Brand vs Non-Brand Keywords in Google Ads

Last updated: 5 September 2026

1. Executive Summary

Brand and non-brand Google Ads campaigns operate as fundamentally different traffic systems. Treating them as one blended channel distorts bidding signals, obscures true acquisition costs, and can cause automation to optimise toward the easiest conversions rather than genuine incremental growth. The five principles below govern best practice as of September 2026.

• Separate structurally and in reporting. Brand and non-brand campaigns must have distinct budgets, distinct negative-keyword architectures, and distinct reporting views. Blending them hides whether growth is coming from new demand or from harvesting existing brand intent.^[1][2][3]
• Verify brand value with incrementality tests, not platform ROAS. Brand search ads typically deliver a median incremental ROAS of 0.70x, meaning that on average they return less than their reported value when measured causally.^[4] Bid on brand when defence or messaging control is genuinely needed, and test the lift before assuming it is additive.
• Use brand exclusions in Performance Max. Without explicit brand exclusions, PMax will capture high-converting branded queries, inflate reported efficiency, and distort the optimisation signals used for prospecting.^[5][6][7]
• Non-brand is the primary growth engine. Non-brand search delivers the incremental volume that grows the business. Scale it cautiously with intent-based segmentation, strong negatives, and budget steps that allow each change to settle across a full conversion cycle before the next move.^[1][8][9]
• Apply Google’s 2026 brand controls actively. Brand restrictions for broad match and brand exclusions for PMax are now first-class planning levers, not optional extras. Use them to enforce the brand/non-brand boundary across every campaign type.^[2]

2. Benchmarks and Numbers at a Glance

Metric	Typical range or threshold	Applies when	Source
Brand search CPC	USD $3.12	Study average across accounts; not industry-specific	[5]
Non-brand search CPC	USD $13.75	Study average across accounts; not industry-specific	[5]
Brand search CTR	22.21%	Study average; vendor claims suggest 10–20% as a conservative range	[5][10]
Non-brand search CTR	3.60%	Study average; vendor claims suggest 2–5% as a conservative range	[5][10]
Brand search conversion rate	3.73%	Study average; note non-brand conversion rate is marginally higher at 3.94% in this dataset, which is counterintuitive and may reflect B2B SaaS skew	[5]
Non-brand search conversion rate	3.94%	Study average; treat with caution as figures conflict with typical practitioner observation that brand converts at a higher rate	[5]
Brand search cost per lead	USD $34	Study average across accounts	[5]
Non-brand search cost per lead	USD $207	Study average; non-brand CPL is 6.1× brand CPL in this dataset	[5]
Median incremental ROAS for branded search	0.70× iROAS	Derived from 225 DTC geo-based incrementality tests; brand ads return less than reported value when measured causally	[4]
Brand search incrementality discount vs MTA	25–60% less incremental than multi-touch attribution suggests	Vendor claim; treat as a directional range, not a precise study figure	[11]
Non-brand B2B SaaS CPC	USD $8.50–$14.00	Vendor claim for B2B SaaS vertical specifically; not a cross-industry figure	[2]
Recommended brand impression share target	90–95%	Practitioner guidance; applies to low-to-moderate competitor environments; reduce target if spend efficiency falls below account CPA threshold	[2][12]
Recommended brand share of total Google Ads budget	5–15%	Rule of thumb from practitioner guides; lower end (5–7%) for mature organic presence, upper end (10–15%) when competitors are active; not a published study figure	[13][9]

Note on conflicting conversion rate data: The published study figures show non-brand conversion rate (3.94%) slightly exceeding brand conversion rate (3.73%).^[5] This conflicts with the broadly held practitioner view that brand search converts at a higher rate due to higher intent. The dataset may reflect B2B SaaS skew or specific account mixes. Apply the most conservative interpretation: do not assume brand automatically converts better than non-brand in your specific account without pulling your own segmented data.

3. Why Separate Brand and Non-Brand

The case for structural separation is mathematical, not cosmetic. Brand and non-brand search traffic have fundamentally different cost, click-through, and conversion profiles. Combining them in a single campaign averages two distinct performance distributions, which makes every downstream decision — bidding targets, budget allocation, creative testing, and incrementality measurement — less reliable.^[2][1]

Brand queries carry a CTR of 22.21% and a CPL of USD $34. Non-brand queries carry a CTR of 3.60% and a CPL of USD $207 — a 6.1× premium.^[5] When these two populations are blended, the account-level averages look reasonable but mask the true cost of acquiring a net-new customer. A Smart Bidding algorithm optimising toward a blended target CPA will find it easier to serve brand traffic, which converts cheaply, and will progressively under-invest in non-brand prospecting where the real growth lies.^[1][2]

Separation also creates a cleaner measurement foundation. Separate campaigns make it straightforward to run incrementality tests on brand traffic, apply distinct bidding strategies to each traffic type, and report the true cost of prospecting to stakeholders without brand efficiency inflating the numbers.^[1][14] Search term reviews become more actionable because brand bleed into non-brand campaigns — and vice versa — becomes visible rather than hidden inside a combined query stream.^[6][15][7]

Budget governance also improves. When brand and non-brand share a campaign or a shared budget, brand’s lower CPC means it will tend to consume spend during peak hours while non-brand keyword groups compete for the remainder. Separate budgets or at minimum separate budget governance prevents this leakage and ensures non-brand prospecting receives intentional investment rather than whatever is left over.^[4][12][3]

4. Should You Bid on Your Own Brand

The 2026 best-practice answer is: bid on your own brand when you need to defend SERP real estate, control messaging, or prevent competitors from capturing clicks — and validate the value with an incrementality test before treating the spend as unconditionally productive.^{[1][10][6][16]}

The median incremental ROAS for branded search across 225 DTC geo-based incrementality tests is 0.70×, meaning branded search ads on average return less value than platform attribution reports.^[4] A separate vendor-claim source estimates branded search is 25–60% less incremental than multi-touch attribution suggests.^[11] These figures make a strong case for testing rather than assuming.

The decision hinges on three factors: competitor presence in the auction, organic coverage, and available budget. If competitors, directories, resellers, or aggregators appear on searches for your brand name, a paid ad helps you control more of the SERP and reduces the probability of losing a high-intent click to another business.^{[1][5][10][15]} If you already hold the top organic position, have near-complete organic impression share, and face no active competitors in Auction Insights, a controlled pause test is warranted to establish whether paid brand spend is genuinely additive.^[10][16]

For accounts where brand bidding is retained, the recommended bidding strategy is Target Impression Share set to Absolute Top of Page at 90–95% target, provided that the resulting CPCs keep CPL within the account’s efficiency threshold.^[2][12] Use exact match and phrase match brand keywords, add competitor brand names as negatives to keep the campaign clean, and apply brand exclusions in any Performance Max campaign running concurrently so branded conversions are attributed correctly to the dedicated brand campaign rather than PMax.^[1][4][8]

For accounts choosing to test pausing brand activity, measure total conversions — calls, form fills, booked appointments, and direct revenue — not just paid-search conversions. A drop in paid brand conversions that is offset by an equivalent rise in organic conversions indicates the spend was largely substitutional, not incremental.^[10][16]

5. Brand Defence and Competitor Bidding

Brand defence refers to the practice of bidding on your own brand terms specifically to prevent competitors from capturing high-intent searches conducted by users already familiar with your business. It is distinct from growth-oriented non-brand bidding and should be treated as an insurance cost rather than a conversion volume driver.^[1][10][11]

The strength of the defensive case scales directly with competitor presence in the auction. Check Auction Insights for your brand campaign monthly. If one or more competitors consistently show impression share above 10% on your brand queries, the risk of losing a converted customer to a competitor click is material and defensive bidding is warranted.^[2][15] If competitor impression share is below 5% and stable, the defensive case is weaker and the spend should be tested for incrementality before being locked in.^[10]

Structurally, a defensive brand campaign should use exact match and phrase match for the brand name, common misspellings, product names, and trading names. Ad copy should reinforce brand authority — official site labels, strong sitelinks pointing to key landing pages, price extensions or promotion extensions where relevant, and callout extensions that differentiate from aggregator or reseller results appearing on the same query.^{[1][5][11][15]}

On competitor bidding — that is, bidding on a competitor’s brand name — the calculus is different. Competitor brand keywords typically carry lower Quality Scores because your landing page and ad copy are less relevant to the competitor’s brand name, which means higher CPCs for equivalent ad rank.^[17] The tactic can generate awareness and intercept high-intent competitor searches, but conversion rates are usually lower than for own-brand or non-brand intent terms, and it can trigger reciprocal bidding that raises costs for both advertisers. The conservative recommendation is to test competitor bidding in a separate campaign with a dedicated budget cap, measure conversion rate and CPL independently, and only scale if CPL remains below the account’s non-brand CPL threshold.^[17][18]

Where your business name is generic, shared with another category, or frequently confused with a competitor (for example, a brand name that is also a common product descriptor), defensive bidding is more important and should be maintained continuously rather than tested on/off.^[10][7]

6. Structuring Brand and Non-Brand Campaigns

A well-structured Google Ads account in 2026 maintains hard separation between brand and non-brand at the campaign level, enforces that separation with negative keyword lists, and applies distinct bidding strategies appropriate to each traffic type’s intent profile.^{[1][4][10][3]}

Brand Search campaign

Use exact match and phrase match for the brand name, product names, trading names, common misspellings, and branded domain variants. Set bidding to Target Impression Share (Absolute Top of Page, 90–95% target) or Target CPA if conversion volume exceeds 30 conversions per month in the campaign. Add all competitor brand names as negative keywords to keep the campaign focused on own-brand queries only. Apply a dedicated daily budget that is treated as a fixed defensive cost rather than a growth lever.^[1][10][9]

Non-brand Search campaigns

Organise non-brand campaigns by intent tier rather than by keyword theme alone. A practical 2026 structure uses two or three non-brand campaigns: one for high-intent transactional queries (e.g., “buy,” “price,” “near me,” “quote”), one for mid-funnel comparison and category queries (e.g., “best,” “vs,” “review,” “how to choose”), and optionally one for upper-funnel educational queries where the budget supports delayed payback measurement.^[11][9] Apply the brand name and all brand variants as negatives in every non-brand campaign. Use Target CPA or Target ROAS bidding once each campaign reaches a minimum of 30–50 conversions per month; use Maximise Conversions with a CPA cap below that volume threshold.^[8][19]

Negative keyword architecture

Maintain a shared negative keyword list containing all brand terms, brand misspellings, and branded product names. Apply this list to every non-brand campaign and every Performance Max campaign. Review the search terms report weekly for the first 90 days of any new campaign and fortnightly thereafter to catch brand bleed caused by broad match or smart matching behaviour.^{[1][4][6][15]}

Campaign type	Match types	Bidding strategy	Negatives applied	Budget role
Brand Search	Exact, Phrase	Target Impression Share (Absolute Top, 90–95%) or Target CPA if volume ≥ 30 conv/month	Competitor brand names	Fixed defensive cost; 5–15% of total Google Ads spend
Non-brand Search – High Intent	Exact, Phrase, Broad with brand negatives	Target CPA or Target ROAS if ≥ 30–50 conv/month; Maximise Conversions with CPA cap below that	All brand terms + competitor brand names (separate list)	Primary growth budget; 50–60% of total spend
Non-brand Search – Mid Funnel	Phrase, Broad with tight negatives	Maximise Conversions or Target CPA	All brand terms; high-intent transactional terms already in tier 1 campaign	Secondary growth budget; 10–20% of total spend
Performance Max	N/A (asset-based)	Target ROAS or Target CPA	Brand exclusion list applied; brand Search campaign handles brand queries	Prospecting and product coverage; 15–25% of total spend

7. Non-Brand Prospecting and Growth

Non-brand search is where incremental customer acquisition occurs. Every new customer who has never heard of your business and searches for a category or problem keyword is a non-brand prospect. Managing this channel well requires deliberate intent segmentation, disciplined budget scaling, and a willingness to tolerate higher CPL than brand campaigns produce, because the growth being purchased is genuinely net new.^[1][5][8][9]

Intent-based segmentation

Organise non-brand campaigns by the commercial intent of the query, not by keyword theme alone. High-intent transactional queries (containing signals like “price,” “quote,” “buy,” “near me,” “book,” “emergency”) should sit in a campaign with the highest budget priority and the tightest CPA or ROAS targets. Mid-funnel comparison queries (“best,” “vs,” “reviews,” “how much does it cost to”) should sit in a separate campaign with slightly more headroom on efficiency targets, recognising that these users may convert on a later session.^[11][9] Upper-funnel educational queries should only be funded once the lower-funnel campaigns are stable and profitable.^[8]

Scaling methodology

Raise non-brand budgets in increments no larger than 15–20% per adjustment and allow a minimum of one full conversion cycle (typically 7–14 days for most categories, longer for B2B sales cycles) before the next change.^[1][4] Smart Bidding algorithms need time to recalibrate after a budget change; premature further changes compound the instability. Begin scaling with the highest-intent, most stable non-brand segments and expand to weaker query themes only after efficiency is confirmed.^[1][8]

Keyword and negative keyword management

Use phrase match and broad match in non-brand campaigns only when a comprehensive negative keyword list is in place. Brand terms must be excluded via a shared negative list before broad match is switched on, because broad match in 2026 will readily match brand-adjacent queries if not constrained.^[20][6][21] Review the search terms report at least fortnightly and add new negatives immediately when brand bleed or irrelevant query expansion is detected.

8. Brand Exclusions in PMax and Broad Match

Performance Max (PMax) will serve on branded queries by default unless brand exclusions are explicitly applied. Because brand searches carry a CTR of 22.21% and a CPL of approximately USD $34 (versus USD $207 for non-brand)^[5], PMax campaigns that absorb branded traffic will report dramatically inflated ROAS and CPA figures that do not reflect genuine prospecting performance. This is one of the most common and consequential measurement errors in 2026 Google Ads management.^{[1][5][11][7]}

Google formally launched brand exclusions for Performance Max as a response to advertiser demand for more explicit brand governance.^[2] The feature allows advertisers to upload a brand list and exclude PMax from showing on queries containing those brand terms. Best practice is to apply brand exclusions to all PMax campaigns as a default, run a dedicated Brand Search campaign to handle branded queries, and attribute conversions from each source correctly and separately.^[5][6][7]

Broad match brand controls

Google also launched brand restrictions for broad match in Search campaigns in 2026, allowing advertisers to specify which brands are permitted to match on broad-match keywords.^[2] This is particularly relevant for non-brand broad match campaigns: without brand restrictions, broad match can drift into brand-related query territory, bringing branded conversions into non-brand campaigns and contaminating the signal used for Smart Bidding. Apply brand restrictions in non-brand broad match campaigns in addition to the standard negative keyword approach, treating the two controls as complementary rather than interchangeable.^[2][20][21]

Implementation checklist

• Create a brand exclusion list in the Google Ads interface containing the brand name, all spelling variants, product names, and domain name stems.
• Apply this list to every PMax campaign in the account.
• Apply brand restrictions (where available) to any non-brand Search campaign using broad match.
• Apply the same brand terms as negative keywords in non-brand Search campaigns as a secondary layer of control.
• Review PMax search term insights (available via the “When and where ads showed” report introduced in 2026) fortnightly to confirm brand queries are being excluded.^[10][22]
• Confirm that the dedicated Brand Search campaign is capturing brand query volume that PMax is no longer serving; if brand impression share drops after PMax brand exclusions are applied, raise Brand Search bids accordingly.

9. Measuring Brand vs Non-Brand Performance

Accurate measurement requires that brand and non-brand are treated as separate measurement systems from the outset, not separated after the fact in a reporting pivot. The metrics that matter for each system differ in their strategic meaning: brand metrics primarily measure defence and efficiency, while non-brand metrics measure growth, incrementality, and the true cost of acquiring net-new customers.^[1][2][9]

Core metrics by campaign type

Metric	Brand Search — target/benchmark	Non-brand Search — target/benchmark
Impression share	90–95% target (Absolute Top)[2][12]	Monitor trend; no fixed target; use as a headroom indicator
CTR	Benchmark 22.21%[5]; below 15% may indicate ad copy or Quality Score issues	Benchmark 3.60%[5]; below 2% warrants ad copy or keyword review
CPC	Benchmark USD $3.12[5]; rises indicate increased competitor presence	Benchmark USD $13.75[5]; rising CPC may indicate quality score decline or competition increase
Conversion rate	Benchmark 3.73%[5]; track independently from non-brand	Benchmark 3.94%[5]; note this figure may be dataset-specific — verify in your account
CPL / CPA	Benchmark USD $34[5]; primary efficiency measure for brand	Benchmark USD $207[5]; primary growth-cost measure; 6.1× brand CPL
Incremental ROAS	Median 0.70× iROAS across 225 DTC tests[4]; validate with geo or on/off test	Measure via holdout or geo test; platform ROAS alone is insufficient

Attribution and incrementality

Last-click and even data-driven attribution overstate the value of brand search by assigning conversion credit to branded clicks that the user was already predisposed to make.^[4][11] The conservative recommendation is to use data-driven attribution as the operational model while running periodic incrementality tests (geo holdout or on/off) to calibrate the true value of brand spend. For non-brand, incrementality is less acute as a concern because non-brand queries represent genuine discovery; however, PMax non-brand performance should still be validated against a holdout to confirm the channel is not largely capturing conversions that would have occurred via organic search anyway.^[5][11]

For B2B and lead generation accounts, extend measurement beyond form fill conversions to include pipeline stage, deal close rate, and revenue by traffic source. A brand lead that closes at 45% and a non-brand lead that closes at 18% have very different true CPAs when measured against revenue.^[15]

10. Reporting and Avoiding Inflated Results

Inflated Google Ads results most commonly occur when brand and non-brand are blended in reporting, when Performance Max captures branded queries without exclusions, or when last-click attribution assigns full credit to a branded click that was the final touch in a longer journey the user was already committed to completing.^{[1][5][20][11]}

Reporting architecture

Establish a reporting structure that separates brand and non-brand as distinct rows in every regular report. Use campaign naming conventions that make the separation machine-readable — for example, prefixing all brand campaigns with BRAND_ and all non-brand campaigns with NB_ — so that dashboards and exports can filter without manual intervention.^[20][15] Report the following separately for each group: impressions, clicks, CTR, average CPC, conversions, conversion rate, CPL or CPA, ROAS, and impression share (for brand) or search impression share trend (for non-brand).^[1][2][9]

Branded Searches measurement in YouTube and Demand Gen

Google’s August 2026 update to Branded Searches measurement makes it possible to connect upper-funnel YouTube and Demand Gen exposure to downstream branded search behaviour.^[20][23] This measurement appears in Results and All Conversions columns rather than as a bidding goal, which is important: do not add Branded Searches as a Smart Bidding target, as doing so would cause the algorithm to optimise toward branded query volume rather than actual business conversions.^[20] Use the Branded Searches data as a diagnostic signal — rising branded search volume following an upper-funnel campaign is evidence of brand lift, but it should be triangulated with sales data and organic search trends rather than treated as a direct ROI figure.

Blended vs separated reporting

A blended account-level view is appropriate for total business health reporting to senior stakeholders. A separated brand/non-brand view is required for any operational decision: bidding adjustments, budget reallocation, campaign structure changes, and incrementality analysis.^[5][20] Present both views in the same report but label them clearly so stakeholders understand what each view includes and excludes.

11. Common Mistakes to Avoid

Even well-structured accounts routinely lose efficiency through a small set of repeatable errors. The mistakes below are not hypothetical — they appear consistently in account audits and are addressable with specific structural or reporting changes.^[1][2][4]

Mistake 1: Mixing Brand and Non-Brand in the Same Campaign

When brand and non-brand keywords share a campaign, the bidding algorithm optimises toward the blended average. Because brand terms convert at lower CPA and higher CTR, the algorithm will often favour brand queries over non-brand ones, quietly redirecting budget away from prospecting. The fix is a structural one: separate campaigns, separate budgets, separate negative keyword lists.^[1][2][3]

The performance distortion is measurable. Brand search CTR benchmarks at 22.21% versus 3.60% for non-brand.^[1] If a blended campaign optimises toward CTR signals, non-brand terms are systematically deprioritised even when they carry more incremental value.

Mistake 2: Failing to Apply Brand Negatives in Non-Brand Campaigns

Without brand terms explicitly listed as negative keywords in non-brand campaigns, broad match and Smart Bidding will route brand queries through non-brand campaigns, inflating that campaign’s conversion rate and artificially lowering its reported CPA. This makes non-brand appear more efficient than it is and contaminates the signal used by automated bidding.^[1][4][20]

The negative keyword list should include the brand name, common misspellings, product line names, and any branded slogans or URLs that could appear in queries. Review the Search Terms report at least fortnightly to catch new variants as query matching evolves.^[6][15]

Mistake 3: Using Blended ROAS to Justify Scaling Non-Brand Spend

Presenting a blended account ROAS to justify a non-brand budget increase is one of the most common errors in performance reporting. Brand traffic typically contributes a disproportionately high share of conversions at low cost, so a blended ROAS figure routinely overstates what the non-brand campaigns would achieve if measured in isolation.^[5][11]

The median incremental ROAS for branded search is 0.70×, meaning brand ads frequently substitute for organic clicks rather than generating net-new revenue.^[4] If brand conversions are included in a blended ROAS used to pitch a non-brand budget increase, the resulting approval is based on a figure that cannot be sustained when only non-brand spend is added.

Mistake 4: Setting the Same Bid Strategy Across Brand and Non-Brand

Brand and non-brand campaigns have fundamentally different cost structures. Brand search CPC benchmarks at $3.12 (USD) versus $13.75 for non-brand — a 4.4× difference.^[1] Applying a single Target CPA or Maximise Conversions strategy across both campaign types causes the algorithm to treat a $34 brand lead and a $207 non-brand lead as equivalent optimisation targets, which they are not.^[5]

Best practice is to use Target Impression Share for brand campaigns (targeting 90–95% absolute top of page) and a separate Target CPA or Target ROAS strategy for non-brand, calibrated against non-brand-only historical data.^[2][12][13]

Mistake 5: Allowing Performance Max to Harvest Brand Queries Without Exclusions

Without brand exclusions applied to Performance Max, the campaign will route budget toward brand queries because they are the easiest and cheapest conversions available. This makes PMax efficiency metrics look strong while incremental value remains low. Brand exclusions are now a native feature in Google Ads and should be configured at campaign launch, not retrospectively after brand leakage has already distorted optimisation signals.^[5][6][7]

Mistake 6: Not Reviewing Search Terms for Brand Bleed Regularly

Query matching behaviour changes over time, particularly with broad match and Smart Bidding active. A non-brand campaign that was clean at launch may begin capturing brand queries six to twelve weeks later as the algorithm identifies brand queries as high-conversion signals. A fortnightly search terms review with a filter for brand name variants is the minimum recommended cadence.^[6][15] Negative keyword lists should be treated as living documents, updated at each review cycle.

Mistake 7: Treating Low Brand CPC as Evidence That Brand Bidding Is Free

Brand CPCs are low — $3.12 USD benchmark versus $13.75 for non-brand.^[1] This leads some advertisers to treat brand spend as negligible and leave it running without incrementality scrutiny. The correct framing is not whether brand clicks are cheap but whether they are additive. A median incremental ROAS of 0.70× for branded search means that, on average, 30% of brand ad spend is substituting for organic traffic that would have converted anyway.^[4] Even at low CPCs, that substitution effect is real and measurable.

Mistake 8: Using Impression Share as the Sole Brand Health Metric

Impression share is a useful proxy for brand coverage, but it measures only whether your ad appeared, not whether it appeared without a competitor present, and not whether it generated incremental conversions. Accounts that optimise brand campaigns purely toward 95%+ impression share without reviewing Auction Insights, conversion incrementality, or search term drift can overspend on brand while actual competitive defence remains incomplete.^[2][12]

The correct approach combines impression share monitoring with Auction Insights (to identify which competitors are present and at what frequency), regular search term reviews, and at least annual incrementality testing of the brand campaign.^[6][10][16]

Mistake 9: Reporting Non-Brand Performance Without Excluding Brand Terms from Averages

Account-level averages that include brand traffic will always flatter non-brand performance. Non-brand CTR benchmarks at 3.60% and brand at 22.21%.^[1] A blended account CTR of, say, 8% looks reasonable but tells a senior stakeholder nothing useful about prospecting efficiency. All non-brand reporting should use campaign-level or segment-level filters that exclude brand campaigns entirely.^[1][3]

Mistake 10: Scaling Broad Match Without Brand Restrictions Active

Broad match without brand restrictions can match to branded queries, particularly for advertisers whose brand name overlaps with common category terms. Since Google launched brand restrictions for broad-match Search campaigns, failing to configure them is an increasingly preventable error.^[2] Apply brand restrictions to all broad-match ad groups in non-brand campaigns as a standard launch checklist item, not a retrospective fix.

12. What Changed Recently

The following updates reflect changes announced or confirmed within the 30 days prior to September 2026. These are substantive product and policy changes, not incremental refinements, and each has a direct implication for brand versus non-brand strategy.

Brand Restrictions for Broad Match in Search Campaigns

Google launched brand restrictions as a native control for broad-match Search campaigns, allowing advertisers to specify which brand terms Google AI is permitted to match against when serving broad-match keywords.^[2] Previously, the only protection against broad match capturing brand queries in non-brand campaigns was manual negative keyword lists, which required continuous maintenance as query patterns evolved.

Brand restrictions operate at the ad group or campaign level and instruct Google’s matching system to either allow or exclude specified brands from the broad-match trigger pool. This is distinct from negative keywords: negatives block a query after matching; brand restrictions constrain the matching logic itself.^[2]

The practical implication is that non-brand campaigns running broad match should now have brand restrictions configured as a standard setup step, not as an optional safeguard. Accounts that have been relying solely on negative keyword lists should audit whether brand restrictions provide more reliable coverage, particularly for brand name variants and close semantic neighbours.^[2]

Brand Exclusions in Performance Max — Now a First-Class Feature

Google confirmed and expanded brand exclusions for Performance Max campaigns, allowing advertisers to prevent PMax from serving on queries containing specified brand terms.^[2] This change directly addresses one of the most persistent structural complaints about PMax: that it absorbs brand demand — the easiest conversions in the account — and reports inflated efficiency as a result.

Brand exclusions in PMax are now available at the campaign level and should be configured for any PMax campaign whose stated purpose is non-brand prospecting or new customer acquisition. Accounts that have been managing this problem through workarounds — such as running brand as a high-priority separate campaign to outbid PMax — can now use exclusions as the primary control rather than a bid-based signal.^[5][6][7]

Google’s framing of these features emphasises “more control” over brand traffic as a direct response to advertiser demand, which signals that brand governance is now expected to be active and explicit rather than inferred from campaign structure alone.^[2]

Branded Searches Measurement for YouTube and Demand Gen

Google updated its Branded Searches measurement feature for YouTube and Demand Gen campaigns, making it possible to connect upper-funnel ad exposure to subsequent branded search behaviour.^[20] The update surfaces branded search lift in the Results column and All Conversions, but it is explicitly a reporting-only metric — it does not feed into Smart Bidding optimisation goals.^[20]

This distinction matters for brand versus non-brand measurement strategy. The Branded Searches metric can help quantify how upper-funnel investment in YouTube or Demand Gen translates into downstream branded query volume, which is relevant when justifying brand awareness spend to a performance-focused stakeholder. However, because it appears in All Conversions rather than Conversions, it should not be included in the primary conversion column used to govern CPA or ROAS targets on those campaigns, or it will distort bidding behaviour.^[11][20]

Google’s Shift Toward Explicit Brand Governance as a Planning Expectation

The framing across Google’s August–September 2026 announcements represents a meaningful shift in how Google expects advertisers to manage brand traffic.^[2] Previously, brand protection was largely a practitioner-driven practice — something sophisticated advertisers did but that Google’s product design treated as optional. The launch of brand restrictions for broad match and brand exclusions for PMax as named, supported features signals that active brand governance is now part of Google’s recommended operating model, not an advanced workaround.

For senior digital marketers, the practical implication is that accounts without explicit brand controls — separated campaigns, brand exclusions on PMax, brand restrictions on broad match, and separate reporting — are no longer just missing best practice; they are missing platform features that Google has built specifically to address these structural problems.^[2][20]

The recommended response is to treat brand governance as a launch checklist item for every new campaign, not a retrospective audit task. Every PMax campaign launched from September 2026 onwards should have brand exclusions configured. Every broad-match non-brand campaign should have brand restrictions active. And every reporting dashboard should separate brand and non-brand performance from day one.^[1][2][3][4]

What Has Not Changed

Despite the product updates above, the foundational principles of brand versus non-brand strategy remain unchanged. Separating brand and non-brand campaigns, applying brand negatives rigorously, measuring incrementality rather than relying on last-click attribution, and reporting brand and non-brand as distinct performance systems are all still the correct approach in September 2026.^[1][2][3][4] The recent Google changes add native tooling to support these practices; they do not replace the need for strategic discipline in how accounts are structured, budgeted, and reported.

One area where sources present slightly differing guidance is on budget allocation: practitioner sources suggest brand should represent 5–7% of total budget in some accounts^[13] while others recommend 10–15% depending on competitive intensity and account maturity.^[9] In the absence of account-specific incrementality data, the more conservative approach — starting at 5–10% and increasing only if Auction Insights shows active competitor presence — is recommended. The launch of brand exclusions and brand restrictions makes it easier to validate these allocation decisions by ensuring non-brand performance data is no longer contaminated by brand traffic from the outset.^[2]

---

References

1. [1] https://serpalert.co.uk/blog/google-ads-brand-campaign-best-practices serpalert.co.uk
2. [2] https://searchengineland.com/in-google-ads-automation-everything-is-a-signal-in-2026-46821… searchengineland.com
3. [3] https://www.wordstream.com/blog/google-ads-account-structure www.wordstream.com
4. [4] https://leadsbridge.com/blog/google-ads-campaign-structure/ leadsbridge.com
5. [5] https://twominutereports.com/blog/google-ads-best-practices twominutereports.com
6. [6] https://www.groas.com/post/google-ads-best-practices-2026-what-changed-what-works-what-to-… www.groas.com
7. [7] https://improvado.io/blog/google-ads-management improvado.io
8. [8] https://directiveconsulting.com/blog/the-b2b-marketers-guide-to-google-ads-best-practices-… directiveconsulting.com
9. [9] https://www.modernmarketinginstitute.com/blog/how-to-build-a-profitable-google-ads-campaig… www.modernmarketinginstitute.com
10. [10] https://videngrowth.com/blog/branded-vs-non-branded-keywords videngrowth.com
11. [11] https://improvado.io/blog/google-ads-campaign-guide improvado.io
12. [12] https://support.google.com/google-ads/thread/413560562 support.google.com
13. [13] https://www.growthspreeofficial.com/blogs/google-ads-budget-split-b2b-saas-brand-nonbrand-… www.growthspreeofficial.com
14. [14] https://adventuremedia.ai/blog/complete-google-ads-tutorial-2026-master-campaign-setup-and… adventuremedia.ai
15. [15] https://www.groas.com/post/google-ads-best-practices-2026-rules-that-actually-matter www.groas.com
16. [16] https://echelonn.io/post/google-ads-branded-non-branded-campaign-structure echelonn.io
17. [17] https://www.admapix.com/blog/best-practices/competitor-brand-keywords-google-ads www.admapix.com
18. [18] https://www.searchenginejournal.com/brand-bidding-strategy/335211/ www.searchenginejournal.com
19. [19] https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-ads-bidding-strategies-where-to-spend-your-time… www.searchenginejournal.com
20. [20] https://www.groas.com/post/google-ads-best-practices-that-no-longer-work-2026 www.groas.com
21. [21] https://www.wordstream.com/blog/2025-google-ads-keywords www.wordstream.com
22. [22] https://business.google.com/us/accelerate/resources/articles/new-performance-max-steering-… business.google.com
23. [23] https://commonthreadco.com/blogs/coachs-corner/google-branded-searches-conversion-measurem… commonthreadco.com