-click-history"><strong>Zero click history. </strong>SparkToro has tracked zero-click search behavior for years, though its underlying data sources have changed over time. Because the studies rely on different providers, panels, and methodologies, long-term comparisons are not directly equivalent. Still, the available data consistently points to a rise in zero-click behavior over time, according to SparkToro.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>2019:</strong> <a href="https://searchengineland.com/49-of-all-google-searches-are-no-click-study-finds-318426">49% of Google searches ended without a click</a>, based on the now-defunct Jumpshot clickstream panel. Later that year in updated findings, the figure rose to <a href="https://searchengineland.com/now-more-50-of-google-searches-end-without-a-click-to-other-content-study-finds-320574">50.33%</a>.</li>



<li><strong>2020:</strong> <a href="https://searchengineland.com/zero-click-google-searches-rose-to-nearly-65-in-2020-347115">64.82% of Google searches ended without a click</a> between January and December, based on SimilarWeb data.</li>



<li><strong>2024:</strong> <a href="https://searchengineland.com/google-search-zero-click-study-2024-443869">58.5% of Google searches</a> in the U.S. (and 59.7% in the EU) ended with no clicks, based on Datos data.</li>
</ul>



<p id="h-website-traffic-appears-to-be-under-pressure"><strong>Why we care.</strong> The findings suggest Google is increasingly satisfying user needs without sending users to external websites. However, you should interpret direct comparisons across years cautiously because SparkToro’s historical analyses rely on different clickstream data providers and panels.</p>



<p><strong>SEO still matters, but&#8230;</strong> SEO alone may be insufficient for many publishers seeking to regain historical levels of Google-referred traffic. SparkToro co-founder Rand Fishkin recommended investing in brand awareness and influence on the platforms where your audience already spends time, regardless of whether those efforts drive direct website visits.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Some categories continue to benefit significantly from SEO, including branded searches, local business queries, and high-intent transactional searches, Fishkin said.</li>
</ul>



<p id="h-about-the-data"><strong>About the data. </strong>The study used Similarweb desktop and mobile web panel data covering U.S. Google searches from January through April 2026. SparkToro assumed that two-thirds of searches occurred on mobile devices and one-third on desktops. The analysis excludes searches conducted in Google’s mobile search app, where SparkToro said zero-click behavior may be even higher.</p>



<p id="h-about-the-data"><strong>The study.</strong> <a href="https://sparktoro.com/blog/in-2026-less-than-one-third-of-google-searches-still-send-a-click/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In 2026, Less than One Third of Google Searches Still Send a Click</a>


Google searches ended without a click 68.01% of the time in the U.S. during the first four months of 2026, according to new SparkToro research based on Similarweb clickstream data. That’s up from 60.45% in 2024, a 7.56-point increase in two years.
Fewer searches result in clicks. The share of searches generating at least one click fell 9.51 percentage points between 2024 and 2026 (a 22.9% decline), according to SparkToro. This includes clicks to organic results, paid ads, and Google-owned properties such as Maps and YouTube, but excludes follow-up searches within Google.
Over the same period, the share of searches that led to another Google search rose 7.2 percentage points. 
This trend reflects Google’s growing ability to answer questions directly in search results while encouraging users to refine or continue their searches within Google, according to SparkToro.
AI Overviews and zero click. SparkToro believes AI Overviews are likely contributing to the increase in zero-click searches, though the study doesn’t isolate the extent to which the overall rise between 2024 and 2026 can be attributed specifically to AI Overviews.
AI Overviews now appear on more than 20% of Google searches, according to the research. When they do, click-through rates drop by nearly 60%.
AI Mode and zero click. It appears to have played only a limited role during the January to April study period. SparkToro found that just 0.34% of searches transitioned into AI Mode during that time.
However, Google said at I/O 2026 that AI Mode had surpassed 1 billion monthly users and that query volume was more than doubling each quarter, suggesting its impact on search behavior could grow significantly.
Zero click history. SparkToro has tracked zero-click search behavior for years, though its underlying data sources have changed over time. Because the studies rely on different providers, panels, and methodologies, long-term comparisons are not directly equivalent. Still, the available data consistently points to a rise in zero-click behavior over time, according to SparkToro.
2019: 49% of Google searches ended without a click, based on the now-defunct Jumpshot clickstream panel. Later that year in updated findings, the figure rose to 50.33%.
2020: 64.82% of Google searches ended without a click between January and December, based on SimilarWeb data.
2024: 58.5% of Google searches in the U.S. (and 59.7% in the EU) ended with no clicks, based on Datos data.
Why we care. The findings suggest Google is increasingly satisfying user needs without sending users to external websites. However, you should interpret direct comparisons across years cautiously because SparkToro’s historical analyses rely on different clickstream data providers and panels.
SEO still matters, but… SEO alone may be insufficient for many publishers seeking to regain historical levels of Google-referred traffic. SparkToro co-founder Rand Fishkin recommended investing in brand awareness and influence on the platforms where your audience already spends time, regardless of whether those efforts drive direct website visits.
Some categories continue to benefit significantly from SEO, including branded searches, local business queries, and high-intent transactional searches, Fishkin said.
About the data. The study used Similarweb desktop and mobile web panel data covering U.S. Google searches from January through April 2026. SparkToro assumed that two-thirds of searches occurred on mobile devices and one-third on desktops. The analysis excludes searches conducted in Google’s mobile search app, where SparkToro said zero-click behavior may be even higher.
The study. In 2026, Less than One Third of Google Searches Still Send a Click

Google’s AI answers keep more users on-platform, with AI Overviews reducing CTRs and AI Mode could soon accelerate the trend.

Google zero-click searches hit 68% in early 2026: Study

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-AI-forms-opinions-about-your-brand.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="How AI forms opinions about your brand" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-AI-forms-opinions-about-your-brand.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-AI-forms-opinions-about-your-brand-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-AI-forms-opinions-about-your-brand-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/How-AI-forms-opinions-about-your-brand-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>Build a digital footprint that helps AI understand your expertise, recognize your credibility, and recommend your brand.

AI forms opinions about your brand from what it can see online. That’s your digital footprint.
The problem is that AI often sees only fragments of your business. It sees your website, content, reviews, and mentions, but much of the expertise, customer insight, and operational knowledge that makes your business valuable never makes it into the digital footprint.
The solution is to surface that knowledge, organize it into a single source of truth, and turn it into machine-readable signals. Here’s how to collect it, organize it into a single source of truth, and distribute it across the channels AI uses to understand, evaluate, and recommend brands.
What you feed the machines is understandability, credibility, and deliverability (UCD)
Everything you put into your footprint is fodder for three things AI has to decide about you. Together, they provide the fodder for the whole funnel.
Understandability
Does AI know who you are, what you do, and who you serve? You already know where your understandability comes from: 
Your about page.
Your product pages.
Your structured data. 
What often gets missed is the operational detail that explains what you actually do once a client is inside.
Credibility
Does AI believe you’re good at it? This is N-E-E-A-T-T credibility — notability, experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness, and transparency, an extension of Google’s E-E-A-T.
You know what credibility signals you currently feed: your case studies, your credentials, and your testimonials. What many businesses don’t realize is how much N-E-E-A-T-T credibility is already embedded in their day-to-day operations.
Deliverability
Does the AI engine have the content to hand you to the subset of its users who are your audience? 
You know where your deliverability comes from: the topical content, the marketing, and the authority pieces you commission. Deliverability is often hiding in plain sight, in the content generated by your business operations and offline activities.

  
shows up.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
5 streams of business data feeding every commercial surface
All three elements of the UCD trio are fed by the five inputs below, and how much each contributes varies by business. 
The point isn’t to file each input under one letter. Organized and codified, the five together give AI the fodder it needs from top to bottom of the funnel.




1. Products and services: What you sell, and you already do it
Your products and services data: what you sell, at what price, under what conditions, and with consistent names and identifiers. This is mostly about understandability, with credibility riding alongside it.
Most businesses already do this, so the work is in the depth, not the effort. Don’t just list what you sell. Describe who each offering is for, what problem it solves, what it costs, what it doesn’t do, and how it differs from the next option.
A thin product page tells AI a product exists. An exhaustive one tells it when to recommend that product and to whom.
Keep it accurate, complete, and consistent with everything else in your footprint. A price or product name that differs across pages reads as doubt.
2. Authority content: Your expertise, and almost everybody does it
This is the marketing you already create to show you know your field: your articles, videos, guides, data studies, and the thought leadership you publish to tick the box marked “content created.”
People put effort into it to build authority, rank, do SEO, and position themselves as experts. That’s fine. It leans toward deliverability because it’s what tells AI which territory to surface you in.
But everybody does it, which is exactly why it’s the least differentiating of the five on its own. It earns its weight only when it’s tied to the rest: the same expertise proven by your operations and corroborated by third parties, not just asserted in a blog post.
It’s necessary, but it’s not where your advantage hides.
3. Brand narrative and voice: Who you are, who you serve, and why you’re the best
All marketers create brand narratives, so the work here is about consistency and clarity rather than invention. Everybody communicates who they are, what they do, and who they serve, and keeping that clear and consistent matters enormously. 
But three things are often left out, and AI needs all of them.
Intent: It isn’t enough to name your ideal customer profile (ICP). You have to pair your ICP with what they’re after: the cohort-to-intent combinations from the funnel query pathway. AI has to know not just whose problem you solve, but which problem, and at which moment, before it can hand you to them.
Credibility: The thing that feeds your N-E-E-A-T-T. Many people leave it out because they feel awkward saying it. You have to set it out because AI won’t work out your true value on its own. Be clear and bold about why you’re credible, then make sure you can back it up with evidence.
Making the relationship with your clients explicit: Validation from the people you serve that you deliver on what your narrative and cohort-to-intent mapping promise. Say who you are, what you do, and who you serve. Then explain why a customer should choose you and prove it.
Voice is the part corporations get wrong most often. Narrative is what you say. Voice is how you say it. One team may write the narrative once, but voice escapes through every rep, every support reply, every social post, and every deck. 
When it drifts, and in most large companies it drifts constantly, AI reads the same brand as five different brands and loses confidence in all five.
So standardize your voice and keep it consistent everywhere. Consistency is a credibility signal in itself. Inconsistency is a tax you pay without seeing the bill.
In short, make sure your brand narrative clearly sets out your ICP, who you are, and why you’re the best fit for them, in a voice that stays consistent wherever AI finds it.
4. OPID business operations: The stream almost nobody harvests
This is everything your business generates by running: onboarding, performance, integration, devotion, and all the day-to-day activity around them. 
It’s the most powerful of the five because the material comes from your clients and from the work your team does to serve them, which is exactly the material that rarely makes it online. It sits behind closed doors, buried in a CRM, parked on a platform nobody values, and almost nobody harvests it.
It feeds all three elements of understandability, credibility, and deliverability more effectively than anything else you own. 
Understandability comes from the granular detail of what you actually do and the exact circumstances in which you help. Most of that is only ever discussed inside the business. A review where a client describes precisely what they got from you puts something on the record you’d never say about yourself, and the machine reads it as fact.
Credibility is your N-E-E-A-T-T, and this is the most convincing kind because it comes from clients themselves, not from your marketing.
Deliverability comes from the match. The content here aligns exactly with your cohort-to-intent combinations because it was created around the clients you attracted and served well. Whether it comes from you or from them, it fits the audience and intent you need to communicate to the engines.
Once you start looking, you’ll find the richest material you own:
Customer voice is the highest signal because it’s real questions in real language: reviews across every platform, written and video testimonials, FAQs, unpublished support questions that should become FAQs, support and sales call transcripts, onboarding and churn-exit interviews, and free-text survey responses.
Evidence and outcomes provide the proof you need: case studies with real before-and-after numbers, patent filings, academic deposits that are public but underused, and independent third-party studies that corroborate your claims.
Methodology covers the rest. SOPs, playbooks, training materials, glossaries you currently keep private, and long-form spoken content such as webinars, keynotes, and podcast appearances, transcribed.
Look for material that answers a question an assistive engine or agent actually gets asked, in the questioner’s own words, with a verifiable fact attached. 
A support ticket, churn interview, or sales call transcript will often outperform polished marketing copy in that test because it’s already phrased the way real people ask questions.
That’s the whole point of harvesting OPID business operations: taking information from a place AI can’t see and moving it to a place where it can, while making it visible to your human audience, too. It’s convincing to both because it’s true and because it matches the cohort-to-intent combination exactly.
5. Bringing the offline online: The stream almost nobody runs
This section is all about the marketing and audience engagement you do offline: the talks you give, the festivals or hackathons you sponsor to support your community, the interviews, the panels, and the rooms full of clients. It’s obvious to you, but largely invisible to AI.
Bring the offline online and feed it to the machines by publishing self-reporting content and linking to the social posts and summary articles others write. That’s a huge win most brands miss.
But it works the other way, too. Your codified source of truth can feed your offline communication, so the story a client hears from you at a conference, in a newspaper, on the radio, or face to face is consistent with the story you’re telling AI on the web.
That matters more than it seems. If the two differ, you lose the person because the gap reads as doubt to a human and as low confidence to a machine.
Clarity and consistency over time, online and offline, is the name of the game.
Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.
 
				
				
			
See terms.
		
Organize and codify the five into one source of truth
Once you’ve harvested all five streams, organize and codify them into a single source of truth: a database you build to output whatever format each surface needs, including HTML, schema, MCP, RDF, prose, audio, video, and images.
Organize the data once, centralize it, set up a system that codifies it on the way out, and from there you can distribute it in a few clicks while your digital footprint stays clear and consistent as it grows.
Then distribute it across your digital ecosystem in the format your human audience expects and packaged so machines can ingest it cleanly.
Where you publish affects how much the machine believes you, and the rule is simple: the less of you there is in it, the more it trusts it. You’re working across three tiers.
First-party: You claim 
You publish on your own properties, in your own voice. You state who you are and set the frame. It’s the baseline, and on its own it proves nothing because you wrote it and you published it.
Second-party: You corroborate
Here, you’re still publishing, but across a broader footprint and with other voices in the mix. Two things widen here.
The platform: In addition to your own entity home website, you publish on platforms where you own the account, such as YouTube, LinkedIn, Medium, and press releases. You’re stating your case the same way you would on your website, just on another property you control.
The voice: You can publish your own words, or you can publish what a client or user said, such as a review, quote, or case study, on your own site and across those other accounts.
It’s a step up from first-party because the substance is no longer solely your own assertion, even though you’re still the one choosing it and publishing it.
Third-party: They prove you
A third party publishes in its own voice, on its own site or social accounts, or on a neutral platform such as Trustpilot, with no involvement from you. 
Think clients and partners sharing their experiences, journalists, analysts, academics, and the long tail of user-generated content that assistive engines lean on.
It’s the strongest evidence because you had no hand in creating it.
You can’t write that third tier, but you can feed it. Your clients publish because you’ve served them well enough that they want to, so earn it.
Independent publishers can’t see inside your business, so give them something to work with: a client story they can build on, a view into your operation, or data about your business and industry they can cite.
Giving outside parties a true, detailed version of your business to publish is what PR, marketing, and content teams have always done. The only thing that’s changed is that now you do it so machines read the result as proof, not just so humans read it as coverage.
Point all three tiers at the same picture — you, your audience, and the independents — and they align into one answer the machine can’t miss.




Read the grid by how much of you is in the publication.
First-party is all you. Your words on your own site. It’s pure claim, and the machine treats it as the baseline because you wrote it and you published it.
Third-party is none of you. Someone else’s words on a platform you don’t control. That’s why it’s the strongest proof.
Everything in between is second-party corroboration. Your own words carried onto an account you run elsewhere, or someone else’s words that you chose to publish on your own page.
The same review is second-party when you surface it on your site and third-party when the client publishes it on their own account. The words are identical. The weight is different. The difference is determined entirely by who publishes it.
Step back, and you have a powerful loop: You harvest your operations, codify them into a single source of truth, and distribute them across the tiers machines read. Then the machines recommend you, your ICP arrives, and serving them generates the next round of operations to harvest.
Each turn feeds the next, so your digital footprint compounds instead of resetting.




The mirror principle is why this is the whole game
At the moment it recommends a brand, think of the AI engine as an honest broker — the impartial intermediary of business and diplomacy, the one with no stake in who wins, whose entire value to the person asking is that it can’t be bought. 
Much as a travel agent carries every airline or a mortgage broker has the whole market on screen, the honest broker carries every brand in your category and recommends whoever it judges to be the best solution for the person in front of it. That impartiality is the entire reason the buyer trusts it, and it’s the reason the engine recommends your competitor without a flicker of disloyalty: it was never on your side, it’s on the buyer’s.
This is good news once you see it the right way. An honest broker wants to recommend you. It can only recommend what it clearly understands and trusts. So you don’t have to trick a rigged system. You have to give the broker the organized facts: hand it the most detailed, best-corroborated picture of who you are, what you do, who you serve, and why you’re the best fit for them, better and more often than your competitors manage. 
Brief it better than they do, build a clearer and more convincing case, and on merit, you become the name it reaches for at the top, middle, and bottom of the funnel. The brands losing today mostly aren’t outbid. They’re out-briefed because the only picture the broker ever had of them was thin.
The briefing comes from your digital footprint. The broker forms its view of you from the world’s view of you: the reviews, the coverage, the corroboration scattered across the market, and what it shows about you is its opinion of the world’s opinion of you. That’s the mirror principle. 
You can try to flatter the broker, trick it, lean on it, and it might even work for a while, but an honest broker reads the world, so the thing that holds is changing what the world can see. Do that, and you’re not manipulating anything. You’re showing the broker proof: something that was always true, just underrepresented, or simply never visible.
Briefing the honest broker is the whole job. Harvest the five streams, organize and codify them into one source of truth, distribute them across the tiers the broker reads, and you’ve handed it the fullest, truest, best-corroborated picture of you in the market, at the one moment that pays: when someone is in the market for what you sell and the broker is about to be asked who it recommends. 
Do that consistently enough, across everything the broker reads, and you stop merely briefing it and start training it. That’s the finale: how you train the honest broker rather than just brief it, what an under-briefed broker costs you, and when paid placement pushes you versus when it backfires. 
For now, hold onto one idea: the broker recommends based on what the world shows it, so change what the world shows it. AI is laying foundations now that will hold for years, and the incumbent wins, so don’t leave it until tomorrow.
This is the 17th piece in my AI authority series.




Part 1, “Rand Fishkin proved AI recommendations are inconsistent, here’s why and how to fix it,” introduced cascading confidence.
Part 2, “AAO: Why assistive agent optimization is the next evolution of SEO,” named the discipline.
Part 3, “The AI engine pipeline: 10 gates that decide whether you win the recommendation,” mapped the full pipeline.
Part 4, “The five infrastructure gates behind crawl, render, and index,” walked through the infrastructure phase.
Part 5, “5 competitive gates hidden inside ‘rank and display’,” covered the competitive phase.
Part 6, “The entity home: The page that shapes how search, AI, and users see your brand,” mapped the raw material.
Part 7, “The push layer returns: Why ‘publish and wait’ is half a strategy,” extended the entry model.
Part 8, “How AI decides what your content means and why it gets you wrong,” covered annotation, the last gate where you’re alone with the machine.
Part 9, “Why topical authority isn’t enough for AI search,” opened the competitive phase proper with topical ownership.
Part 10, “The funnel flip: Why AI forces a bottom-up acquisition strategy,” named the process.
Part 11, “The framing gap: Why AI can’t position your brand,” exposed the gap between evidence and recommendation.
Part 12, “The 10-gate AI search pipeline: Find where your content fails,” showed you how to find (and repair) your F grades in the AI engine pipeline.
Part 13, “The delegation boundary: How AI decides which brands win,” mapped how delegation moves between user and engine across Search, Assistive, and Agent modes.
Part 14, “The funnel query pathway: A framework for measuring AI visibility,” built the measurement instrument.
Part 15, “The micro-macro shift: How to measure AI visibility now that precision is gone,” moved measurement from micro precision to macro trend.
Part 16, “How SEO turns customer success into AI-readable proof,” put SEO inside post-sale operations.
Up next: Why Google isn’t dying: paid and organic just collapsed onto every AI surface.

Build a digital footprint that helps AI understand your expertise, recognize your credibility, and recommend your brand.

How AI forms opinions about your brand

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/What-server-logs-reveal-that-SEO-tools-miss.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="What server logs reveal that SEO tools miss" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/What-server-logs-reveal-that-SEO-tools-miss.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/What-server-logs-reveal-that-SEO-tools-miss-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/What-server-logs-reveal-that-SEO-tools-miss-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/What-server-logs-reveal-that-SEO-tools-miss-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>Search engines leave behind a detailed record of every visit. Here's how that data helps uncover hidden SEO issues at scale.

For large websites, server logs often reveal technical SEO problems long before rankings decline. They show how search engines crawl your site, where crawl budget gets wasted, how quickly servers respond, and whether important pages remain accessible.
Unlike Google Search Console, analytics platforms, and third-party crawlers, server logs capture every request search engines make to your infrastructure. 
Yet many organizations never analyze them — missing one of the most valuable sources of technical SEO data available.
Why server logs reveal what other SEO tools miss
Many SEO teams rely on Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools, third-party crawlers, and analytics platforms. Those tools help, but they all rely on data samples, delayed reporting, or simulated crawls. 
Server logs capture direct interactions between crawlers and infrastructure. That distinction matters on websites with hundreds of thousands or millions of URLs.
A log file records every request processed by a server. For SEO purposes, the most useful entries come from crawlers such as Googlebot, Bingbot, GPTBot, Applebot, and other verified search engine bots. 
Each request generates operational data, including the requested URL, response code, timestamp, user agent, and response timing. Over time, those records form a detailed crawl history.
shows up.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
Hidden SEO issues in crawl data
Most technical SEO issues begin as crawl inefficiencies that gradually compound over time. A search engine crawler may:
Request a page and receive an unexpected response.
Encounter a category section that slows under heavy load.
Follow redirect chains that expanded after a deployment. 
In other cases, product pages disappear from inventory while still returning a 200 status code. These problems rarely occur as isolated incidents. 
Search engines encounter them repeatedly across thousands or millions of crawl requests, creating patterns that can quietly erode crawl efficiency, indexing, and visibility.
Server logs expose those patterns clearly. 
On large ecommerce platforms, logs often show crawlers spending excessive time on filtered navigation URLs while strategic product pages receive limited recrawling. 
On publisher websites, crawlers sometimes revisit outdated archive paths more aggressively than newly updated content. 
SaaS platforms frequently expose staging environments or parameter-driven duplicate URLs through internal systems without realizing how heavily those URLs consume crawl activity. 
Without logs, those problems remain hidden behind aggregate reporting.
Server logs also provide historical visibility. Unlike Google Search Console data, which expires over time, retained logs reveal crawl trends tied to migrations, infrastructure changes, indexing shifts, and platform redesigns.
Where crawl resources go
Search engines don’t crawl every page equally. Large websites compete internally for crawl attention. 
Search engines allocate resources based on perceived importance, internal linking, infrastructure quality, content freshness, and historical performance. Logs reveal those crawl decisions directly.
A retailer with five million URLs may assume high-value category pages receive regular crawling because they appear in XML sitemaps and navigation systems. Log file analysis may show Googlebot spending a disproportionate share of crawl resources on parameterized URLs created through faceted filtering instead.
Another site may discover crawlers revisiting redirected legacy URLs years after a migration. These situations are common because search engines work from observed behavior rather than internal assumptions.
Server logs also help identify sources of crawl waste that quietly consume large portions of crawl activity. Common examples include:
Infinite URL combinations.
Session parameters.
Crawlable internal search pages.
Open faceted navigation systems.
Duplicate mobile URLs.
Exposed staging environments.
Broken canonical structures. 
As web platforms expand over time, crawl efficiency increasingly becomes an infrastructure challenge as much as a traditional SEO problem.
When infrastructure limits crawling
Response timing data is among the most valuable information in server logs. Search engines monitor how efficiently servers respond during crawling. Slow or unstable infrastructure affects how aggressively crawlers move through a site.
A difference between 300 milliseconds and 3 seconds may appear minor on a single request, but across hundreds of thousands of crawler requests, the impact becomes substantial. Response timing analysis helps isolate infrastructure bottlenecks under real crawl conditions and exposes performance issues that traditional SEO tools often miss.
In production environments, these patterns appear frequently. Product pages may bypass cache layers and generate database-heavy responses, image optimization services can slow down media crawlers, and API-driven templates often create inconsistent latency during crawl spikes. JavaScript rendering systems may delay crawler access to content, while regional CDN routing can introduce performance issues in specific markets.
Synthetic monitoring tools often miss these patterns because simulated testing doesn’t fully replicate crawler behavior. Logs capture what crawlers experience at the request level. Timing analysis also helps separate isolated incidents from persistent operational issues.
A temporary deployment issue differs from a structural bottleneck. Logs reveal the difference through historical request patterns.
Search engines, particularly Google, tend to reward reliable infrastructure with more consistent crawling. Fast, stable responses support efficient crawl allocation and improve recrawl frequency on important pages.
On enterprise systems, response timing analysis frequently influences infrastructure planning beyond SEO. Operations teams use log data to prioritize cache improvements, CDN adjustments, scaling decisions, and deployment scheduling.
Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.
 
				
				
			
See terms.
		
Soft 404s at scale
Soft 404s remain one of the most overlooked yet highly consequential SEO issues for large online brands. Unlike a standard 404 page, which correctly returns an HTTP 404 status code, a soft 404 returns a 200 OK response while serving thin, empty, or functionally useless content.
To search engines, these pages appear crawlable and indexable despite offering little or no value, which can quietly waste crawl budget and dilute overall site quality signals.
Common soft 404 examples include:
Out-of-stock product pages that remain live without meaningful replacement content.
Empty category templates created through faceted navigation.
Broken internal search result pages.
Placeholder inventory URLs with little usable information.
Expired listings that still return a 200 OK status code. 
Failed rendering can create similar issues when JavaScript content doesn’t fully load for crawlers. On large web platforms, these low-value pages often accumulate quickly and consume significant crawl activity without contributing meaningful search visibility.
Search engines eventually classify many of these pages as low quality. The issue becomes operational when crawlers continue revisiting those URLs repeatedly. Document size analysis within logs provides one way to identify potential soft 404 patterns at scale.
Landing pages with nearly identical response sizes can sometimes indicate templated low-value responses. A group of 60,000 product URLs all returning responses smaller than 100 bytes after inventory expiration usually points toward placeholder templates rather than meaningful content.
Internal search systems create another common example. Empty search result pages often generate highly consistent response sizes because the template loads correctly while no actual content appears.
Response codes alone rarely expose the full pattern of crawl behavior. A clearer operational picture emerges when HTTP status codes are analyzed alongside response sizes, crawl frequency, and URL patterns. Together, these signals reveal how search engines interact with different sections of a web platform and where crawl inefficiencies begin to accumulate.
Large publishers, such as news websites, also encounter soft 404 issues through broken pagination systems or empty archive states. 
SaaS platforms sometimes expose onboarding placeholders through crawlable public URLs. 
Marketplace websites frequently generate thin pages for inactive listings while still returning successful responses. Document size analysis helps identify these patterns quickly across large datasets.
The case for log retention
Short log retention periods limit the quality of server log analysis. Many crawl patterns develop gradually, with search engines adjusting crawl allocation over weeks or months rather than days. 
Historical log data reveals long-term shifts in crawl behavior, including:
Changes in crawl frequency.
Legacy URL activity.
Migration effects.
Infrastructure instability.
Seasonal crawl patterns.
Redirect persistence.
Broader crawl budget fluctuations.
For large websites, six to 36 months of logs often provide meaningful operational history.
Historical data is especially valuable during migrations. Teams compare crawler behavior before and after structural changes to determine whether important sections gained or lost crawl visibility. Without retained logs, those comparisons disappear permanently.
Many organizations still overwrite logs quickly or don’t retain them at all. Once lost, historical crawl data can’t be reconstructed later.
Separating search crawlers from bot noise
Raw server logs contain large volumes of automated traffic unrelated to SEO. Many bots impersonate Googlebot or Bingbot, making accurate filtering essential before meaningful analysis can begin. Effective validation typically combines user agent analysis, reverse DNS checks, and trusted IP verification to separate legitimate crawlers from scrapers, monitoring systems, and malicious automation.
Once filtered correctly, server logs reveal clear behavioral differences between crawler types, including Googlebot Smartphone, Googlebot Image, Bingbot, Applebot, AdsBot, and newer AI-oriented crawlers. Each interacts with web platforms differently, creating distinct crawl patterns, resource demands, and indexing behavior.
Image crawlers place heavier demands on media infrastructure. Mobile crawlers focus more heavily on rendering consistency. AI-focused crawlers often revisit large archive sections repeatedly.
Crawler segmentation helps technical teams prioritize infrastructure improvements based on actual crawl demand rather than assumptions.
Monitoring migrations with log data
Migrations are one of the highest-risk periods in technical SEO, as even well-tested launches can introduce crawl instability. 
Server logs provide direct visibility into how search engines respond after deployment, including which redirects crawlers continue to follow, whether redirect chains form, which legacy URLs remain active, and where 404 spikes occur. 
Logs also reveal how crawl allocation shifts across the platform, whether response times begin to deteriorate, and which sections search engines continue to prioritize after the migration goes live.
A migration may appear successful during browser testing while crawlers encounter entirely different behavior through caching systems, CDN routing, or redirect logic.
Large ecommerce migrations often reveal persistent crawl activity on old URL structures weeks or months after launch. International platforms sometimes discover regional redirect inconsistencies affecting only certain crawlers. Logs expose those failures early enough to correct them.
Collecting the right log data
Useful log analysis depends on complete records. At a minimum, logs should include:
Remote IP address, including originating IP and optional (X-)Forwarded-For information.
User agent string.
Request protocol, such as HTTP, HTTPS, or WSS.
Request hostname.
Request path.
Request parameters.
Request time, including date, time, and time zone.
Request method.
Response HTTP status code.
Response timings.
These fields create the operational baseline required for meaningful crawl analysis.
Hostname and protocol fields often receive less attention than they deserve. Missing these values creates blind spots on multilingual websites, subdomain-heavy platforms, and CDN-driven architectures.
Many organizations simplify analysis by storing the full request URL as a normalized field containing protocol, hostname, path, and parameters.
Additional fields can further improve analysis quality:
Response byte size.
Cache status.
Referrer.
CDN edge location.
Upstream timing.
Compression type.
Response size data becomes especially valuable during soft 404 investigations and duplicate content analysis.
Why logs remain underused
Server logs often fall between departments. Infrastructure teams view them as operational data. Security teams use them for threat monitoring. SEO teams focus on crawling and indexing. Analytics teams prioritize user behavior reporting.
As a result, one of the most valuable technical SEO datasets within an organization often remains completely unused. Yet server logs answer operational questions that few other systems can.
They reveal which pages absorb the largest share of crawl resources, which sections return unstable responses, and which deprecated URLs continue receiving heavy crawler activity years later. 
Logs also expose latency issues affecting specific crawler groups and low-value pages that dilute crawl efficiency. These insights directly influence rankings, crawl allocation, and search visibility.
Technical SEO and GEO increasingly overlap with infrastructure engineering because search engines continuously evaluate operational quality. Server logs expose those operational realities in detail. 
For large websites, log analysis stops being optional once crawl scale reaches enterprise complexity. The data already exists. The advantage comes from retaining it, structuring it properly, and using it consistently.
complete picture of your search visibility.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
The business value of server logs
Ultimately, server log retention delivers value far beyond SEO alone. In particular, preserved log data can strengthen buyer confidence by providing verifiable operational evidence of site performance, infrastructure stability, and historical activity. 
That additional transparency can materially support due diligence and even contribute positively to company valuation, making a compelling case that the cost of recording and retaining server logs is often outweighed by their long-term strategic value.

Search engines leave behind a detailed record of every visit. Here's how that data helps uncover hidden SEO issues at scale.

What server logs reveal that SEO tools miss

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max-.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="Why your brand campaign may not be ready for AI Max" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max-.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max--768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max--1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max--1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>AI Mode eligibility isn't enough reason to expand automation. Learn where to focus before testing AI Max on brand traffic.


<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max-.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="Why your brand campaign may not be ready for AI Max" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max-.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max--768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max--1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/Why-your-brand-campaign-may-not-be-ready-for-AI-Max--1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>
<p>Not long ago, broad match was positioned as the future of paid search. Today, that role belongs to <a href="https://searchengineland.com/ai-max-for-search-everything-you-need-to-know-462923">AI Max</a>.</p>



<p>Over the last few months, I&#8217;ve heard repeated recommendations to enable AI Max on brand campaigns, even when those campaigns are already performing exactly as intended.</p>



<p>The problem is that many accounts still lack the foundations AI Max needs to work well. Conversion tracking is unreliable, offline conversion imports are missing, and generic campaigns remain constrained by budget or structure.</p>



<p>AI Max depends on strong conversion signals, sufficient volume, and enough variation for the system to learn effectively. In many accounts, brand campaigns provide most of that signal.&nbsp;</p>



<p>But using AI Max on brand means introducing additional automation into your most predictable and efficient traffic source.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-promise-and-limitations-of-ai-max">The promise and limitations of AI Max</h2>



<p>AI Max expands search targeting beyond your existing keyword list by using keywords, landing pages, and site content as signals rather than strict targeting parameters.</p>



<p>Like dynamic search ads (DSA), AI Max can match to queries you didn&#8217;t explicitly target. But it goes further, reaching beyond the intent boundaries defined by your keyword set.</p>



<p>Google has positioned AI Max as the next step in Search automation, with DSA, automatically created assets, and campaign-level broad match settings scheduled to transition into AI Max in September.</p>



<p>The platform includes controls such as brand exclusions, URL exclusions, text guidelines, and location targeting. In accounts with strong conversion tracking, sufficient search volume, and reliable performance signals, AI Max may uncover incremental growth opportunities.</p>



<p>Many accounts haven&#8217;t reached that stage yet.</p>



<a href="https://www.semrush.com/lp/semrush-one/en/?utm_campaign=ic_semrush_one&#038;utm_source=searchengineland.com&#038;utm_medium=overlay&#038;onboarding=off" target="_blank">
  <div>

    <div>

      <div id="semrush-one-headline" class="headline-responsive">
        Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand <span>shows up</span>.
      </div>
      <p id="semrush-one-subhead">
        The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.
      </p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span id="semrush-one-cta">Start Free Trial</span>
    </div>

    <div>
      <div>Get started with</div>
      <img decoding="async" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/semrush-one.webp" alt="Semrush One Logo">
    </div>
  </div>
</a>




<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-why-ai-surface-eligibility-isn-t-a-reason-to-rush-into-ai-max">Why AI surface eligibility isn&#8217;t a reason to rush into AI Max</h2>



<p>Much of the recent interest in AI Max stems from Google&#8217;s push toward AI-powered search experiences.</p>



<p>AI Overviews now reach <a href="https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/sundar-pichai-io-2026/#conversational-ai" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2.5 billion monthly users</a>, according to Google. Ads appear in <a href="https://www.semrush.com/blog/serps-with-ads-and-ai-overviews/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">25.6%</a> of AI Overview results, Semrush data shows.</p>



<p>As Google continues expanding AI-driven search experiences, advertisers are understandably focused on maintaining visibility across those surfaces.</p>



<p>That concern is reasonable. The problem is that AI Max is often presented as the solution before advertisers address the measurement, conversion, and account structure issues that determine whether the automation can succeed.</p>



<p>Google Ads representatives typically pitch AI Max for brand campaigns by claiming it’s necessary for eligibility in AI Mode and AI Overviews on brand searches. But this isn&#8217;t accurate.</p>



<p>Ginny Marvin, Google Ads liaison, <a href="https://officialppcchat.com/2026/01/07/all-your-2025-google-ads-questions-answered-ppc-chat-recap-with-guest-ginny-marvin-of-google-ads/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confirmed</a> that three campaign types are eligible to serve in AI Overviews: broad match with Smart Bidding, Performance Max (PMax), and AI Max for Search.</p>



<p>However, exact match keywords aren’t eligible to serve in AI Overviews at all, even when identical broad match keywords exist in the same account.</p>



<p>So, the eligibility picture looks like this:</p>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><table><thead><tr><th><strong>Campaign type</strong></th><th><strong>AI Overview eligible</strong></th><th><strong>Query control</strong></th><th><strong>Best use case</strong></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Exact match</td><td>No</td><td>Highest</td><td>Defensive brand</td></tr><tr><td>Phrase match</td><td>No</td><td>Medium</td><td>Controlled intent expansion</td></tr><tr><td>Broad match</td><td>Yes</td><td>Lower</td><td>Generic scaling</td></tr><tr><td>Performance Max</td><td>Yes</td><td>Low</td><td>Cross-network automation</td></tr><tr><td>AI Max</td><td>Yes</td><td>Lowest</td><td>Mature accounts with strong signals</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



<p>PMax and AI Max do broadly the same job in terms of AI surface eligibility. So if you run PMax brand campaigns, you&#8217;re already covered. Adding AI Max won’t unlock anything new, as it&#8217;ll only add another automation layer to a setup that&#8217;s already eligible.</p>



<p>So, when reps position AI Max on brand as the answer to AI surface eligibility, advertisers should stop and ask why this feature takes priority over fixing the account’s foundation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-test-data-doesn-t-support-google-s-ai-max-claims">Test data doesn’t support Google’s AI Max claims</h2>



<p>When AI Max was in beta, <a href="https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/google-ai-max-for-search-campaigns/#introduction" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Google stated</a> that advertisers who activate the feature would see 14% more conversions, and those running exact and phrase match keywords would likely see a 27% increase in conversions.</p>



<p>Google also <a href="https://business.google.com/us/accelerate/announcements/dsa-upgrade-to-ai-max-2026/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">indicated</a> that advertisers who enable the full AI Max feature suite see 7% more conversions on average. Independent testing has produced more mixed results.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-evidence-for-ai-max-remains-mixed">The evidence for AI Max remains mixed</h3>



<p>Across 600 accounts, Smarter Ecommerce found that AI Max delivered a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7392205372549148672/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">35%</a> lower return on ad spend (ROAS) than traditional match types. AI Max accounted for just 0.57% of total ad spend in those accounts, indicating that advertisers kept the budget to a minimum.</p>



<p>After running a four-month test, Xavier Mantica found that AI Max had the <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/xavier-mantica_im-done-with-ai-max-after-4-months-of-activity-7392168893257060352-2NyO/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">most expensive conversions</a>. While AI Max cost $100.37 per conversion, phrase match cost $43.97 per conversion, and exact match cost $52.69 per conversion. And Ezra Sackett tested 30,000 search terms with AI Max, only to find that <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ezrasackett_we-have-a-few-clients-dipping-their-toes-activity-7361450205210112000-38Hu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">99%</a> of impressions delivered zero conversions.</p>



<p>After a 23-test analysis of 16 advertisers, <a href="https://searchengineland.com/google-ai-max-performance-tests-471366">Andy Goodwin noted</a> improved Quality Score and ROAS when advertisers used the AI Max full feature suite. But he tested mature advertisers and used text customization in only 50% of tests and URL optimization in just 44%. This suggests advertisers were cautious about enabling every AI Max feature.</p>



<p>However, none of this data is brand-specific. AI Max may deliver value in the right context, but an exact match defensive brand campaign that already performs well isn’t the ideal place to test a new automation product that depends heavily on signal quality. This is especially true for accounts that haven&#8217;t solved the underlying data problems feeding the automation.</p>



<div class="nl-inline-form border py-2 px-1 my-2">
	
	<div class="row align-items-center nl-inline-container">
		<div class="col-12 col-lg-3 col-xl-4 pe-md-0 pb-2 pb-lg-0">
			<p class="inline-form-text text-center mb-0">Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.</p>
		</div>
		<div class="col-12 col-lg-7 col-xl-6  pe-lg-0">
			<div class="form-nl-inline">
				<form id="mktoForm_16298"></form> 
				
				
			</div>
		</div>
		<div class="col-12 col-lg-2 col-xl-2 ps-1">
			<p class="text-center mb-0"><a class="nl-terms" href="https://searchengineland.com/termsofuse" target="_blank" aria-label="opens in a new tab">See terms.</a>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>




<hr class="wp-block-separator has-text-color has-cyan-bluish-gray-color has-css-opacity has-cyan-bluish-gray-background-color has-background"/>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-ai-max-attribution-gets-murky-on-brand">AI Max attribution gets murky on brand</h3>



<p>AI Max doesn’t always find genuinely new search terms, <a href="https://searchengineland.com/google-ai-max-performance-tests-471366">according to Adalysis</a>. In some cases, it simply takes credit for the queries that exact and phrase campaigns were already winning.</p>



<p>Because AI Max treats keywords as signals rather than targeting parameters, impressions that would previously have been attributed to your exact match keyword can end up attributed to AI Max instead.</p>



<p>This reporting issue can be significant for brand campaigns. Brand traffic is already the highest converting traffic in most accounts.</p>



<p>Flip on AI Max, and suddenly you see an uplift. But it’s difficult to tell if it’s incremental or if preexisting branded performance simply appears in a different automation bucket.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-brand-controls-don-t-work-consistently">Brand controls don’t work consistently</h3>



<p>Google&#8217;s pitch leans heavily on brand controls. AI Max offers inclusions, exclusions, and guardrails that supposedly keep the match type tightly focused. In practice though, these controls don’t always work well.</p>



<p>Adalysis notes that competitor terms occasionally slip through and brand terms sometimes match to non-brand queries. <a href="https://www.dacgroup.com/insights/blog/paid-media/ai-max-and-the-next-chapter-of-paid-search/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DAC reports</a> overlap between brand and non-brand terms as well as unintended language matching. And <a href="https://lbbonline.com/news/AI-Max-and-the-Changing-Story-of-Paid-Search" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBBOnline finds</a> relevance hovering around 50% in some campaigns.</p>



<p>Brand controls could improve over time. But the available evidence doesn&#8217;t support treating AI Max as a low-risk switch for tightly controlled defensive brand campaigns.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-what-to-consider-before-testing-ai-max-on-brand">What to consider before testing AI Max on brand</h2>



<p>Before expanding automation into a defensive brand campaign, ask these questions.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-1-are-the-conversion-signals-trustworthy">1. Are the conversion signals trustworthy?</h3>



<p>Have you separated macro and micro conversions? Do offline imports work correctly? Does lead quality feed back into the platform, or does Google still optimize equally toward every form fill?</p>



<p>If the signal quality underneath the account is poor, AI Max will amplify it instead of fixing it.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-2-have-you-already-explored-generic-growth">2. Have you already explored generic growth?</h3>



<p>In many of the accounts I audit, budget, weak landing page alignment, poor structure, and outdated query management limit generic campaigns. This is where you usually find incremental growth, not inside an already dominant brand campaign.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-3-does-the-account-give-automation-enough-useful-learning-data">3. Does the account give automation enough useful learning data?</h3>



<p>AI Max isn&#8217;t magic. It reflects the quality of the signals underneath it.</p>



<p>If most of the account&#8217;s meaningful conversion volume comes from brand, then turning AI Max on in a brand campaign may reinforce existing dependency on branded traffic rather than helping the account grow beyond it.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-4-are-brand-modifier-searches-already-structured-properly">4. Are brand + modifier searches already structured properly?</h3>



<p>&#8220;Brand + reviews,&#8221; &#8220;Brand + pricing,&#8221; &#8220;Brand + near me,&#8221; and product intent variations often deserve their own campaign strategy entirely. AI Max shouldn&#8217;t become a substitute for good account architecture.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-5-do-you-have-a-strategic-reason-to-expand-the-brand-campaign">5. Do you have a strategic reason to expand the brand campaign?</h3>



<p>If so, test carefully using experiments. That&#8217;s a business decision, not a checkbox recommendation from a rep who hasn&#8217;t looked deeply enough at the account to understand where the real opportunities actually are.</p>



<a href="https://www.semrush.com/lp/semrush-one/en/?utm_campaign=ic_semrush_one&#038;utm_source=searchengineland.com&#038;utm_medium=overlay&#038;onboarding=off" target="_blank">
  <div>

    <div>

      <div id="semrush-one-headline-bottom" class="headline-responsive">
        See the <span>complete picture</span> of your search visibility.
      </div>
      <p id="semrush-one-subhead-bottom">
        Track, optimize, and win in Google and AI search from one platform.
      </p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span id="semrush-one-cta-bottom">Start Free Trial</span>
    </div>

    <div>
      <div>Get started with</div>
      <img decoding="async" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/semrush-one.webp" alt="Semrush One Logo">
    </div>
  </div>
</a>




<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-ai-max-only-works-as-well-as-the-signals-feeding-it">AI Max only works as well as the signals feeding it</h2>



<p>AI Max may grow into something genuinely useful over time. Remember, PMax went through a similar evolution and is in a much stronger place now than it was early on.</p>



<p>But automation only works as well as the signals feeding it. Right now, the issue is that the foundations underneath the automation still aren&#8217;t strong enough. Better conversion frameworks, measurement, account structure, and feedback loops make automation smarter.</p>



<p>If brand remains the best-performing campaign in the account, the bigger question is why the rest of the account hasn&#8217;t caught up yet.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Above all else, don&#8217;t confuse Google&#8217;s automation priorities with your account priorities.</p>

Not long ago, broad match was positioned as the future of paid search. Today, that role belongs to AI Max.
Over the last few months, I’ve heard repeated recommendations to enable AI Max on brand campaigns, even when those campaigns are already performing exactly as intended.
The problem is that many accounts still lack the foundations AI Max needs to work well. Conversion tracking is unreliable, offline conversion imports are missing, and generic campaigns remain constrained by budget or structure.
AI Max depends on strong conversion signals, sufficient volume, and enough variation for the system to learn effectively. In many accounts, brand campaigns provide most of that signal. 
But using AI Max on brand means introducing additional automation into your most predictable and efficient traffic source.
The promise and limitations of AI Max
AI Max expands search targeting beyond your existing keyword list by using keywords, landing pages, and site content as signals rather than strict targeting parameters.
Like dynamic search ads (DSA), AI Max can match to queries you didn’t explicitly target. But it goes further, reaching beyond the intent boundaries defined by your keyword set.
Google has positioned AI Max as the next step in Search automation, with DSA, automatically created assets, and campaign-level broad match settings scheduled to transition into AI Max in September.
The platform includes controls such as brand exclusions, URL exclusions, text guidelines, and location targeting. In accounts with strong conversion tracking, sufficient search volume, and reliable performance signals, AI Max may uncover incremental growth opportunities.
Many accounts haven’t reached that stage yet.
shows up.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
Why AI surface eligibility isn’t a reason to rush into AI Max
Much of the recent interest in AI Max stems from Google’s push toward AI-powered search experiences.
AI Overviews now reach 2.5 billion monthly users, according to Google. Ads appear in 25.6% of AI Overview results, Semrush data shows.
As Google continues expanding AI-driven search experiences, advertisers are understandably focused on maintaining visibility across those surfaces.
That concern is reasonable. The problem is that AI Max is often presented as the solution before advertisers address the measurement, conversion, and account structure issues that determine whether the automation can succeed.
Google Ads representatives typically pitch AI Max for brand campaigns by claiming it’s necessary for eligibility in AI Mode and AI Overviews on brand searches. But this isn’t accurate.
Ginny Marvin, Google Ads liaison, confirmed that three campaign types are eligible to serve in AI Overviews: broad match with Smart Bidding, Performance Max (PMax), and AI Max for Search.
However, exact match keywords aren’t eligible to serve in AI Overviews at all, even when identical broad match keywords exist in the same account.
So, the eligibility picture looks like this:

Campaign typeAI Overview eligibleQuery controlBest use case

Exact matchNoHighestDefensive brand
Phrase matchNoMediumControlled intent expansion
Broad matchYesLowerGeneric scaling
Performance MaxYesLowCross-network automation
AI MaxYesLowestMature accounts with strong signals





PMax and AI Max do broadly the same job in terms of AI surface eligibility. So if you run PMax brand campaigns, you’re already covered. Adding AI Max won’t unlock anything new, as it’ll only add another automation layer to a setup that’s already eligible.
So, when reps position AI Max on brand as the answer to AI surface eligibility, advertisers should stop and ask why this feature takes priority over fixing the account’s foundation.
Test data doesn’t support Google’s AI Max claims
When AI Max was in beta, Google stated that advertisers who activate the feature would see 14% more conversions, and those running exact and phrase match keywords would likely see a 27% increase in conversions.
Google also indicated that advertisers who enable the full AI Max feature suite see 7% more conversions on average. Independent testing has produced more mixed results.
The evidence for AI Max remains mixed
Across 600 accounts, Smarter Ecommerce found that AI Max delivered a 35% lower return on ad spend (ROAS) than traditional match types. AI Max accounted for just 0.57% of total ad spend in those accounts, indicating that advertisers kept the budget to a minimum.
After running a four-month test, Xavier Mantica found that AI Max had the most expensive conversions. While AI Max cost $100.37 per conversion, phrase match cost $43.97 per conversion, and exact match cost $52.69 per conversion. And Ezra Sackett tested 30,000 search terms with AI Max, only to find that 99% of impressions delivered zero conversions.
After a 23-test analysis of 16 advertisers, Andy Goodwin noted improved Quality Score and ROAS when advertisers used the AI Max full feature suite. But he tested mature advertisers and used text customization in only 50% of tests and URL optimization in just 44%. This suggests advertisers were cautious about enabling every AI Max feature.
However, none of this data is brand-specific. AI Max may deliver value in the right context, but an exact match defensive brand campaign that already performs well isn’t the ideal place to test a new automation product that depends heavily on signal quality. This is especially true for accounts that haven’t solved the underlying data problems feeding the automation.
Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.
 
				
				
			
See terms.
		
AI Max attribution gets murky on brand
AI Max doesn’t always find genuinely new search terms, according to Adalysis. In some cases, it simply takes credit for the queries that exact and phrase campaigns were already winning.
Because AI Max treats keywords as signals rather than targeting parameters, impressions that would previously have been attributed to your exact match keyword can end up attributed to AI Max instead.
This reporting issue can be significant for brand campaigns. Brand traffic is already the highest converting traffic in most accounts.
Flip on AI Max, and suddenly you see an uplift. But it’s difficult to tell if it’s incremental or if preexisting branded performance simply appears in a different automation bucket.
Brand controls don’t work consistently
Google’s pitch leans heavily on brand controls. AI Max offers inclusions, exclusions, and guardrails that supposedly keep the match type tightly focused. In practice though, these controls don’t always work well.
Adalysis notes that competitor terms occasionally slip through and brand terms sometimes match to non-brand queries. DAC reports overlap between brand and non-brand terms as well as unintended language matching. And LBBOnline finds relevance hovering around 50% in some campaigns.
Brand controls could improve over time. But the available evidence doesn’t support treating AI Max as a low-risk switch for tightly controlled defensive brand campaigns.
What to consider before testing AI Max on brand
Before expanding automation into a defensive brand campaign, ask these questions.
1. Are the conversion signals trustworthy?
Have you separated macro and micro conversions? Do offline imports work correctly? Does lead quality feed back into the platform, or does Google still optimize equally toward every form fill?
If the signal quality underneath the account is poor, AI Max will amplify it instead of fixing it.
2. Have you already explored generic growth?
In many of the accounts I audit, budget, weak landing page alignment, poor structure, and outdated query management limit generic campaigns. This is where you usually find incremental growth, not inside an already dominant brand campaign.
3. Does the account give automation enough useful learning data?
AI Max isn’t magic. It reflects the quality of the signals underneath it.
If most of the account’s meaningful conversion volume comes from brand, then turning AI Max on in a brand campaign may reinforce existing dependency on branded traffic rather than helping the account grow beyond it.
4. Are brand + modifier searches already structured properly?
“Brand + reviews,” “Brand + pricing,” “Brand + near me,” and product intent variations often deserve their own campaign strategy entirely. AI Max shouldn’t become a substitute for good account architecture.
5. Do you have a strategic reason to expand the brand campaign?
If so, test carefully using experiments. That’s a business decision, not a checkbox recommendation from a rep who hasn’t looked deeply enough at the account to understand where the real opportunities actually are.
complete picture of your search visibility.
      
Start Free Trial
    
Get started with
AI Max only works as well as the signals feeding it
AI Max may grow into something genuinely useful over time. Remember, PMax went through a similar evolution and is in a much stronger place now than it was early on.
But automation only works as well as the signals feeding it. Right now, the issue is that the foundations underneath the automation still aren’t strong enough. Better conversion frameworks, measurement, account structure, and feedback loops make automation smarter.
If brand remains the best-performing campaign in the account, the bigger question is why the rest of the account hasn’t caught up yet. 
Above all else, don’t confuse Google’s automation priorities with your account priorities.

AI Mode eligibility isn't enough reason to expand automation. Learn where to focus before testing AI Max on brand traffic.

Why your brand campaign may not be ready for AI Max

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="Google Ads may be over-crediting your conversions- A 7-day test tells a different story" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>Google is giving advertisers more ways to evaluate creative performance and make data-driven optimization decisions.

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="Google Ads may be over-crediting your conversions- A 7-day test tells a different story" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story-768x432.png 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story-1536x864.png 1536w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/03/Google-Ads-may-be-over-crediting-your-conversions-A-7-day-test-tells-a-different-story-1200x675.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>
<p>Google is expanding experimentation capabilities in Performance Max, giving advertisers more ways to test creative assets and measure campaign performance before making large-scale changes.</p>



<p><strong>What&#8217;s happening</strong>. Google is rolling out new asset experiments for Performance Max campaigns, allowing advertisers to test how different creative assets affect results.</p>



<p>The feature enables marketers to compare entirely new asset groups, evaluate the impact of adding individual assets, or measure the performance of seasonal creative against evergreen content.</p>



<p>Advertisers will also be able to test assets generated through Google&#8217;s Asset Studio.</p>



<p><strong>The big picture</strong>. Performance Max has long automated campaign optimization across Google&#8217;s inventory, but advertisers have had limited visibility into the impact of creative changes.</p>



<p>The new experiments aim to give marketers a more controlled way to evaluate creative decisions before applying them across campaigns.</p>



<p><strong>Between the lines</strong>. The addition of a second success metric could be particularly valuable for advertisers balancing competing objectives, such as maximizing conversions while maintaining efficiency targets.</p>



<p>Rather than declaring a winner based on a single KPI, marketers will be able to evaluate how changes affect broader campaign performance.</p>



<p><strong>What else is new:</strong>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Conversion lift studies and experiments are being brought together under one Experiments page.</li>



<li>Additional experiment and measurement capabilities are planned for future releases.</li>



<li>Expanded support for manager accounts (MCCs) and the Google Ads API is expected to begin rolling out in the coming weeks.</li>
</ul>



<p><strong>Why we care.</strong> Creative remains one of the biggest levers available to Performance Max advertisers, yet testing new assets often involves risk. The new experimentation tools provide a structured way to validate creative decisions with data before fully committing budget.</p>



<p><strong>What to watch.</strong> As Google continues investing in automation and AI-generated creative, asset testing is becoming increasingly important. The ability to directly compare human-created, seasonal, evergreen, and AI-generated assets could offer advertisers deeper insight into what drives performance across Performance Max campaigns.</p>



<p><strong>The bottom line</strong>. <a href="https://business.google.com/us/accelerate/announcements/scale-results-with-new-asset-experiments-in-performance-max/">Google is giving Performance Max advertisers more sophisticated testing capabilities</a>, making it easier to evaluate creative changes, measure results across multiple KPIs, and manage experiments from a centralized location.</p>



<p><strong>First spotted. </strong>The update was first spotted by PPC News Feed. </p>


Google is expanding experimentation capabilities in Performance Max, giving advertisers more ways to test creative assets and measure campaign performance before making large-scale changes.
What’s happening. Google is rolling out new asset experiments for Performance Max campaigns, allowing advertisers to test how different creative assets affect results.
The feature enables marketers to compare entirely new asset groups, evaluate the impact of adding individual assets, or measure the performance of seasonal creative against evergreen content.
Advertisers will also be able to test assets generated through Google’s Asset Studio.
The big picture. Performance Max has long automated campaign optimization across Google’s inventory, but advertisers have had limited visibility into the impact of creative changes.
The new experiments aim to give marketers a more controlled way to evaluate creative decisions before applying them across campaigns.
Between the lines. The addition of a second success metric could be particularly valuable for advertisers balancing competing objectives, such as maximizing conversions while maintaining efficiency targets.
Rather than declaring a winner based on a single KPI, marketers will be able to evaluate how changes affect broader campaign performance.
What else is new:




Conversion lift studies and experiments are being brought together under one Experiments page.
Additional experiment and measurement capabilities are planned for future releases.
Expanded support for manager accounts (MCCs) and the Google Ads API is expected to begin rolling out in the coming weeks.
Why we care. Creative remains one of the biggest levers available to Performance Max advertisers, yet testing new assets often involves risk. The new experimentation tools provide a structured way to validate creative decisions with data before fully committing budget.
What to watch. As Google continues investing in automation and AI-generated creative, asset testing is becoming increasingly important. The ability to directly compare human-created, seasonal, evergreen, and AI-generated assets could offer advertisers deeper insight into what drives performance across Performance Max campaigns.
The bottom line. Google is giving Performance Max advertisers more sophisticated testing capabilities, making it easier to evaluate creative changes, measure results across multiple KPIs, and manage experiments from a centralized location.
First spotted. The update was first spotted by PPC News Feed.

Google is giving advertisers more ways to evaluate creative performance and make data-driven optimization decisions.

Google adds new Performance Max asset testing tools

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/09/OpenAI-ChatGPT-ad-platform.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="OpenAI ChatGPT ad platform" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/09/OpenAI-ChatGPT-ad-platform.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/09/OpenAI-ChatGPT-ad-platform-768x432.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>OpenAI is expanding ChatGPT ads to five new markets including the UK, &#038; introducing new campaign management features.

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/09/OpenAI-ChatGPT-ad-platform.png" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="OpenAI ChatGPT ad platform" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/09/OpenAI-ChatGPT-ad-platform.png 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/09/OpenAI-ChatGPT-ad-platform-768x432.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>
<p>OpenAI is expanding its advertising ambitions inside ChatGPT, beginning an early test that allows multiple advertisers to appear within a single ad placement.</p>



<p><strong>What&#8217;s happening</strong>. The company is testing multi-advertiser ad units across a small subset of ChatGPT ads, according to a product update sent to advertisers.</p>



<p>Rather than displaying a single sponsored result, the new format will group multiple relevant ads together in one placement. Eligible ads will be sold through a second-price auction model, a common pricing mechanism used across digital advertising platforms.</p>



<p>OpenAI says the goal is to improve product discovery for users while creating more opportunities for advertisers to engage with users during high-intent conversations.</p>



<p><strong>Meanwhile, in Ads Manager Beta</strong>. OpenAI also announced several new campaign management features for advertisers:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Advertisers can now convert existing campaigns from lifetime budgets to daily budgets.</li>



<li>CPM campaigns can be cloned and converted to CPC bidding with one click.</li>



<li>Impression-based campaigns now support custom CPM max bids.</li>



<li>Bulk editing is available directly within the Ads Manager interface.</li>



<li>Daily budgets will transition to an average daily budget model with weekly pacing flexibility.</li>



<li>Geographic targeting is expanding beyond the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to include the U.K., Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and Mexico.</li>
</ul>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" width="539" height="990" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2026/06/chatgpt-expandsion.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-479657"/></figure>



<p><strong>Why we care.</strong> The updates bring OpenAI&#8217;s ad platform closer to the functionality marketers expect from mature advertising ecosystems, reducing campaign management friction while expanding targeting opportunities internationally.</p>



<p><strong>What to watch</strong>. The multi-advertiser placement test could provide an early signal of how aggressively OpenAI intends to monetize ChatGPT. If successful, the format may become a larger part of the platform&#8217;s ad inventory strategy while offering advertisers more opportunities to reach users during purchase and research journeys.</p>



<p><strong>The bottom line</strong>. OpenAI is steadily building out its advertising stack, but the biggest development may be its experiment with showing multiple advertisers in a single ChatGPT ad placement — a move that could reshape how sponsored content appears within AI conversations.</p>


OpenAI is expanding its advertising ambitions inside ChatGPT, beginning an early test that allows multiple advertisers to appear within a single ad placement.
What’s happening. The company is testing multi-advertiser ad units across a small subset of ChatGPT ads, according to a product update sent to advertisers.
Rather than displaying a single sponsored result, the new format will group multiple relevant ads together in one placement. Eligible ads will be sold through a second-price auction model, a common pricing mechanism used across digital advertising platforms.
OpenAI says the goal is to improve product discovery for users while creating more opportunities for advertisers to engage with users during high-intent conversations.
Meanwhile, in Ads Manager Beta. OpenAI also announced several new campaign management features for advertisers:
Advertisers can now convert existing campaigns from lifetime budgets to daily budgets.
CPM campaigns can be cloned and converted to CPC bidding with one click.
Impression-based campaigns now support custom CPM max bids.
Bulk editing is available directly within the Ads Manager interface.
Daily budgets will transition to an average daily budget model with weekly pacing flexibility.
Geographic targeting is expanding beyond the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to include the U.K., Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and Mexico.




Why we care. The updates bring OpenAI’s ad platform closer to the functionality marketers expect from mature advertising ecosystems, reducing campaign management friction while expanding targeting opportunities internationally.
What to watch. The multi-advertiser placement test could provide an early signal of how aggressively OpenAI intends to monetize ChatGPT. If successful, the format may become a larger part of the platform’s ad inventory strategy while offering advertisers more opportunities to reach users during purchase and research journeys.
The bottom line. OpenAI is steadily building out its advertising stack, but the biggest development may be its experiment with showing multiple advertisers in a single ChatGPT ad placement — a move that could reshape how sponsored content appears within AI conversations.

OpenAI is expanding ChatGPT ads to five new markets including the UK, & introducing new campaign management features.

OpenAI to expand ChatGPT ads to new markets & test multi-advertiser placements

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/Google-Local-Services-Ads-vs.-Search-Ads-Which-drives-better-local-leads.jpg" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="Google Local Services Ads vs. Search Ads- Which drives better local leads?" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/Google-Local-Services-Ads-vs.-Search-Ads-Which-drives-better-local-leads.jpg 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/Google-Local-Services-Ads-vs.-Search-Ads-Which-drives-better-local-leads-768x432.jpg 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/Google-Local-Services-Ads-vs.-Search-Ads-Which-drives-better-local-leads-1536x864.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>Google will update its Local Services Ads policies on July 6, renaming them as "requirements" and aligning advertiser guidelines.

<div><img width="1920" height="1080" src="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/Google-Local-Services-Ads-vs.-Search-Ads-Which-drives-better-local-leads.jpg" class="attachment-large size-large wp-post-image" alt="Google Local Services Ads vs. Search Ads- Which drives better local leads?" decoding="async" srcset="https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/Google-Local-Services-Ads-vs.-Search-Ads-Which-drives-better-local-leads.jpg 1920w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/Google-Local-Services-Ads-vs.-Search-Ads-Which-drives-better-local-leads-768x432.jpg 768w, https://searchengineland.com/wp-content/seloads/2025/11/Google-Local-Services-Ads-vs.-Search-Ads-Which-drives-better-local-leads-1536x864.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></div>
<p>Google is changing the rules framework that governs Local Services Ads, updating policy language and aligning advertiser requirements with its new badge system.</p>



<p><strong>What&#8217;s happening</strong>. On July 6th Google will update its Local Services Ads policies to improve readability, revise terminology, and remove requirements that no longer apply to advertisers.</p>



<p>As part of the update, Google will rename &#8220;Local Services platform policies&#8221; as &#8220;Local Services Ads requirements.&#8221;</p>



<p>The changes build on the company&#8217;s recent overhaul of the Local Services Ads badge system, including updates to Google Guarantee badges and advertiser verification standards.</p>



<p><strong>Why we care. </strong>While these changes are mostly administrative, advertisers should pay attention because the new &#8220;requirements&#8221; framework could make it easier for Google to tie compliance standards directly to badge status in the future. For agencies and local businesses, it&#8217;s another indication that maintaining verification credentials and meeting platform standards will remain critical for competing in LSAs.</p>



<p><strong>The big picture</strong>. Google says the policy refresh is intended to better align advertiser requirements with the new badge framework while making compliance guidance easier to understand.</p>



<p>The company is not positioning the update as a major policy crackdown. Instead, the focus appears to be on simplifying existing rules and modernizing the way requirements are communicated to businesses.</p>



<p><strong>The bottom line</strong>. <a href="https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6245891">Google is refreshing the policy framework for Local Services Ads</a>, replacing &#8220;platform policies&#8221; with &#8220;requirements&#8221; and aligning advertiser guidance with a new badge-driven approach to trust and eligibility.</p>


Google is changing the rules framework that governs Local Services Ads, updating policy language and aligning advertiser requirements with its new badge system.
What’s happening. On July 6th Google will update its Local Services Ads policies to improve readability, revise terminology, and remove requirements that no longer apply to advertisers.
As part of the update, Google will rename “Local Services platform policies” as “Local Services Ads requirements.”
The changes build on the company’s recent overhaul of the Local Services Ads badge system, including updates to Google Guarantee badges and advertiser verification standards.
Why we care. While these changes are mostly administrative, advertisers should pay attention because the new “requirements” framework could make it easier for Google to tie compliance standards directly to badge status in the future. For agencies and local businesses, it’s another indication that maintaining verification credentials and meeting platform standards will remain critical for competing in LSAs.
The big picture. Google says the policy refresh is intended to better align advertiser requirements with the new badge framework while making compliance guidance easier to understand.
The company is not positioning the update as a major policy crackdown. Instead, the focus appears to be on simplifying existing rules and modernizing the way requirements are communicated to businesses.
The bottom line. Google is refreshing the policy framework for Local Services Ads, replacing “platform policies” with “requirements” and aligning advertiser guidance with a new badge-driven approach to trust and eligibility.

Google will update its Local Services Ads policies on July 6, renaming them as "requirements" and aligning advertiser guidelines.

All About
Digital Marketing

Read the Latest Trends and Headlines in Digital Marketing.

Here are some of the latest headlines on digital marketing insights, search, and ecommerce:

Free Consultation

Reach out with any questions you might have regarding how RSO can help you with digital marketing.

All About Digital Marketing

Read the Latest Trends and Headlines in Digital Marketing.

Here are some of the latest headlines on digital marketing insights, search, and ecommerce:

Free Consultation

Reach out with any questions you might have regarding how RSO can help you with digital marketing.

All About
Digital Marketing