The playbook
Ad Account Structure: Review Process
A useful ad account structure review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: campaign, offer, market, budget owner. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Separate campaigns when budget, geography, offer economics, or operating responsibility requires a different decision. Avoid fragmenting an otherwise coherent offer into many small groups with no distinct purpose. Use consistent names that expose the business difference.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| Separate offers where economics or targeting differs | Is the supporting campaign current and traceable? |
| Keep naming and ownership consistent | Does offer support the decision being made? |
| Avoid unnecessary fragmentation that prevents clear learning | Can the next owner verify budget owner? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to creating many tiny campaigns without a distinct decision to manage. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, use the fewest groups needed for real budget and message choices. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected campaign or conversion record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to manageable groups with distinct purposes using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Choose an observation period that reflects the buying process. Immediate clicks, later inquiries, and completed sales happen at different times. Keep the attribution window and any incomplete outcomes visible when comparing campaigns.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixFLO run this for every client.
Start now