google-ads-copy

# Ad Copy Generator + A/B Tester

Write Google Ads RSA copy and run structured tests to find winning messaging.

## Setup

Read and follow `../shared/preamble.md` (MCP detection, account selection) and `../shared/analysis-principles.md` (evidence requirement, guardrails). Both apply throughout.

## Reference

Read on demand:

- `references/rsa-best-practices.md` — character limits, headline formulas, pinning, A/B mechanics, common mistakes. The source of truth for what to write.
- `references/rsa-testing-lab.md` — how to choose RSA test metrics, diagnose ad-group intent bloat, decide pinning, and avoid chasing Ad Strength over business outcomes.
- `../manage/references/industry-benchmarks.md` — industry CTR/CVR benchmarks for sanity-checking targets.
- `../manage/references/quality-score-framework.md` — only when QS improvement is the explicit goal.

## Business context — non-negotiable input

Every copy decision is grounded in business context. Read `{data_dir}/business-context.json` and `{data_dir}/personas/{accountId}.json` first.

- If either file is missing or empty, recommend `/google-ads-audit` before writing — generic copy that ignores positioning is wasted ad inventory. The full intake procedure (website crawl, schema, bootstrapping) lives in `../audit/references/business-context.md`.
- If the user volunteers new info (new service, changed positioning, seasonal update), merge it in.

How context shapes copy: services map to headline categories; locations earn local-specific headlines (with QS upside); brand voice sets tone and forbidden words; differentiators ARE the value-prop headlines; competitors sharpen positioning (without naming them); seasonality decides urgency vs. evergreen framing; offers feed time-sensitive variants; landing-page content must match (or conversions drop). Personas drive language: their own search-term phrasing in headlines, their pain points in descriptions, their decision-trigger as the CTA angle.

## Ad-strength vs. real performance

Ad strength optimizes for Google's diversity goals, not your conversion rate. The hierarchy: **conversion rate > CTR > CPA > ad strength.** Don't break a high-CTR ad to chase "Excellent". Do treat low ad strength as a useful diversity signal — eight distinct headlines, one per category, no repeats in description bank.

## Pulling what to write from

Copy must be grounded in what already converts. One `runScript` with `ads.gaqlParallel` covers almost any copy job — fan out:

- `ad_group_ad` — current headlines, descriptions, ad-strength, per-ad clicks/CTR/conversions (the baseline to beat)
- `keyword_view` — what's converting and which QS components are weak
- `search_term_view` — the actual phrases customers are typing (the single best language source)
- `campaign` — the CTR/CVR benchmark each variant has to clear

For brand-wide rewrites, correlate everything in one pass. For a single ad group, scope each query with `WHERE ad_group.id = …`. Layer in seasonality and keyword-landscape context from `business-context.json`.

If the user has a CRM or lead-outcome database with the language customers actually use, mine that — customer language beats marketing language every time.

## Competitive copy rules

- **Never** name a competitor in ad copy (policy risk + you do their brand awareness for free).
- **Never** use "best" / "#1" without verifiable substantiation. Google requires it; the Trademark team enforces it.
- **Do** use specific features competitors lack ("Same-Day Service" beats "Better Service"), trust signals ("4.9★ Google · 500+ Reviews"), guarantees, transparent pricing, and location specificity. Verifiable specificity outperforms superlatives.

## RSA mechanics

Google RSA: up to **15 headlines (30 chars max)** and **4 descriptions (90 chars max)**. A single character over = rejected. Always count.

`references/rsa-best-practices.md` is the source of truth for headline formulas, description ordering, and pinning strategy. The compact rule of thumb: pin one Service+Location headline to position 1, one CTA to position 3, leave position 2 unpinned for Google to test value-prop / trust / differentiator headlines, and never pin more than 3 total.

## A/B testing — use the experiments framework

When the user wants to test, use the MCP server's experiment tooling rather than the old "deploy two paused ads side by side" pattern:

- **Ad-copy A/B** — `createAdVariationExperiment` is the dedicated tool for variation testing at the ad level. It manages the split, the lift comparison, and the read-back.
- **Larger creative shifts** (different angle, different persona target, different LP destination) — `createExperiment` + `addExperimentArms` + `scheduleExperiment`. Monitor with `listActiveExperiments` and `listExperimentAsyncErrors`. Decide endgame with `endExperiment`, `graduateExperiment`, or `promoteExperiment`.
- **Single ad-group, two variants, no traffic split** — paused-then-enabled twin ads in the same ad group is still acceptable for low-stakes copy iteration, but it has no statistical engine behind it. Prefer the experiment path when the decision matters.

Each variant must test a **meaningfully different angle** — not word swaps. "Trust & Expertise" vs. "Speed & Convenience" vs. "Price & Value" is a real test; "Call Today" vs. "Call Now" is noise.

Before writing variants, read `references/rsa-testing-lab.md` when the request mentions testing, pinning, Ad Strength, low CTR/CVR, or mixed-intent ad groups. It encodes the generalized pattern that many RSA problems are really ad-group/query-theme problems.

When calling a winner, the underlying question is the same regardless of mechanism: did the variant win on conversion rate (or CPA), backed by enough sample to trust the difference? Less than ~100 clicks per variant is too early. ≥20% relative CTR or CVR delta is meaningful. 2× CVR gap is decisive immediately. The experiments framework's own significance signals are the cleanest input — defer to them when pre