Marketers everywhere, rejoice - Google has finally heard our prayers! (Well, one of them at least). 

Since the launch of Performance Max back in 2022, campaign-level negative keywords have been one of the most requested features.

Almost three years later, self-serve campaign-level negatives have finally been announced. Initially releasing as a closed beta, Google aims to roll out the feature to all marketers by the end of 2024. 

‍Ginny Marvin broke the news to the wider marketing community via LinkedIn:

Ginny then confirmed that campaign-level negative keywords will extend to both Search and Shopping components: 

‍

Over the next five-or-so minutes, expect to learn everything you need to know about the announcement (and why it took so long), what campaign-level negative keywords are, how to use them properly, and what this could signify going forward.

What are campaign-level negative keywords?

Every campaign can be optimized by excluding certain keywords you don’t want your ads to be served for. For example, you’d use campaign-level negatives to: 

Exclude irrelevant search terms

If you sell air fryers but don't stock dual basket air fryers, you can add "dual basket air fryers" as a negative keyword in your campaign to prevent your ad being shown to customers looking for products you don’t stock. 

Exclude specific products or services

If you run campaigns for cruises, flights, and hotels in Hawaii, but not Mexico, you can create a negative keyword list called "Excluded Travel Destinations" and include keywords like "Mexican Riviera Cruises" and "Cancun hotels". 

Exclude budget options

For example, if you're promoting luxury jewelry, you can exclude terms related to inexpensive jewelry.

To be clear, campaign-level negative keywords did technically exist before the announcement, but the process of getting them onto your campaigns was awkward to say the least. 

Previously, marketers who wanted campaign-level negative keywords had to get in touch with their Google rep, and manually request that keywords were removed from their campaign. 

Last year a form was added, which marketers could fill out and send to Google. Yet there were often delays or errors that stifled the feature - and when you need to be constantly updating your negative keyword list in order to stay on top of your game, it wasn’t exactly efficient.

All in all, the process was awkward, time consuming, and often difficult to even initiate. Google didn’t exactly advertise the feature either, meaning many PMax users simply weren’t aware campaign-level negatives were possible. 

New data shows marketers neglect negative keywords

A recent large-scale study conducted by Opteo uncovered a startling reality: the vast majority of Performance Max campaigns are running with little to no negative keyword protection.

Based on analysis of nearly 25,000 active pMax campaigns, collectively managing over $26 million in monthly ad spend, Opteo found that 8 in 10 campaigns had fewer than 10 negative keywords applied. Even more concerning, 68% of campaigns were running without a single negative keyword in place.

This lack of proactive exclusion represents a critical blind spot for advertisers. Performance Max is a highly automated, AI-driven campaign type, designed to maximise reach across Google’s entire inventory.

However, without adequate negative keyword controls, this reach can easily extend into irrelevant, low-value searches—wasting budget and muddying performance data.

The study also revealed that only 2.6% of campaigns made use of shared negative keyword lists, despite the efficiency and scalability they offer, particularly for advertisers running multiple campaigns.

Even at the account level, where broad exclusions could protect all campaigns at once, 80% of the accounts examined lacked any account-level negative keywords at all.

This highlights a wider issue: many advertisers either underestimate the importance of negative keywords in Performance Max campaigns or assume Google’s machine learning can automatically filter out irrelevant traffic—a risky assumption. As Guillaume Devinat, CEO of Opteo, notes:

“AI-driven campaigns are powerful, but they still need guardrails. Even a small set of exclusions can dramatically improve performance.”

How campaign-level negative keywords improve ad efficiency

That’s why Google’s recent introduction of self-serve campaign-level negative keywords is such an important development.

For years, marketers were forced to jump through hoops—submitting requests to Google Support—just to apply exclusions to their own campaigns. Not only was this time-consuming and frustrating, but it also left advertisers in the dark about whether their requests had been implemented correctly, as everything was handled via a middleman. No wonder 68% of campaigns were running without a single negative keyword.

With a self-serve functionality, all PMax users can quickly and easily add campaign-level negative keywords.

Tools like Opteo's N-Gram finder simplify the implementation of negative keywords even further, by automatically identifying the most wasteful search terms that can then be added as campaign-level negatives.

Widespread adoption of campaign-level negative keywords are a good thing for everyone involved. Marketers can ensure better alignment with brand and audience preferences, and consumers are less likely to see ads for products/services that aren’t available or relevant to them. 

Campaign-level negative keywords also compliment placement exclusions, which can help marketers fine-tune campaign performance and decide where their ads are/aren’t shown—something that was previously in the hands of Google’s automation for the most part. 

When campaign-level negatives first arrived, they were limited to just 100 keywords per campaign. Fortunately, Google has recently increased this limit to 10,000—giving marketers some much-needed control over their PMax campaigns.

These changes are a big step in the right direction from Google, who have previously been hesitant to give marketers more granular control over their Performance Max campaigns. 

Why did this take so long?

If campaign-level negative keywords were always possible to add through a Google rep, it begs the question - why couldn’t marketers have added campaign-level negative keywords themselves previously? After all, wouldn’t the self-serve option be less work for Google?

We have some theories as to why this highly-requested feature has taken so long to implement: 

1. Google wants to prioritize all kinds of traffic for PMax campaigns

It’s no secret that Google longs for a world where everyone uses Performance Max, and only Performance Max. As such, they want to ensure PMax campaigns look superior in the eyes of marketers. 

Ultimately, the more traffic/views/clicks a PMax campaign gets, the better it appears to be performing. 

Even if PMax is providing elevated numbers of junk traffic, bot traffic, or other irrelevant traffic that’ll never convert, a surface-level glance at your analytics will show your campaign performing well and appearing more frequently across Google owned and operated inventory compared to other ad campaign types. 

Perhaps Google doesn’t want campaign-level negative keywords interfering with PMax’s automation, and potentially reducing the overall volume of traffic directed through PMax campaigns.

Interestingly (and surprisingly), Google recently deprioritized PMax vs. Standard Shopping Campaigns. Prior to the change, PMax campaigns automatically had priority over other campaign types, as Google clearly wanted marketers to embrace and adopt PMax.

This u-turn could signify a change in direction from Google--whether due to regulatory pressures (more on that later) or increasing pressure from Google Ads users.

We spoke to PPC expert Selina Patel about the deprioritization, why it may have happened, and what marketers should be doing about it, in a recent episode of the Paid Media Lab podcast:

2. Google wants PMax to be as automated as possible

Since the introduction of PMax campaigns, Google has made it clear that it wants to push for automation. A number of features have been introduced that signify a shift towards making PMax an end-to-end, fully automated ad platform. Even the most ‘human’ parts of advertising - such as campaign creatives - can be automated thanks to in-built generative AI. 

As such, Google wanted to move in a direction where granular control is taken away from marketers, and given to the magic ‘black box’ of PMax. 

It’s been a pain point between Google and PMax users for years - so giving us some of that granular control that marketers crave could simply be a show of good faith, or a way to tempt performance marketers to spend more of their budget on PMax. 

3. Google doesn’t trust marketers to not mess it up

As mentioned, Google wants PMax to perform as well as it possibly can in comparison to other ad platforms. The reason for not giving us control could be as simple as not wanting marketers to skew results by adding incorrect or traffic-stifling negative keywords. 

Perhaps they genuinely feel that their automation drives better results than marketers can. 

Yet if this is the reason behind not giving us self-serve campaign-level negatives for over two years, it begs the question - why now? Perhaps it costs significantly less for marketers to do it themselves vs. having their reps and customer service team implement campaign-level negative keywords. 

4. Regulatory pressures

With all the regulatory pressure Google is under right now, giving users more control over their ads could be a way to show they’re not creating an unfair monopoly in the ad space, in which marketers are powerless to limit large volumes of wasted ad spend.  

Whatever the reason, the fact that campaign-level negative keywords are being released in beta means they’re likely still working out some of the kinks.

Only Google knows the real reason behind the change and why it took so painfully long to implement, but hey - better late than never. 

What marketers are saying: 

Unsurprisingly, opinions are positive about the addition of the feature amongst the marketing community. When it comes to ad platforms, the vast majority of performance marketers want as much granular control as possible, so this is certainly a step in the right direction. 

The general sentiment is that self-serve campaign-level negatives should have been available from the start, with Bram Van der Hallen and Jeremy K echoing this: 

Senior PPC analyst Chris Jones posted a meme highlighting how campaign-level negatives goals can often be achieved through brand exclusions and support-applied negatives, however the self-serve functionality remains a welcome addition. 

Collin Schmelebeck added to the discussion with an interesting post about how people may still be interpreting PMax wrong:

Craig Graham for the most part echoed the point Collin made, but added his own caveat in relation to branded search terms:

Campaign-level negative keywords: Best practices

When it comes to implementing campaign-level negative keywords, there are a few best practices to keep in mind: 

1. Use the Broad Match keyword type

Using broad match essentially means your ads won’t show up if someone searches for all the words you don’t want, even if they’re in a different order. 

For example, let’s say you’re running a jewelry shop. You might want to add “silver” or “bracelet” as negative keywords, as you don’t sell these types of jewelry. 

When you use broad match, your ads won’t display on searches like “silver bracelet jewelry”, “bracelet jewelry silver”, or “jewelry bracelet silver”. This means you can avoid advertising to consumers who are looking for products you don’t sell. 

2. Stay on top of your negative keyword list

Negative keyword lists aren’t set and forget - you’ll need to regularly update your keyword list with new keywords you don’t need. 

Use your search term report to see what users are searching for when they land on your ads. If you see any words or phrases that aren’t relevant and won’t lead to conversions, add it to your campaign’s negative keyword list.

Tools such as Opteo’s N-Gram Finder can prove valuable when it comes to maximizing the potential of negative keywords, and can help you quickly identify invalid or underperforming search terms.

3. Integrated campaign-level negative keywords with placement exclusions

Well thought-out campaign-level negatives combined with placement exclusions are a surefire way to prevent the vast majority of irrelevant, junk, or spam ad placements within your campaign - meaning your ads only show where you want them to. 

Our PMax junk exclusion list is a great place to start, and can significantly reduce the number of bad placements in your campaigns.

Final thoughts

All in all, the addition of self-serve campaign-level negative keywords is a big (unexpected) win for marketers, no matter how you look at it. 

Whether it’s a carefully considered move from Google in an attempt to win back marketers’ trust, or simply a way to tease ecommerce marketing budgets away from Meta and towards PMax, more granular control over PMax campaigns is an exciting prospect for all performance marketers. 

Hopefully this is the start of marketers getting more control over other aspects of their PMax campaigns. This new direction could just be a way to placate frustrated marketers, or potentially herald in a new age for PMax - only time will tell. 

Advertisers aiming to reclaim control and improve efficiency should be prioritising the addition of negative keywords. With the welcome addition of campaign-level negatives combined with tools like Lunio and Opteo’s nGram Finder—which simplifies the identification of wasteful search terms—there's now a much clearer path to better results with less wasted spend.

Protecting PMax campaigns 

Unfortunately, campaign-level negatives don’t prevent the growing invalid traffic (IVT) problem plaguing PMax campaigns.

Enter Lunio—our tool analyzes every click your campaigns get, allowing you to discover exactly how much of your ad spend is being needlessly wasted on bot traffic and fraudulent IPs. 

Automatic account-level IP blocking prevents invalid traffic from eating away at your ad spend, and our ability to automatically exclude thousands of junk placements across Google’s ad network ensures your ads are shown to real people, in real places. 

Get a free 14-day trial with Lunio to discover exactly how much of your ad spend is being wasted.