Google's Latest Smart Bidding Update Sparks Backlash From PPC Experts

A heated LinkedIn debate between Google Ads practitioners and Google's Ads Liaison reveals a deeper divide over automation, transparency, and who really controls campaign performance.

Google's latest Smart Bidding update was intended to simplify campaign management. Instead, it has ignited one of the most passionate discussions the PPC community has had in years.

The conversation began when Joey Bidner, Freelance Google Ads Manager & Coach, published a strongly worded critique of Google's August 17 Smart Bidding change. The update standardizes how target CPA (tCPA) and target ROAS (tROAS) campaigns behave when they become budget constrained, aligning them with campaigns that aren't limited by budget.

Google describes the change as a way to create more predictable bidding behavior. Many advertisers, however, see something very different.

"One of the most self-serving Google-centric changes we've seen"

Bidner didn't mince words.

"I have never been more frustrated by a Google Ads update than this STUPID Aug. 17 bidding update."

His central criticism wasn't simply about the mechanics of the update—it was about what he believes it represents.

According to Bidner, Google Ads has historically been built around maximizing efficiency within whatever budget an advertiser chooses. He argues this update shifts the philosophy toward encouraging higher spend instead.

He points to one of Google's long-standing recommendations: campaigns labeled "Limited by Budget."

For many experienced advertisers, that status isn't always a problem to solve. Some intentionally constrain budgets while setting relatively loose ROAS or CPA targets to give Smart Bidding room to explore new traffic and discover efficient conversions.

Bidner argues that this flexibility has been one of Smart Bidding's greatest strengths.

"Some of my best-performing accounts intentionally run with low tROAS or high tCPA targets because they give Smart Bidding the freedom to explore, discover new customers, and find efficiencies over time."

His concern is that once campaigns become budget constrained under the new system, Smart Bidding will now optimize toward the stated target rather than continuing to maximize efficiency beyond it.

To him, that removes an optimization strategy many sophisticated advertisers intentionally employ.

Google's response: This isn't about spending more

The post quickly drew a response from Ginny Marvin, Ads Product Liaison at Google.

Marvin rejected the idea that the update is designed to increase advertiser spend.

Instead, she framed it as a consistency update.

"This update is meant to ensure expected bidding behavior will be the same regardless of whether a campaign using a target is budget-constrained."

She also addressed one of advertisers' biggest fears directly.

"This update will not result in spend changes on campaigns, including ones already budget-capped."

According to Marvin, if advertisers simply change their target to match what the campaign is already achieving while leaving the budget unchanged, Google expects performance and conversion volume to remain effectively the same.

Throughout the discussion, Marvin repeatedly emphasized the same principle:

"The target is your lever for guiding spend and efficiency based on what you know about your business and its goals."

Google's position is that advertisers should use targets to communicate their actual business objectives—not as a way to influence Smart Bidding exploration.

Practitioners say efficiency—not predictability—matters most

Bidner remained unconvinced.

His response centered on what he sees as a fundamental philosophical disagreement.

"I have heard the sales pitch and the part that I can't get behind is intentionally dropping efficiency when your target is below what you're getting."

He argues advertisers generally prioritize profitable growth over predictable performance.

"Since when is scaling the top priority for an advertiser over efficiency?"

To Bidner, Google is solving for predictability while many advertisers are trying to maximize return.

He also disputes Google's characterization that the update "simplifies" bidding.

"In what world of design is adding complexity a benefit?"

Questions from the community quickly followed

As the thread grew, PPC professionals began testing Google's explanation against real-world scenarios.

Chris Ridley, Marketing Strategist & Tabletop Content Creator, posed a practical question.

If a campaign currently averages a $35 CPA but has a tCPA set at $50, would the update push the campaign toward the higher target?

Marvin answered yes.

"The campaign will more consistently perform toward your bid target, which in this case is $50."

If advertisers want to maintain today's efficiency, she recommended changing the target to the campaign's current average.

That clarification, while consistent with Google's messaging, reinforced many practitioners' concerns.

Long conversion cycles add another layer

For ecommerce advertisers, the discussion became even more nuanced.

Lucia Andonovova, Paid Search Lead, asked how advertisers with long purchase cycles should determine their target ROAS.

Her example highlighted a common ecommerce challenge:

A campaign may report a 2 ROAS at the end of the month but eventually settle at 4 ROAS after 30 days of delayed conversions.

Marvin advised advertisers to optimize against the fully matured conversion window.

"The key when evaluating target performance... is to look at ROAS after the full conversion cycle."

In Lucia's example, Google recommends setting the target at the eventual 30-day ROAS rather than the preliminary figure.

"Should" is doing a lot of heavy lifting

Not everyone objected to the update itself.

Some questioned Google's confidence in the expected outcome.

Julie Friedman Bacchini, who describes herself as helping clients stop wasting money in digital advertising, focused on Google's wording.

She noted that Google repeatedly says campaigns "should maintain performance."

"That 'should' is doing a lot of heavy lifting."

Many veteran advertisers share that skepticism.

Years of Smart Bidding evolution have taught agencies that expected behavior doesn't always match real-world outcomes.

Transparency becomes the bigger issue

Several commenters suggested the controversy extends beyond this single update.

Ahmed Ehsanur Rahman, Conversion Tracking Specialist for Marketing Agencies | GA4 . GTM..., argued the industry's biggest concern is visibility.

"The bigger issue is transparency."

He continued:

"If Smart Bidding is changing its behavior based on budget constraints or target settings, advertisers should clearly understand how those changes affect auction participation and learning."

Rather than objecting to automation itself, Rahman believes better visibility into Google's decision-making would increase advertiser trust.

Does this really only affect budget-limited campaigns?

Another recurring point of confusion came from Maggie Humphrey, Director of Ecommerce at Cypress North | Search Engine Land Contributor.

She questioned why Google says the update only affects campaigns marked "Limited by Budget" while simultaneously describing broader Smart Bidding improvements.

Marvin clarified that campaigns not constrained by budget will continue behaving exactly as they do today.

The update only changes bidding behavior once campaigns become budget constrained.

Humphrey then followed up with perhaps the most important question of the thread:

If a campaign currently exceeds its ROAS target but later becomes budget limited, should advertisers expect performance to decline?

Marvin's answer was no.

"You should not expect to see a change in the average target performance because the expected bidding behavior will be the same regardless of whether the campaign is limited by budget."

That clarification addressed one concern—but not necessarily the underlying skepticism.

Many agencies say this removes an important optimization strategy

Several experienced practitioners echoed Bidner's original criticism.

Jana Seidel, who describes her work as helping businesses generate more leads through strategic digital marketing, argued that advertisers have long used intentionally higher ROAS targets as a strategic lever.

"Higher ROAS targets often mean fewer leads because the algorithm automatically bids more conservatively."

She believes pushing targets too aggressively has always reduced reach, making target flexibility a valuable optimization tool.

Similarly, Daniel Mowery, Google Ads Specialist for Medical & Specialty Practices, wrote:

"One of my fav strategies is to set tCPA higher on new campaigns to give the algo breathing room to optimize."

He concluded bluntly:

"For Google, this is an enormous cash lever."

Even Daniel Popa, Performance Marketing Manager predicted a practical side effect:

"You'll be seeing limited budget notifications regularly."

The debate isn't ending anytime soon

The discussion illustrates a growing divide between Google's product philosophy and how many advanced practitioners actually manage campaigns.

Google's position is straightforward:

• Targets should reflect real business goals.

• Budgets should determine scale.

• Bidding behavior should remain consistent regardless of budget constraints.

Many practitioners, however, argue that Smart Bidding has always been more nuanced. They intentionally separate targets from actual performance to encourage exploration, maximize efficiency, and discover incremental conversions.

Whether Google's update materially changes campaign outcomes remains to be seen after the August 17 rollout. But one thing is already clear:

This debate isn't really about one Smart Bidding update.

It's about trust.

Advertisers increasingly want transparency into how Google's automation makes decisions, while Google continues to simplify those decisions into higher-level controls. As automation becomes more powerful, experienced PPC professionals appear less interested in surrendering strategic flexibility—even when Google insists it's simply making the system easier to understand.

If the reaction to this LinkedIn thread is any indication, the conversation around Smart Bidding has shifted from how Google's algorithms work to who ultimately controls them..

Forum discussion on LinkedIn