Omni Lab Co-founder on Why Your Marketing Channel is Not the Problem

If you've spent time online, you've likely seen someone saying that email is dead, cold-calling is dead, and Google Ads is dead.

Every few months, a new wave of voices claims the demise of some tried-and-true marketing or sales channel. It's as though entire channels vanish overnight, replaced by shiny new tactics that promise better results.

But let's be honest: declaring channels are dead is a lazy oversimplification. It's like blaming the gym for your lack of results because you lacked consistency or didn't use the machines correctly. Most channels don't die; it's the strategies behind them that do.

This is primarily driven by the fundamental attribution error, a psychological bias in which individuals tend to blame external factors, like a marketing channel, while overlooking the more complex internal factors that may have contributed to the outcome. 

There is no doubt that everyone has been burned by investing in a specific channel and didn't see the results they were looking for. However, before you throw in the towel, you must consider other variables that may have contributed to the outcome. 

Questions to ask yourself

Other variables require you to look at the whole picture. Instead of attributing performance solely to a single channel, examine all contributing factors, such as creativity, messaging, targeting, and timing. This broader view helps prevent blaming just one variable when multiple variables are likely involved.

There are a lot of things to keep in mind as you investigate what is wrong with your campaign. Before blaming the channel and leaving it at that, answer the following questions to identify the real culprit.

Click:

• Does the search term align with the ad?
• Are you bidding on the right keywords?
• Do those keywords align with those that convert to pipeline?
• Are you targeting your ICP or your TAM?

Website:

• Does the ad align with the landing page?
• Is it easy to understand how it works, who it's for, how much it costs, and the outcome it drives?
• Do you have relevant social proof?

Conversion:

• Is the form simple and short?
• Does it offer an easy way to schedule a meeting?
• Are there clear CTAs across the website?
• Do you address common objections on the demo page?

Lead hand-off:

• How long does it take to meet with a buyer after the form is filled out?
• Did we align the follow-up with the intent level?
• Do we offer a demo at the first meeting?
• Do we identify the core problems of the buyer and how our solution can help solve those issues?

Sales cycle:

• Did we create a close plan?
• Have we gotten all key decision-makers involved?
• Do we add value along the sales process?
• Do we always set up the next meeting with a clear agenda?
• Have we properly differentiated ourselves against competitors?

There are many other questions to consider, but these are some of the main questions you should ask yourself.

Identifying the issues

To put those questions into practice, let me tell you a quick story of a B2B SaaS brand we worked with.

We were working with a Series B B2B SaaS brand that approached Omni Lab a few months ago. Frustrated with their Google Ads performance, they were on the verge of abandoning the platform entirely due to a poor return on investment (ROI).

After we took a closer look, it was clear that the problem wasn't with Google Ads as a channel. It was instead the playbook that was being run in Google Ads. Let’s explore what we found.

Broad terms were targeted

The company had set up its Google Ads campaigns to target overly broad terms, which resulted in thousands of impressions from search terms unrelated to its product. 

This match type gave Google too much control over the targeting, leading to irrelevant impressions and clicks. Rather than zeroing in on high-intent users ready to convert, the ads were being shown to people who weren't looking at their product category.

Poor campaign structure

All of the keywords were lumped together into one broad campaign. This one-size-fits-all approach diluted the targeting, making it impossible to identify which terms were driving valuable traffic. Without specific, theme-based campaigns, it was like throwing Legos in the air and asking someone to guess what you built.

Rigid landing pages

Their landing pages were overly prescriptive and didn't allow visitors to explore other parts of the website or learn more at their own pace. They were locked into what we call landing page jail cells. Potential customers were funneled to specific actions without context or opportunities to self-educate, causing a disconnect between their intent and the content they found.

Remember, just because you are bidding on a high-intent term doesn't mean someone is ready to talk to sales. Buyers spend more time researching tools than ever before than talking with sales. 

Offline conversions weren't tracked

The brand didn't sync offline events to the channel. This didn’t allow for the channel to optimize for quality indicators properly. As a result, the data in Google Ads showed a bleak picture of conversion rates, making it difficult to see their campaigns' full impact and optimize accordingly.

Low-intent terms consumed most of the budget

A significant chunk of their ad spend went toward low-intent keywords that rarely converted. These keywords start with words like "how" and "what." These words express a buyer's intent to learn about a new topic but don’t necessarily evaluate a product to solve a problem.

Unbalanced desktop vs. mobile spend

Despite desktop traffic converting at 2x the rate, a disproportionate budget was spent on mobile. This misallocation wasted their ad spend and decreased overall impression share on desktop.

How we fixed an ineffective playbook

They didn't need to ditch Google Ads — they needed to ditch their ineffective playbook. Here's what we did to transform their strategy:

Narrowed keywords and match types

We restructured the campaigns to focus on high-intent keywords, using more precise match types. By narrowing the scope to keywords that aligned directly with their core services, we ensured that the ads reached potential customers interested in evaluating a product to solve their problem. 

Revamped landing pages

We partnered with them to redesign the landing pages to be more exploratory and user-friendly. This allowed visitors to self-educate and move through the buying journey at their own pace. Instead of forcing specific actions, we ensured each page provided multiple paths to learn about the product, explore features, and understand the value proposition. 

Get the hottest marketing tea from G2.

Keep up with what’s really going down in marketing with the G2 Tea newsletter. Subscribe here

Better tracking of offline conversions

We set up proper offline conversion tracking within Google Ads, mapping MQLs and SQLs, and the amount of net new pipeline created. This change allowed us to paint a complete picture of the customer journey and optimize the campaigns based on actual conversion data in the CRM vs. form fills.

Rebalanced keyword spend toward high-intent terms

We shifted the budget away from low-intent keywords and allocated more ad spend to high-intent terms that were more likely to convert. This change increased the quality of leads and reduced wasted ad spend on irrelevant clicks.

Shifted focus to desktop traffic

By analyzing performance data, we identified that desktop significantly outperformed mobile in terms of conversions. We adjusted the budget and bidding strategy accordingly, prioritizing impressions on desktop, which improved the overall conversion rate.

Analyzing the results

The results were almost immediate. After just 60 days of implementing the new strategy, the brand saw:

• 30% increase in qualified leads: By refining the targeting and ensuring that ads reached high-intent users, the quality and quantity of leads increased substantially.
• 40% reduction in cost per opportunity: With more precise targeting, improved landing pages, and better conversion tracking, the cost per opportunity dropped, leading to a significantly more efficient ad spend.

The takeaway? The problem was never with Google Ads as a channel. The issue lay in the misaligned strategy and poor execution. Once we changed the playbook, the channel thrived.

Are there times when a particular channel could be more efficient than others? Of course. For instance, one of our clients moved away from Google Ads — not because the channel was inherently dead but because they were currently getting better results with other channels. So, instead of spreading themselves thin, they focused on another channel. 

The key is understanding that channels should be evaluated based on fit and performance, not blanket assumptions. Even if a channel is less efficient for one business, that doesn't mean it's universally ineffective.

The bottom line

Before you declare any channel dead, revisit the strategy behind it. Map out your audience's needs, refine your targeting, and align the experience across their journey. A channel that's not working today might just need a new playbook.

If you're willing to adapt, optimize, and think critically, no channel is ever truly dead; it's just waiting for the right strategy to bring it back to life.

Looking to start fresh? Find out how to write the most comprehensive marketing plan for your brand so you can pick the right channels from the get-go.