Hello,

🕳️ A New Campaign Doesn't Know What Your Old One Already Learned

This week's issue is about a mistake that has nothing to do with bad strategy and everything to do with a gap most accounts never check: a brand-new campaign starting from a blank slate, right next to an older campaign that already paid to learn the hard lessons. If you want to build that muscle yourself — how to structure, audit, and protect an account as it grows — our Google Ads Course walks through exactly this kind of account hygiene.

What's inside:

• Campaign Architecture: How to structure new campaigns so they inherit the negatives, audiences, and settings you already paid to learn.
• Search Term Reviews: A repeatable process for catching wasted spend before it compounds.
• Real Account Walkthroughs: Watch live audits, not just theory.

📖 weekly read ↓

518 Negative Keywords On One Campaign. 6 On The New One.

​
A landscaping and hardscaping client we work with in the Twin Cities had been running one core Search campaign for months. Over that time, we'd built up 518 negative keywords on it — blocking everything from DIY concrete searches to "landscaping ideas" browsers to sprinkler-repair jobs the client doesn't do. All of it earned the hard way, one wasted click at a time.

Then the client asked for a second campaign to isolate a specific service line: patios and pavers, so it could run its own budget and bid strategy. We launched it in July. It looked healthy — new keywords, new ads, decent early volume.

Two weeks later, our routine search term review found this:

• Original campaign: 518 negative keywords
• Brand-new campaign: 6 negative keywords

The new campaign didn't inherit a single lesson from the old one. It was paying full price to relearn things we'd already blocked months ago — including $102 spent on concrete-related searches (this client builds paver patios, not poured concrete) that the original campaign had stopped bidding on back in June.

WHAT WE DID INSTEAD

We pulled the live negative list from the mature campaign and cross-checked it against the new one's search terms. Rather than guess, we let the data show us exactly where the gap was costing money:

• ✅ Confirmed 8 immediate negatives on the new campaign — the concrete cluster plus a few near-duplicates — approved and applied the same day.
• 🔜 Flagged the account-level fix: port the full 518-keyword list across so the next campaign this client launches starts where the last one left off, not from zero.

The result for the period: the account's tracked conversions (calls, form fills, and LSA leads combined) moved from 10 to 17.5 period-over-period, on essentially flat spend (~$796), while the newly-caught waste stopped bleeding into a campaign that had nothing to do with concrete work.

WHAT TO DO THIS WEEK

If you've launched a new campaign, ad group, or asset group next to an established one in the last 90 days, don't assume it inherited anything. Pull the negative keyword list (or exclusion list, for PMax) on your oldest, best-performing campaign and compare it line-by-line to the new one. If the new campaign has a fraction of the exclusions, it's still paying tuition on lessons the account already learned.

This isn't a one-time fix either — it's worth building an account-level shared negative list so every future campaign inherits the basics automatically instead of starting from scratch.

👉 Learn more about Built To Optimize

TOOL OF THE WEEK

Catching a gap like this comes down to trusting your real numbers, not the dashboard defaults — which starts with knowing which leads are actually calls. CallRail tracks and records every call by campaign and keyword, so "17.5 conversions" isn't a guess, it's a number you can defend.

👉 Try CallRail