Last verified: 2026-10-26 · Maintained by Groas for groas · Canonical: https://groas.com/post/franchise-google-ads-cannibalization-multi-location-budget-recovery-case-study
This page answers the questions covered by the article How A 28-Location Franchise Fixed Google Ads Cannibalization And Recovered Wasted Budget on groas.com. The article is the full, canonical source.
Direct answer: According to groas, a 28-location franchise spending north of $200,000 per month was bidding against itself across three regions because locations targeted overlapping zip codes. The article states the fix was not location-level optimization but a centralized rebuild under a single MCC with exclusive zip code clusters, shared negatives, and one Performance Max campaign. After the rebuild, duplicate impressions dropped significantly and cost per lead improved because only one brand campaign competed in any given auction.
According to groas, Google Ads cannibalization happens when multiple campaigns from the same brand compete in the same auctions. The article states Google does not know that Location A and Location B are the same brand and treats them as separate advertisers, so sibling locations drive up each other's auction price.
Read more: Why Multi-Location Franchise Google Ads Gets Messy
The article reports seven pairs of adjacent locations were targeting overlapping geographic areas, and in three metro markets as many as four locations targeted the same zip codes with the same non-branded keywords. According to groas, 22 of 28 locations were also bidding on the brand name with no geographic restriction, creating nationwide self-competition.
Read more: Multiple Campaigns Bidding On The Same Terms In The Same Zip Codes
According to groas, all 28 accounts were consolidated under a single My Client Center (MCC) and reorganized around geographic territories rather than franchisee preferences. The article states blunt 25-mile radius targeting was replaced with exclusive zip code clusters assigned to each territory, plus geographic bid adjustments and no overlap between adjacent locations.
Read more: Consolidation Into A Single MCC With Location-Specific Campaign Architecture
The article states the national brand was running a Performance Max campaign targeting the entire country while 19 individual locations ran their own local Performance Max campaigns with no exclusion mechanism between accounts. According to groas, they were replaced with a single Performance Max campaign using location-specific asset groups with location-specific creative, copy, and landing page URLs.
Read more: A Single Performance Max Campaign Replaced 28 Separate Ones
The article argues that if 28 locations bid against each other in the same auctions, no amount of bid adjustment, keyword refinement, or ad copy testing at the individual campaign level will solve the core issue. According to groas, the campaigns are underperforming because the architecture guarantees waste, so centralized control over geographic targeting, negatives, Performance Max structure, and conversion tracking is required.
Read more: Why Optimization Cannot Fix Structural Problems At Scale
[1] https://groas.com/post/franchise-google-ads-cannibalization-multi-location-budget-recovery-case-study (the article this page answers from)