Should you bid on your own brand name in Google Ads?

Yes, in most cases — but the justification has to be either defensive (competitors are bidding on your brand and you need to keep them below your listing) or incremental (a measurable share of your brand clicks would not have been captured organically). The Dellaripa analysis of Google's own research shows that paid brand search delivers only 5–15% incremental lift on top of organic brand conversions in most accounts, meaning 85–95% of brand-campaign conversions would have happened regardless. This means the reported brand CPA (often £4–£8) translates to a true incremental CPA closer to £30–£80. The Brand Leakage Audit calculates your incrementality cost — the share of brand-campaign spend going to demand organic would have captured anyway.

Is it a waste to buy AdWords around your company name when you're already #1 organic?

It depends on two conditions — (1) are competitors bidding on your brand, and (2) is your organic listing competing with a crowded SERP (local pack, shopping ads, knowledge panel). If both answers are no, pure brand bidding is close to pure cannibalisation of your own organic traffic and largely wasted. If either is yes, defensive brand bidding has genuine incremental value because without it, a meaningful share of branded clicks goes to competitors or SERP features. The Brand Leakage Audit runs Auction Insights analysis to show which competitors are bidding on your brand and measures your specific cannibalisation rate via the click-share-on-branded-queries metric.

How to test if brand search is cannibalizing organic traffic

Run a pause-test: disable the brand campaign for 7 days in a randomly selected geographic region and compare total branded traffic (paid + organic combined) in that region against a control region where brand ads remained on. The delta shows what the brand campaign was genuinely incremental for. Running a full geo test is blocked when PMax is active because you cannot exclude brand from PMax per-geo — pause PMax during the test or widen your confidence intervals. A 5–15% lift is Google's own benchmark; below that, the brand campaign is largely cannibalising organic. The Brand Leakage Audit includes the test design template and the expected lift range for your account size.

If competitors aren't bidding on my brand, should I stop brand ads?

You can significantly reduce brand spend — specifically, drop to a Target Impression Share bid strategy set to 60–70% instead of 100%, which lets you appear on the highest-intent branded queries while spending 40–60% less. Full pause is justified only if you've confirmed via Auction Insights that no competitors bid on your brand AND your organic listing dominates the SERP (your result plus sitelinks, no Shopping ads, no local pack interrupting). Re-check quarterly — competitor landscapes shift. The Brand Leakage Audit checks Auction Insights, SERP composition, and incrementality estimates to produce a specific recommendation: maintain, reduce, or pause.

How much brand dependency is too much in a Google Ads account?

Brand dependency above 50% of total Google Ads conversions is a warning sign; above 70% the account is not a paid-acquisition engine, it is a paid-retention engine. Healthy accounts sit at 20–40% brand dependency — enough to capture high-intent branded traffic but with a meaningful non-brand prospecting layer. High brand dependency masks weak non-brand performance and makes blended ROAS a vanity metric because it inflates with demand you already owned. The Brand Leakage Audit calculates your brand dependency ratio and issues a verdict: healthy (under 30%), elevated (30–50%), or dependent (over 50%).

Why does my blended CPA look great but my non-brand CPA is terrible?

Because blended CPA averages cheap brand conversions (typically £2–£10 CPA) with expensive non-brand conversions (often £50–£200 CPA), producing a middle number that hides how unprofitable non-brand prospecting actually is. If 60% of your conversions are brand at £5 CPA and 40% are non-brand at £150 CPA, your blended CPA is £63 — which looks fine but contains a non-brand segment that may be fundamentally unprofitable. This is how agencies obscure weak prospecting performance. The Brand Leakage Audit always reports CPA and ROAS split into Brand and Non-Brand columns so the real non-brand economics are visible.

How to structure Google Ads to see true new customer acquisition cost

Isolate three campaign layers: (1) Brand Search — your brand keywords as Exact/Phrase match; (2) Non-Brand Search — everything else with your brand added as campaign-level negative; (3) PMax — run with brand exclusions active AND the New Customer Acquisition goal set to 'Bid higher for new customers only' or 'Only bid for new customers'. Track each layer's CPA separately. Without this separation you cannot isolate true acquisition cost — brand and existing-customer conversions inflate the numbers. The Brand Leakage Audit checks whether these three layers exist and are properly configured in your account.

How do competitors bidding on my brand name affect my Google Ads?

Two effects: competitors appearing above your organic listing capture a share of users who intended to visit your site (typically 5–15% of branded clicks go to competitor ads when they bid), and their bidding raises the auction floor for your own brand campaign, increasing your brand CPC by 2–5x compared to a competitor-free auction. Without a brand campaign active, competitors win disproportionately because nobody is defending Position 1. With a brand campaign, you pay more than you otherwise would to maintain position. The Brand Leakage Audit's Auction Insights section shows which specific competitors are bidding on your brand terms, their overlap rate, and how often they appear above you.

Should I bid on my brand if another company has the same name?

Yes, even more defensively than a unique-brand account — when users search 'your brand name', they might be looking for you or the other company, and whoever doesn't bid loses the ambiguous-intent users to whoever does. Add modifying keywords to your brand campaign (your brand + 'login', 'UK', product name, industry) so your ads show for disambiguated brand queries. Avoid using the other company's brand name as a keyword (trademark risk). The Brand Leakage Audit identifies shared-name competitor bidding patterns and recommends the disambiguation keyword set to add.

Branded vs non-branded keywords — which one should you bid on?

Both, but with different strategic purposes and budget allocation — brand keywords for capture and defence (typically 15–25% of total budget), non-brand for growth and acquisition (the remaining 75–85%). Accounts over-indexed on brand (above 50% of budget) are usually running expensive brand campaigns on keywords that convert at high rates from organic anyway, while starving the non-brand prospecting that would actually grow the customer base. The right mix depends on your funnel maturity: established brands can reduce brand spend to 10–15%, new brands may need 30–40% to defend what little brand awareness exists. The Brand Leakage Audit recommends your specific brand/non-brand split based on your account size, industry, and dependency ratio.

How to handle paid search when the brand name is the top search term

Isolate it in a tightly-scoped Brand campaign with Exact and Phrase match only, set Target Impression Share at 80–90% (not 100% — the last 10% is typically low-value repeat queries), use ad copy that differentiates from competitors and reinforces trust signals, and add every non-brand term as a campaign-level negative. The goal is to own position 1 for branded queries with minimum spend. Keep it entirely separate from non-brand campaigns so the bidding signal stays clean. The Brand Leakage Audit verifies this structure is in place and flags campaigns where brand and non-brand keywords are mixing.

What percentage of budget should go to brand vs non-brand campaigns?

15–25% brand, 75–85% non-brand is the healthy range for most accounts — brand defends existing demand, non-brand drives growth. Mature brands with dominant organic presence can drop to 10–15% brand; new or contested brands may need 30–40% for defensive positioning. Above 50% brand share signals that your account is not funding acquisition adequately. The Brand Leakage Audit produces your current split, benchmarks it against industry norms, and recommends the rebalance direction with estimated non-brand revenue upside from reallocating brand budget.

What is brand leakage in Google Ads?

Brand leakage occurs when your ad budget is spent capturing users who are already searching for your brand name — users who would likely convert organically. A Brand Leakage audit classifies campaigns as brand or non-brand using naming conventions (brand, branded, bb, tm, trademark) and measures how much of your total spend, ROAS, and CPA is inflated by easy brand conversions that mask weak non-brand performance.

What is brand cannibalization in Google Ads?

Brand cannibalization happens when brand search terms trigger your non-brand campaigns, causing you to pay twice for the same user. The audit identifies these overlapping terms by cross-referencing search terms from brand campaigns against non-brand campaign traffic. The fix is to add these proven brand terms as exact-match negatives in every non-brand campaign — typically a 10-minute fix that immediately stops the double-payment.

What does Brand Dependency Status mean in a Google Ads audit?

Brand Dependency Status classifies your account based on the percentage of total spend going to brand campaigns. Above 50% is CRITICAL (over-dependent on existing demand). Above 30% is HIGH. Below 30% is a HEALTHY MIX. When dependency is critical, the reported account ROAS is misleading because brand traffic has naturally high conversion rates that inflate the blended number.

Why is non-brand ROAS more important than blended ROAS?

Non-brand ROAS measures your account's ability to profitably acquire new customers — people who don't already know your brand. Blended ROAS mixes this with brand traffic, which converts at 3–5x higher rates simply because those users already intend to buy. If non-brand ROAS is below breakeven while blended ROAS looks healthy, you have a growth problem hidden behind a vanity metric.

How is incrementality cost calculated in a brand leakage audit?

Incrementality cost is estimated by identifying brand search terms that appear in both brand and non-brand campaigns, summing the non-brand campaign spend on those overlapping terms, and applying a 70% weighting (not all overlap is pure waste — some may serve a competitive defense purpose). The result is the cannibalized spend: budget you are paying to capture demand you already own.

ClickCatalyst

Brand Leakage · Audit Guide

Back to Brand Leakage Audit

Audit Guide · 17 sections · 4 pages · Scroll to explore

How to Read Your Brand Leakage Report

Your audit exposes how much budget flows into branded terms, where cannibalization occurs, and whether your non-brand campaigns can survive on their own. This guide explains every metric and the exact actions to take. The PDF skeleton on the right highlights where you are.

Jump to section

The Four Headline KPIsP1 Brand vs Non-Brand SplitP1 CPA by Campaign (Brand vs Non-Brand)P1 ROAS by Channel & SegmentP1 Top Brand Search TermsP2 Cannibalization OverlapP2 Brand Keyword Quality ScoreP2 Brand Impression Share TrendP2 Brand vs Non-Brand Spend TrendP2 True Non-Brand PerformanceP3 Brand vs Non-Brand CVRP3 Brand vs Non-Brand ROAS TrendP3 Non-Brand Budget EfficiencyP3 Budget Reallocation PlanP4 Negative Keyword OpportunitiesP4 Incrementality HeadlineP4 Executive SynthesisP4

Page 1 — Brand Dependency

The Four Headline KPIs

Page 1 — the brand dependency verdict

The four KPIs tell you the split between brand and non-brand spend, non-brand ROAS in isolation, and a dependency status verdict. If brand spend exceeds 50% of total, the account is critically dependent on capturing existing demand rather than generating new demand.

Brand Spend %

The percentage of total ad spend going to campaigns classified as brand (detected via campaign naming conventions: brand, branded, bb, tm, trademark). Above 50% = over-dependent. Above 30% = high. Below 30% = healthy mix.

Non-Brand ROAS

The Real Number

Your ROAS calculated exclusively from non-brand campaigns. This is the truest measure of your account's ability to generate new business. If this number is below breakeven while your blended ROAS looks healthy, brand traffic is masking a non-brand problem.

→

If non-brand ROAS < 1.0, your account cannot profitably acquire new customers through paid search. Focus on fixing non-brand before scaling total spend.

CRITICAL — Over-dependent on brand

> 50% brand

More than half your budget captures people already searching for your brand name. These users would likely convert organically. You're paying Google to intercept your own traffic.

Brand detection method

Heuristic

Campaigns are classified as brand if their name contains: brand, branded, bb, tm, or trademark. If your naming convention is different, results may under-count brand spend. The detection config table at the top of the report shows how many campaigns matched.

Brand vs Non-Brand Split

Page 1 — the proportion reveals the strategy

The horizontal bar and donut show the same data from two angles: absolute spend and proportional share. A steep brand-heavy split means most of your budget is defensive (protecting brand queries) rather than offensive (acquiring new customers).

Spend gap between segments

The absolute dollar difference between brand and non-brand spend. A large gap in favor of brand means the account's growth engine (non-brand) is starved.

→

Shift 10–20% of brand budget to non-brand campaigns. Brand queries have naturally high organic CTR — the incremental value of paid brand ads is limited.

CPA by Campaign (Brand vs Non-Brand)

Page 1 — the CPA illusion exposed

This table labels each campaign as Brand or Non-Brand and shows CPA side by side. Brand campaigns almost always have dramatically lower CPAs because brand searchers already intend to buy. Blending them inflates the illusion that your whole account is efficient.

Brand CPA 3x+ lower than Non-Brand

CPA Illusion

A 3x CPA gap between brand and non-brand is the clearest sign that account-level CPA is misleading. Anyone looking at the blended number is over-estimating non-brand efficiency.

→

Report brand and non-brand CPA separately to stakeholders. Never blend them in a single KPI.

ROAS by Channel & Segment

Page 1 — brand inflates averages across all networks

This table splits ROAS by both channel type (Search, Shopping, Display) and brand/non-brand segment. Brand traffic inflates ROAS across every channel — not just Search. This makes it impossible to evaluate channel performance without the brand/non-brand lens.

Shopping Brand ROAS vs Shopping Non-Brand

If Shopping brand ROAS is 8x while Shopping non-brand is 1.5x, your Shopping strategy is only profitable because of branded product queries. The non-brand Shopping performance is the real signal.

Page 2 — Cannibalization

Top Brand Search Terms

Page 2 — what brand queries you're paying for

These are the most expensive search terms appearing in your brand campaigns. Most of these queries would convert organically — you're paying Google to capture traffic you already own.

High-spend exact brand name queries

Review Necessity

If your company name or product name dominates this list with high spend, test pausing brand campaigns for 2 weeks to measure the organic uplift. Many advertisers find 70–80% of brand clicks shift to organic results.

→

Run a holdback test: pause brand campaigns for one market or time period and measure organic conversion volume change.

Cannibalization Overlap

Page 2 — brand terms bleeding into non-brand campaigns

This table shows brand search terms that also trigger your non-brand campaigns — meaning you're paying for the same user twice across different campaigns. The cost_in_nonbrand column is pure waste that should be blocked with negative keywords.

Cannibalization flag

Double-Paying

Every term in this table appeared in both your brand AND non-brand campaigns. The non-brand campaign paid for a click that your brand campaign (or organic listing) would have captured anyway.

→

Add every term in this table as a negative keyword in your non-brand campaigns. This is the single fastest fix in the entire audit.

% of total spend column

Shows how much of your entire account budget this overlap represents. Even small percentages can represent significant absolute dollars in large accounts.

Brand Keyword Quality Score

Page 2 — brand terms should score 9–10

Brand keywords should have Quality Scores of 9–10 because you own the brand, your landing page should be perfectly relevant, and your ad copy should match exactly. Anything below 7 on a brand term is wasted budget from poor ad/landing page alignment.

LOW QS — Wasting brand spend

< QS 7

A brand keyword with a low Quality Score means Google considers your ad or landing page poorly matched to your own brand name. This inflates your CPCs on the cheapest traffic you should have.

→

Review ad copy for these keywords — ensure brand name appears in headlines. Check the landing page URL matches the expected brand page, not a generic category page.

Brand Impression Share Trend

Page 2 — are competitors bidding on your brand?

This trend chart tracks brand impression share, lost-to-rank, and lost-to-budget over time. A declining impression share line with rising lost-to-rank means competitors are actively bidding on your brand name and winning the auction.

Declining brand IS + rising lost-to-rank

Competitor Attack

Competitors are bidding on your brand keywords and outranking you. This forces your CPCs up and diverts your branded traffic to competitors.

→

Increase brand keyword bids to protect impression share. Consider filing trademark complaints if competitors are using your brand name in their ad copy.

Lost to budget > 10%

Underfunded Brand

You're losing brand impressions because the campaign budget is too low. This is the most defensible budget increase you can make — brand traffic is your cheapest, highest-converting segment.

→

Increase the brand campaign daily budget to eliminate budget-driven impression share loss.

Brand vs Non-Brand Spend Trend

Page 2 — is the dependency getting worse?

Two trend lines: brand spend and non-brand spend over the reporting period. If brand spend grows faster than non-brand, the dependency problem is deepening. If non-brand grows faster, the account is successfully diversifying.

Brand line rising faster

Deepening Dependency

Each month, a larger share of your budget goes to brand. This may feel safe (high ROAS) but erodes your ability to acquire new customers at scale.

→

Set a quarterly target to shift 5% of brand spend to non-brand campaigns. Track the shift over time.

Page 3 — Non-Brand Reality

S10

True Non-Brand Performance

Page 3 — how your growth engine actually performs

This table strips out all brand campaigns and shows raw non-brand performance: spend, CPA, ROAS by campaign. This is the true performance of your growth engine — the campaigns responsible for finding new customers.

Non-brand ROAS < 1.0

Unprofitable Growth

Your non-brand campaigns spend more than they return. The account-level ROAS looks good only because brand traffic subsidizes these losses.

→

Do not scale total budget until non-brand ROAS improves. Focus on keyword quality, landing page optimization, and audience targeting refinement.

S11

Brand vs Non-Brand CVR

Page 3 — the intent quality gap

Side-by-side conversion rates for brand and non-brand traffic. A large gap proves that reported account-level CVR is inflated by easy brand captures, not real non-brand performance.

CVR gap > 3x

Inflated Metrics

Brand traffic converts 3x+ more than non-brand. This is normal — brand searchers have purchase intent. But it means your blended CVR is meaningless for evaluating growth potential.

→

Always report CVR separately by segment. Use non-brand CVR as the true benchmark for landing page and campaign optimization.

S12

Brand vs Non-Brand ROAS Trend

Page 3 — are the lines converging or diverging?

Two ROAS trend lines over time. Converging lines mean non-brand is catching up to brand efficiency — a strong positive signal. Diverging lines mean the dependency problem is structurally worsening.

Lines diverging

Worsening Gap

Non-brand ROAS is falling relative to brand. The growth engine is becoming less efficient over time, which means the account will become even more dependent on brand to hit targets.

→

Investigate non-brand campaign structure: keyword match types, ad relevance, and landing page experience. The problem is usually structural, not just bidding.

S13

Non-Brand Budget Efficiency

Page 3 — is your growth engine starved?

This bar chart shows non-brand campaigns losing impression share to budget caps. These are campaigns that have proven they can convert — they just need more budget. Redirecting brand spend here is the highest-leverage budget move.

High lost IS on efficient campaigns

Starved Winner

This non-brand campaign converts well but can't show ads for all qualifying searches because its budget runs out. Every percentage point of lost impression share is a missed conversion.

→

Increase budget for these campaigns first — they've already proven they can convert at an acceptable cost.

Page 4 — Decision & Synthesis

S14

Budget Reallocation Plan

Page 4 — where to move the money

Each campaign gets a REDUCE BRAND SPEND, SCALE NON-BRAND, or HOLD verdict based on whether its ROAS exceeds the account average. Brand campaigns with above-average ROAS are candidates for budget reduction (they'll maintain performance at lower spend). Non-brand campaigns with above-average ROAS are candidates for scaling.

REDUCE BRAND SPEND

Efficient — Trim

This brand campaign converts well enough that it can maintain performance with less budget. The freed-up spend should flow to non-brand winners.

→

Reduce budget by 15–20% and monitor performance weekly. Brand campaigns typically maintain 80%+ of conversions at 20% less budget.

SCALE NON-BRAND

Growth Lever

This non-brand campaign is already performing above account average. More budget here = more new customers at proven efficiency.

→

Increase budget by 20–30% over 2 weeks. Monitor CPA daily — if it rises more than 15%, the market may be saturated.

S15

Negative Keyword Opportunities

Page 4 — proven brand terms to block in non-brand

Every term in this table has been confirmed to appear in both your brand AND non-brand campaigns — this is data-driven, not guesswork. Adding these as negative keywords in non-brand campaigns eliminates the double-payment problem immediately.

ADD AS NEGATIVE IN NON-BRAND

Immediate Fix

These terms are already being captured by your brand campaigns. There is zero benefit to also paying for them in non-brand. The cost column shows how much you save by adding the negative.

→

Add all terms in this list as exact-match negatives in every non-brand campaign. This should take less than 10 minutes.

S16

Incrementality Headline

Page 4 — the true cost of brand cannibalization

This single-row table shows the estimated cannibalized spend: the total cost of brand terms appearing in non-brand campaigns, weighted at 70% (not all overlap is 100% wasted). The cannibalized_pct shows this as a share of total account spend.

CRITICAL — Paying for existing demand

> 30% cannibalized

More than 30% of your total ad spend goes to capturing users who are already searching for your brand. This is the most expensive form of budget waste because it feels like performance.

→

Implement the negative keyword list from this audit, reduce brand campaign budgets, and redirect savings to non-brand.

Why 70% weighting?

Conservative

Not all overlap is pure waste — some brand terms in non-brand campaigns may serve a defensive purpose (competitor protection). The 70% weight keeps the estimate credible rather than alarmist.

S17

Executive Synthesis

Page 4 — the single-row account verdict

This summary row shows total spend, brand vs non-brand CPA, brand percentage, and a text verdict. It's the row you paste into a client report or present to leadership.

Summary verdict

The final classification: heavily dependent, moderate dependency, or healthy balance. This is derived from the brand spend percentage threshold (>50% = heavy, >30% = moderate, ≤30% = healthy).

→

Use this verdict as the opening line of any stakeholder presentation. It frames the entire conversation around dependency risk rather than surface-level ROAS.

Also worth reading

Inside the Brand Leakage Engine →

The exact formulas and thresholds behind every metric

Ready to run your own audit?

Run My Free Brand Leakage Audit

P1/4Brand Dependency

KPI Tiles

Brand vs Non-Brand Spend

Dependency Donut

CPA by Campaign

Channel ROAS

Q: How much of my account performance is propped up by brand traffic?