A client in the lab tech industry recently approached us: He is a distributor of lab equipment and wants to get more out of his Google Ads campaigns. Our job? A thorough account audit and optimization of the campaigns for his three central product groups. Here we show you how we proceeded – and what we got out of it.

Initial situation: What went wrong?

To be clear: I have seen dozens of Google Ads accounts from companies in the laboratory and life science sector over the last six years. This one was in the top 5% in terms of the existing setup and optimization. The campaigns were already doing quite well, and I told the client that.

However, our account audit did find some pain points. One-third of clicks were coming from mobile, but the cost per conversion was five times higher than for desktop visitors. Upon further investigation, we found that the client’s mobile page was broken and not displaying any products, resulting in high bounce rates. The client hadn’t even noticed this yet. Until the problem was resolved, we reduced the bids for mobile devices by 100% to minimize losses immediately.

More than a third of clicks came from mobile devices…

… but only 5% of conversions came from mobile devices. Something was obviously wrong here.

The campaign structure also showed inconsistencies: each of the three campaigns contained only one ad group, in which around 60 highly variable keywords were collected. This meant that there was a lack of targeted addressing, and some irrelevant keywords generated a lot of traffic without any potential for conversion. One of these keywords was even set as “broad match”, which gave Google a free pass to deliver the ads for inappropriate search queries.

Another problem was the competitor keywords and search terms. The account contained numerous competitor keywords that generated expensive clicks but contributed little to the conversion. In the search terms, we also discovered some terms that could be more precisely categorized and should be added as keywords. At the same time, there were terms that were completely inappropriate and should be excluded in order to better target the B2B audience and increase the relevance of the campaigns.

The ads themselves were already pretty good, but not yet optimal. There was one responsive search ad per ad group, but one of the ads was completely missing the pinning function for ad titles, which gave Google a free hand in displaying the titles (too much for my taste), while for the other ads almost every title was pinned, which limited flexibility. The descriptions were sometimes quite good, sometimes too short and also used unnecessary pins. The sitelinks were also quite generic and not aligned with the respective search query or target products.

Finally, the conversion tracking worked too well to be true: With conversion rates of almost 9%, we became suspicious and took a closer look at the tracking settings. It turned out that form completions on the website were being counted twice. Moreover, there was even a form where the mere act of viewing the form was counted as a conversion – regardless of whether the user had filled it in and submitted it. In other words: the conversion figures were unfortunately far from reality.

Overall, we saw considerable potential for improving the structure, relevance and targeting to make our client’s Google Ads campaigns more efficient.

Before LUMITOS started optimizing the campaigns, the client spent around €350 per week on Google Ads. This resulted in an average of 2,500 impressions, 120 clicks and (allegedly) 15 conversions per week. If the incorrect conversion measurements described above are corrected, the actual figure was only 0.5 real conversions per week. The click-through rate (CTR) was 4.7%.

Our optimization: create structure and implement a more targeted approach

The first thing we did was to correct the faulty conversion measurement. Only in this way can the campaign successes achieved be meaningful in the end. To do this, we eliminated the conversion that only tracked the form view and cleaned up the other conversions so that there was no longer any double counting.

Our first optimization goal was a thorough keyword research and search volume analysis. We reviewed the client’s keywords and analyzed the search terms to identify relevant keywords. In addition, we discovered a number of long-tail keywords that had been previously missed. The new keyword list was significantly more precise and comprehensive, laying the foundation for targeted and specific traffic.

A key part of our strategy was to restructure the ad groups. The original structure – a single group with over 60 keywords – led to an unclear targeting. Instead of putting everything into one group, we divided thematically related keywords into three to nine ad groups per campaign. This allowed us to create specific groups targeted at subcategories of the main product. This targeted approach significantly increased the relevance of the ads.

At the same time, we created a list of negative keywords. Some keywords that Google had suggested were simply unsuitable for the laboratory sector.

Example A: In a campaign for laboratory freezers, the search term [freezer] should be excluded as an exact negative keyword, because this is a consumer term. Otherwise, Google generates a lot of unnecessary clicks from the wrong target group. We see this again and again with our clients, especially when there is an overlap with potential consumer search queries.

Example B: If a centrifuge dealer has a variety of centrifuges in their portfolio, but NO ultracentrifuges, the negative keyword “ultracentrifuge” should also be excluded. Otherwise, experience has shown that Google can and will also turn these search queries into nonsensical clicks – this is well-intentioned from the algorithm’s point of view, but still nonsense.

We therefore excluded such keywords, which did not match the product and generated inappropriate traffic, from the outset. This way, we were able to prevent “junk traffic” right from the start.

For the ads themselves, our focus was on clearly communicating the benefits. Our experience in the laboratory sector helped us to present the advantages of the client’s products in an authentic and targeted way. The responsive search ads were rewritten from scratch and adapted to the new ad groups. We pinned only the first ad title, which gave Google more freedom in combining the ad titles and improved performance.

Another optimization element was the optimization of the descriptions. We added missing descriptions, removed unnecessary pins and used more concise, user-centered language. Keywords that match the search intent of the target group were also integrated into the displayed paths to further increase the relevance of the ads.

An often-overlooked detail in Google Ads are the sitelinks. The old sitelinks were quite generic and had little relation to the respective search queries or target products of the campaigns. The sitelinks were “All promotions”, “Send a request” or “Book consultation”. That’s a good start, but product-specific sitelinks were missing. Anyone googling for “laboratory centrifuges” should also be shown sitelinks such as “benchtop centrifuges”, “microliter centrifuges” or “high-speed centrifuges” in order to be able to delve deeper straight away.

We adjusted the sitelinks accordingly to draw the user’s attention directly to relevant subcategory pages and make their user journey more efficient.

Finally, we deactivated the three previous campaigns and replaced them with the new, optimized campaigns. The client was initially surprised at how much potential there is in targeted structuring and text optimization – the first results after three weeks already speak for themselves.

The first results: a strong start

In the comparison period, the new campaigns for products A, B and C delivered significantly better results than the old campaigns:

• 2.4x the click rate: traffic to the site increased significantly.
• 41% lower CPCs: lower click prices ensured better budget utilization.
• 77% higher click-through rate (CTR): the ads were better at appealing to the target group and convincing them.
• Twice as many conversions: despite the short duration, conversions doubled.
• 30% lower costs per conversion: Conversion efficiency has increased significantly.

The fact that total costs increased by 40% is not a bug, but a feature: we did not change the maximum daily budgets set by the client. However, thanks to our target group-specific keyword research, we were able to unlock new potential and make better use of the budget.

Conclusion

With a well-thought-out structure, precise targeting and carefully written ads, a Google campaign can drastically increase its performance. For our lab tech client, this means more traffic and, above all, more conversions that cost less – exactly what he wanted.