Common Optimization Opportunities in Mature Paid Media Accounts

Paid media accounts are like cars. They run fine for a while. Then small issues accumulate. Nothing catastrophic. Just inefficiencies that compound over time.

This case study shows what that looks like in practice. Not because anyone was doing a bad job. Just because complexity creates blind spots, and familiarity makes waste invisible.

The Setup

Company: Multi-location HVAC service provider in Las Vegas
Monthly ad spend: $15,000
Account age: 3 years
Performance: Stable, meeting internal benchmarks

The owner requested an independent audit after hearing competitors were getting better cost-per-lead numbers. The account had been running for three years without major changes. Performance was consistent. Reports looked good.

We conducted a forensic audit. Here's what we found.

Finding #1: $1,800/Month in Irrelevant Search Terms

The account used broad match keywords with minimal negative keyword management. Over three years, the search query landscape had shifted. Terms that were relevant in 2022 had drifted into irrelevant territory by 2025.

Result: 32% of clicks came from searches that would never convert.

Examples of wasted spend:

• "HVAC training programs" (job seekers, not customers)
• "HVAC parts wholesale" (DIY customers, not service calls)
• "HVAC technician salary Las Vegas" (job research)
• "Free HVAC estimates" (price shoppers with low conversion intent)

Monthly waste: $1,800
Annual waste: $21,600

Why wasn't this caught earlier? Broad match works well when you're actively mining search query reports and adding negatives. But that's tedious work. It's easy to let it slide for a few months. Then a few months becomes a year. Then three years. The waste accumulates slowly enough that it doesn't trigger alarms.

Finding #2: $900/Month on Underperforming Locations

The company had five service locations. Budget was allocated equally across all five. That made sense when the account was first set up. But over time, performance diverged significantly.

Performance breakdown:

• Henderson location: $85 cost per lead
• Summerlin location: $92 cost per lead
• North Las Vegas: $78 cost per lead
• Boulder City: $247 cost per lead
• Pahrump: $289 cost per lead

Boulder City and Pahrump were consuming $3,000/month in budget for 14 combined leads at an average cost of $268. The same budget reallocated to Henderson would generate 35 leads.

Monthly waste: $900
Annual waste: $10,800

Why wasn't this fixed? The business wanted "presence in all service areas." That's a reasonable goal. But the data showed two locations were 3x less efficient than the others. The question isn't whether to advertise there. It's whether to spend the same amount there as in high-performing areas. That's a strategic decision, but it requires looking at the numbers location by location. Which hadn't happened in a while.

Finding #3: $600/Month on Redundant Campaign Structure

The account had 14 campaigns. Some were labeled "Test Q2 2022" or "Backup Campaign." No one remembered what they were testing. But they were still running.

Worse, several campaigns were targeting the same keywords with different bid strategies. This created internal competition. Google was essentially auctioning against itself, driving up costs.

Monthly waste: $600
Annual waste: $7,200

Why wasn't this cleaned up? Campaign proliferation is common. Someone launches a test. It runs for a while. They get busy. The test keeps running. Six months later, no one wants to turn it off in case it's doing something important. So it stays. This happens across most accounts that run for more than a year without structural audits.

Finding #4: $500/Month on Conversion Tracking Errors

The account was optimizing for "form submissions." But when we cross-referenced form submissions with CRM data, we found 40% of submissions were spam, duplicates, or incomplete entries.

Google's algorithm was optimizing for volume, not quality. It was bidding aggressively on audiences that filled out forms but never turned into actual service calls.

Monthly waste: $500
Annual waste: $6,000

Why wasn't this caught? Conversion tracking was set up correctly when the account launched. But over time, spam bots got smarter. Form submissions increased. Everyone celebrated. No one checked whether those submissions were turning into revenue. The disconnect between "conversions" in Google Ads and "actual customers" in the CRM went unnoticed.

Finding #5: $200/Month on Outdated Ad Copy

The ads were written three years ago. They referenced promotions that no longer existed. They mentioned "24/7 emergency service" even though the company had stopped offering that two years ago.

Worse, the ads didn't mention the company's new financing options, which had become a major competitive advantage.

Monthly waste: $200 (conservative estimate based on lower click-through rates and conversion rates compared to updated ad copy)
Annual waste: $2,400

Why wasn't this updated? The ads were working. Click-through rates were stable. No one thought to update them. It's like wearing the same pair of shoes for three years. They're not broken. But they're not optimal either.

Total Waste: $47,000 Annually

Adding it up:

• Irrelevant search terms: $21,600
• Underperforming locations: $10,800
• Redundant campaign structure: $7,200
• Conversion tracking errors: $6,000
• Outdated ad copy: $2,400

Total annual waste: $48,000

That's 27% of the annual ad spend. Not because anyone was negligent. Just because small inefficiencies accumulated over three years without independent review.

What Happened Next

The owner used our audit to make changes. Some they implemented in-house. Some they asked their existing provider to fix. Within 60 days:

• Cost per lead dropped from $142 to $97
• Monthly lead volume increased from 106 to 154 (same budget)
• Campaign structure simplified from 14 campaigns to 6
• Conversion tracking updated to exclude spam and duplicates

The account didn't need a complete overhaul. It just needed fresh eyes and systematic correction of accumulated drift.

Lessons

Three takeaways from this case:

1. Complexity creates blind spots

The more campaigns, ad groups, and keywords you have, the harder it is to spot inefficiencies. What starts as a well-organized account becomes cluttered over time. Regular structural audits catch this before it becomes expensive.

2. Familiarity makes waste invisible

When you look at the same account every day, you stop seeing problems. Fresh eyes catch things that familiarity obscures. That's not a criticism of anyone managing the account. It's just how human perception works.

3. Stable performance doesn't mean optimal performance

The account was "performing well" by internal benchmarks. But it was leaving $48,000 on the table annually. Stable doesn't mean efficient. It just means consistent. You need external comparison to know the difference.

How to Avoid This

Get an independent audit every 12-18 months. Not because your current setup is broken. Just because complexity accumulates and fresh eyes catch what familiarity makes invisible.

Look for audits that:

• Quantify waste in dollars, not vague percentages
• Provide specific, prioritized recommendations
• Come with no strings attached (you're not required to hire the auditor)
• Include money-back guarantees if they don't find meaningful opportunities

Think of it like getting your car inspected. Not because something's wrong. Just because regular maintenance prevents small problems from becoming expensive ones.