The playbook
Negative Keywords: Worked Examples
The following negative keywords examples illustrate how to move from an observed problem to a practical decision. They are hypothetical operating scenarios, not customer results or performance benchmarks. The central question is whether the work helps improve irrelevant spend reduced without losing useful demand without losing the context needed to judge it.
Put the task in context
Review the full query before excluding a term. A word such as “free” may appear in both irrelevant searches and a legitimate query about an advertised free consultation. Choose exclusion scope carefully and inspect useful demand that could be blocked.
Example 1: establish a usable starting point
A team begins working on negative keywords but cannot consistently describe search term and reason for the same item. The immediate task is review search terms alongside lead quality. The team records the current state, identifies the source of each value, and resolves conflicting information before making a broader change.
The useful output is a campaign or conversion record that another person can interpret. This example does not require assuming an uplift. Success at this stage means the next decision can be made using a shared set of facts, with missing information explicitly identified.
Example 2: correct a specific failure
In a second situation, the team observes blocking a broad word that also appears in valuable queries. It proposes the correction: use precise exclusions and review their effect. Before applying that correction everywhere, the owner checks whether the same cause is present in other affected items. A common symptom alone does not prove that all items need the same repair.
| Decision | Illustrative reasoning |
|---|---|
| Observation | Blocking a broad word that also appears in valuable queries |
| Likely correction | Use precise exclusions and review their effect |
| Verification task | Identify patterns that clearly do not match the offer |
| Result to inspect | Check exclusion scope and possible useful matches |
After the change, the owner repeats the relevant task and records what happened. If the condition remains, the team returns to the evidence rather than declaring the process complete. The example illustrates a repair cycle; it does not claim a particular commercial result.
Example 3: extend a process after it works
A third team already has reliable records for a small scope and wants to expand. It compares the next group with the first: are search term, reason, negative term defined in the same way, and does the intended outcome remain irrelevant spend reduced without losing useful demand? Differences are written down before the earlier process is reused.
Expansion is appropriate when the assumptions still hold and an owner can review exceptions. Where the new group has different needs, the team adapts the process and tests again. Reusing the structure is useful; reusing a conclusion without checking its conditions is much less reliable.
Apply the examples to your own work
- Write the current problem in observable terms using search term.
- Choose which of the three examples matches the stage of the work.
- Complete this action first: review search terms alongside lead quality.
- Keep the resulting evidence and review irrelevant spend reduced without losing useful demand on a consistent basis.
Keep advertising spend, platform-reported conversions, and confirmed business outcomes distinct. Different platforms may claim credit for the same sale. A combined report needs reconciliation or a clear explanation that figures cannot be added.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixFLO run this for every client.
Start now