A multi-location Google Ads case study for home services franchises reveals a common and expensive structural problem: running one undifferentiated campaign structure across every market kills local performance. Multi-location Google Ads management for franchises requires location-specific architecture, market-calibrated bidding, and localized landing pages to generate consistent leads across every territory. This piece traces how a 12-location home services franchise diagnosed three structural issues in its Google Ads account, rebuilt the campaign architecture from the ground up, and unlocked reliable lead generation across all markets within 90 days. The franchise was spending roughly $45K per month across its territories. The result was not a marginal improvement. It was the difference between half the locations barely breaking even on paid search and every single one generating leads at a sustainable cost.
The Situation: A Regional Home Services Franchise With 12 Locations
This was a home services franchise operating across 12 locations in a mid-sized regional footprint. Think HVAC, plumbing, or restoration: high-ticket, urgent-need services where the customer searches, calls, and books within a single session. Google Ads was the primary acquisition channel, and for good reason. When someone's furnace dies in January, they are not scrolling Instagram. They are typing "emergency furnace repair near me" into Google.
The franchise had been running Google Ads for over two years. Total monthly spend sat around $45K, spread unevenly across the 12 territories. A single agency managed the entire account, and while the agency was not incompetent, the structure they had built reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of how multi-location businesses need to run paid search.
The franchise owner's frustration was simple: four or five locations were doing fine. The rest were either too expensive to justify or producing leads that never converted. Every time the agency was questioned, the answer was "the account overall is performing well." And on a blended basis, it was. But blended numbers masked the fact that half the business was subsidizing the other half.
What The Account Actually Looked Like At The Start
The account contained 14 active campaigns. Two were brand campaigns (one for the franchise name, one for a seasonal promotion), and the remaining 12 were service-line campaigns organized by offering: emergency repair, maintenance plans, installation, and so on. Location targeting was handled through radius targeting layered on top of these service campaigns, with ad groups sharing the same keywords and ad copy across all 12 markets.
Budget allocation was set at the campaign level, which meant every market competed for the same daily budget within each service campaign. There was no way to control how much a specific location received. Smart Bidding was active (Target CPA), but the conversion actions feeding it included both phone calls and form fills with no minimum call duration filter. The landing pages were the franchise's main website pages, not location-specific pages, and they loaded the same generic content regardless of which market the searcher was in.
On paper, the account had structure. In practice, it was one giant campaign pretending to serve 12 different businesses.
The Diagnosis: Three Structural Issues Killing Local Performance
The problems were not tactical. They were architectural. No amount of bid adjustments, keyword tweaks, or ad copy testing was going to fix what was broken, because the foundation made it impossible for Google's algorithms to learn what "good" looked like in each individual market.
Issue One: Budget Cannibalization Across Markets
Because campaigns were organized by service line rather than by location, Google's algorithm naturally funneled spend toward the markets with the highest click volume and the cheapest conversions. In this case, that meant two metro-adjacent locations were eating the majority of the budget. The smaller, more rural territories were starved. They received enough impressions to generate a handful of low-quality clicks, but never enough data for Smart Bidding to optimize effectively. This is a pattern that shows up in nearly every multi-location Google Ads account that uses a shared campaign structure, and it is covered in detail in 7 Multi-Location Google Ads Strategies That Scale Across Franchises.
Issue Two: Conversion Data Was Polluted
The account tracked phone calls as conversions with no duration filter. That meant a 5-second hang-up counted the same as a 4-minute booking call. It also tracked form submissions on the main website, including contact forms that were not lead-related. Smart Bidding was optimizing toward a conversion action that included a significant percentage of junk. The algorithm was doing exactly what it was told to do: get more of "those." The problem was that "those" were not actual leads.
Issue Three: Landing Pages Were Generic And Non-Local
Every ad in every market pointed to the same set of service pages. These pages mentioned the franchise brand but did not reference the specific city, neighborhood, or service area. For a home services business, this is a conversion killer. A homeowner in a suburban market 40 miles from the franchise headquarters does not feel confident booking when the page they land on shows a different city's address and phone number. Local trust signals matter enormously in this vertical. The complete multi-location setup guide breaks down why landing page localization is one of the highest-leverage changes a franchise can make.
The Fix: Location-Specific Campaign Architecture With Shared Learnings
The rebuild started with a principle: each location is its own business with its own economics, its own competitive landscape, and its own volume ceiling. The campaign structure had to reflect that.
Campaigns Reorganized By Location, Not Service Line
The 12 service-line campaigns were replaced with 12 location-based campaign groups. Each location received its own set of campaigns covering its core services. This meant the account went from 14 campaigns to roughly 36 (three service groupings per location). That sounds like a lot. It is. And it is exactly the kind of structural complexity that breaks most management approaches, which is why so many agencies default to the shared structure in the first place.
Within each location's campaigns, keywords were tailored to local search patterns. "Emergency plumber" might be the primary driver in one market while "same-day HVAC repair" dominated another. The keyword sets overlapped by about 70%, but the remaining 30% of location-specific terms made a meaningful difference in relevance and cost.
Budget Allocation Matched To Market Opportunity
With campaigns split by location, budget could finally be controlled at the market level. The initial allocation was based on historical lead volume and estimated search demand (using Google's own keyword planner data for each geographic area). Markets with higher demand and proven conversion rates received proportionally more budget. Smaller markets received enough to maintain consistent presence without being starved.
This is where the math starts to separate competent management from everything else. Rebalancing budgets across 12 markets on an ongoing basis, responding to seasonal shifts, competitive changes, and conversion rate fluctuations, requires either a very attentive human or an engine that never stops running the numbers. Most agencies set it and revisit it monthly, if that.
Conversion Tracking Was Cleaned Up
Phone call conversions were rebuilt with a 60-second minimum duration filter. Form submissions were separated into lead forms (which counted as conversions) and general contact forms (which did not). This immediately changed what Smart Bidding was optimizing toward. Instead of chasing cheap junk interactions, the algorithm could now pursue actual booked appointments. The impact of this kind of conversion tracking cleanup on account performance is consistently one of the highest-ROI changes in any Google Ads account.
How Smart Bidding Was Calibrated Across Different Market Volumes
Smart Bidding needs data to work. The challenge with a 12-location structure is that some markets generate 200 conversions per month and others generate 15. Running Target CPA on a campaign with 15 conversions per month is asking the algorithm to make statistical inferences from a dataset that is too small to be reliable.
The solution was a tiered bidding approach. High-volume locations (four of the 12) ran Target CPA at the campaign level with location-specific targets reflecting each market's unit economics. Medium-volume locations (five of the 12) used portfolio bid strategies that grouped campaigns within the same market to pool conversion data. Low-volume locations (three of the 12) started on Maximize Conversions without a target, allowing the algorithm to accumulate data before a CPA cap was introduced.
This is not a set-it-and-forget-it exercise. The thresholds for when to shift a location from one bidding tier to another require ongoing monitoring. As a location accumulates enough conversion history, it graduates to tighter bid controls. If a market softens seasonally, it might temporarily move back. Managing this across 12 locations means dozens of bidding decisions every month, each of which directly impacts cost per lead.
For franchises weighing how to set these targets properly, understanding the difference between Target CPA and Target ROAS is foundational. In lead generation, Target CPA is almost always the right starting point, but the number you set and when you set it matters more than which strategy you pick.
The Role Of Landing Pages In Local Conversion Rate Lift
The landing page overhaul was the single highest-impact change measured by conversion rate. Every location received its own set of landing pages, built from a shared template but populated with location-specific content: the local phone number, the service area by city and neighborhood name, reviews from customers in that market, and a localized call to action.
These were not cosmetic changes. The local phone number alone increased call conversion rates because searchers saw a familiar area code. Including neighborhood names in the headline and body copy improved Quality Score, which reduced CPC. And featuring reviews from local customers built the kind of trust that moves a homeowner from "considering" to "calling."
The pages were also built to load fast on mobile, which matters disproportionately in home services. When someone has a burst pipe, they are searching on their phone, and they are clicking the first result that loads and looks trustworthy. A 4-second load time loses that click to the competitor whose page loaded in 1.5 seconds.
Dynamic landing pages, pages that automatically adjust content based on the searcher's location, query, and device, are built into how groas operates. For this franchise, building and maintaining 36 or more unique landing pages would have been a significant ongoing cost with any traditional agency. The typical agency either charges separately for landing page development or simply does not do it.
What Happened Over 90 Days
The first 30 days were a learning period. The new structure needed time to accumulate conversion data in each location. Performance initially dipped in some markets as Smart Bidding recalibrated from the polluted historical data.
By day 45, the picture started to change. The four high-volume locations were generating leads at a lower cost per lead than they had under the old structure, because budget was no longer leaking to underperforming markets and conversion tracking was now feeding the algorithm clean data. The medium-volume locations stabilized around week six, with portfolio bidding strategies finding consistent patterns.
By day 90, every location was generating leads within a sustainable cost range. The locations that had been "subsidizing" the account before were performing even better because their budgets were protected. The locations that had been starved were, for the first time, generating a predictable lead pipeline.
Total monthly spend stayed roughly the same: around $45K. But the distribution of that spend, and the return on it, looked completely different. Instead of five locations carrying the account and seven barely justifying their ad spend, all 12 were contributing.
The lesson here is not that the franchise needed to spend more. It is that the same spend, structured correctly, produced a fundamentally different outcome. This is the pattern described in detail in why scaling your Google Ads budget does not scale your revenue. Structure determines outcome. Budget amplifies whatever structure already exists.
The Lessons That Apply To Any Multi-Location Service Business
If you operate a franchise, a multi-location service business, or any organization running Google Ads across more than one geography, three principles from this case apply directly.
First, never organize campaigns by service line across multiple locations. Organize by location first, then by service within each location. The budget control and data clarity this provides is non-negotiable.
Second, clean your conversion data before you trust Smart Bidding to optimize. If your conversion actions include junk, the algorithm will optimize for junk. This is not a Smart Bidding failure. It is a setup failure.
Third, localize your landing pages. In home services especially, but in almost any local service business, the gap between a generic page and a locally relevant page is measurable in conversion rate within the first few weeks.
Which Management Model Can Sustain This Complexity At Scale
Here is the uncomfortable reality for multi-location franchise owners: the structure described in this case study is correct, and it is also extremely labor-intensive to maintain. You are managing 30 or more campaigns across 12 markets, rebalancing budgets weekly, monitoring bidding thresholds, updating landing pages, and adjusting keyword sets based on local competitive dynamics. This is not something a single account manager at a traditional agency can physically keep up with. Their time is capped, and when it runs out, the smaller locations get neglected first.
This is precisely the gap groas fills. The proprietary engine, trained on over $500 billion in profitable ad spend, runs execution across every location around the clock. It does not run out of hours. It does not neglect the low-volume markets because the high-volume ones are easier to manage. For franchise owners who want the account fully handled end to end, including landing page creation and optimization, groas's DFY service pairs that engine with a dedicated senior strategist who owns strategy across all locations. For franchise organizations with an in-house marketing team that wants to stay in control, the DWY model puts the engine and a strategist alongside your team while you make the final calls.
And for agencies managing franchise clients who recognize this structural complexity but cannot scale their human hours to match it, groas's DIY product lets agencies connect unlimited client accounts, run the engine themselves, and keep their client relationships and margins intact.
The structural rebuild described in this case study is not optional for multi-location businesses that want consistent performance from Google Ads. The question is whether your current management model can sustain it, or whether you need an engine that never sleeps running underneath.
If you want groas to handle this for your franchise, apply for DFY and the team will figure out the right plan on the call. If you have an in-house team that wants the engine and a strategist while staying in control, get started with DWY. And if you are an agency managing franchise clients, start your 7-day free trial and see what the engine does to your execution capacity in the first week.
Frequently Asked Questions
How Should A Multi-Location Franchise Structure Its Google Ads Campaigns?
The correct structure for franchise Google Ads management is to organize campaigns by location first, then by service line within each location. This gives you independent budget control per market, clean conversion data for each territory, and the ability to calibrate Smart Bidding based on local volume. Structuring by service line across all locations forces markets to compete for the same budget, which starves low-volume territories and pollutes the conversion signals the algorithm relies on. Every location in a franchise has different competitive dynamics, search demand, and unit economics. The campaign architecture must reflect that.
Why Do Most Multi-Location Google Ads Accounts Underperform?
The most common reason is budget cannibalization. When campaigns serve multiple locations through shared budgets, Google's algorithm sends spend to whichever market produces the cheapest clicks, not the best leads. This creates a pattern where a few metro locations eat most of the budget while smaller markets are starved of data and impressions. Add in polluted conversion tracking (phone calls with no duration filter, irrelevant form submissions counted as conversions) and generic landing pages, and the algorithm cannot learn what a real lead looks like in any individual market.
How Many Campaigns Should A 12-Location Franchise Have In Google Ads?
A 12-location franchise typically needs at least 30 to 40 campaigns, roughly three service groupings per location. This is significantly more complex than the 10 to 15 campaigns most agencies build, but it is what is required for proper budget control and data segmentation. Managing this volume of campaigns with ongoing bid calibration, budget rebalancing, and keyword optimization is where most management models break down. groas solves this with a proprietary engine trained on over $500 billion in profitable ad spend that runs execution around the clock, paired with a senior strategist who owns the strategy across every location.
Does Smart Bidding Work For Low-Volume Local Markets?
Smart Bidding can work in low-volume markets, but it requires a different approach. Markets generating fewer than 30 conversions per month should start on Maximize Conversions without a target cap, allowing the algorithm to accumulate data. Once enough conversion history exists, you can introduce a Target CPA. Portfolio bid strategies that pool data across campaigns within the same market also help. The key is not to force a Target CPA on a campaign that lacks the statistical volume to support it.
How Important Are Localized Landing Pages For Home Services Google Ads?
Localized landing pages are one of the highest-leverage changes a home services franchise can make. Pages that include the local phone number, service area by city and neighborhood, and reviews from local customers convert measurably better than generic pages. The local area code builds trust. Neighborhood-level copy improves Quality Score, which reduces cost per click. And for mobile searchers in urgent-need situations, a fast-loading page with clear local signals is the difference between a call and a bounce.
What Is The Best Way To Track Conversions For A Home Services Franchise?
Track phone calls with a minimum 60-second duration filter to exclude hang-ups and wrong numbers. Separate lead-specific form submissions from general contact forms, and only count the lead forms as conversion actions. This gives Smart Bidding a clean signal to optimize toward actual booked appointments rather than junk interactions. Polluted conversion data is one of the most common and most damaging problems in multi-location Google Ads accounts.
Can A Traditional Agency Manage Google Ads Effectively Across 12 Or More Locations?
Most traditional agencies struggle with multi-location franchise accounts because the work is labor-intensive and ongoing. Rebalancing budgets across 12 markets weekly, monitoring bid thresholds, updating dozens of landing pages, and adjusting keyword sets based on local competitive shifts exceeds what a single account manager can physically handle. groas replaces that constraint with a proprietary engine running execution 24/7, paired with a dedicated strategist. The engine never neglects low-volume markets because the high-volume ones are easier, which is the pattern that causes most agency-managed franchise accounts to underperform.
How Long Does It Take To See Results After Restructuring A Multi-Location Google Ads Account?
Expect a 30 to 45 day learning period where Smart Bidding recalibrates to the new structure and clean conversion data. High-volume locations typically stabilize first, around week four to six. Medium-volume locations follow shortly after. Low-volume locations take the longest because they need time to accumulate enough conversion history. By day 90, a properly restructured account should have every location generating leads within a sustainable cost range.
Should A Franchise Use Target CPA Or Target ROAS For Google Ads?
For lead generation businesses like home services franchises, Target CPA is almost always the right starting point. Target ROAS is designed for ecommerce and revenue-based models where conversion values vary significantly. In a franchise where the goal is booked appointments, you want to control cost per lead at the location level. The number you set and when you introduce the target matters more than which bidding strategy you choose.
What Is The Difference Between DWY And DFY Google Ads Management From groas?
Done With You (DWY) is for franchises that have an in-house marketing person who knows Google Ads and wants to stay in control while getting the groas engine and a strategist working alongside them. Done For You (DFY) is for franchise owners who want groas to own Google Ads end to end, including landing pages, offers, and every strategic decision. Franchises often start on DWY and upgrade to DFY as they scale. If you are unsure which fits, apply for DFY and groas will figure out the right plan on the call.
.png)
