Why 30% of paid media spend is probably wasted - and how to find it
The 30 percent figure comes from various industry analyses and it aligns with what I see when I audit accounts. Not 30 percent going to obvious waste - no one would leave that alone - but 30 percent going to activity that appears functional but generates disproportionately poor returns relative to the remaining 70 percent.
Budget waste in paid search is rarely obvious. If it were obvious, it would get fixed quickly. It tends to be structural - spread across many small inefficiencies that individually look minor but collectively represent significant lost efficiency. Identifying and addressing it is one of the highest-ROI activities in paid search management.
Match type leakage
Broad match keywords without adequate negative keyword coverage are a common source of waste. A broad match keyword targeting "business insurance" can trigger for queries about "insurance for pets" or "business insurance exam" - terms that have zero commercial relevance. The click costs the same. The conversion rate is a fraction of your target. The waste is structural and continuous. A rigorous negative keyword audit of any account running significant broad match spend almost always uncovers surprising volumes of irrelevant traffic.
Underperforming campaigns receiving disproportionate budget
Most accounts have a performance distribution where a small number of campaigns or ad groups drive the majority of conversions. Budget is rarely allocated in proportion to performance. Low-performing campaigns that have never been paused, campaigns targeting secondary geographies with poor conversion rates, and ad groups testing creative that was never formally concluded often consume meaningful budget with below-average efficiency. A simple analysis of conversion rate and CPA by campaign, sorted by spend, usually identifies where the disproportionate inefficiency sits.
Brand cannibalisation with organic
Running brand search campaigns when organic listings already capture most of the branded clicks is a debatable cost. The argument for brand campaigns is solid - protection from competitor bidding, additional SERP real estate, messaging control. But if your brand campaign is receiving a large proportion of budget and you rank first organically for your brand terms with no active competitor bidding on them, the incremental value of brand spend is lower than it might appear. A brief brand campaign pause test - if you can stomach the risk - will give you data on true incrementality.
Low Quality Score keywords driving high spend
Keywords with Quality Scores of 3 or below are paying a premium in every auction they enter. If those keywords also have high impressions and meaningful spend, the combination of higher CPC and mediocre conversion rate compounds the waste. Identify your highest-spend, lowest-Quality-Score keywords and either fix the Quality Score - through better landing page relevance, tighter ad copy, or ad group restructuring - or pause them and focus budget on the keywords that are working efficiently.
The systematic approach
I run a quarterly waste audit on every account I manage. Pull the last 90 days of spend by campaign and keyword. Sort by spend descending. For every item in the top quartile of spend, check conversion rate against the account average. Any item spending significantly above average with conversion rate significantly below average is a candidate for investigation. Not every low converter deserves to be paused - some have long consideration cycles or serve awareness functions. But every one deserves a deliberate explanation, not just neglect.
Found this useful?
Start a conversation - no pitch, no pressure.