impression-share-diagnostics

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Impression Share Diagnostics Skill

展示份额诊断 Skill

Purpose: Provides expert analysis of impression share metrics to diagnose root causes of underspending and auction performance issues in Google Ads Search campaigns.

Type: Domain knowledge skill (auto-invoked)

Purpose: 为 Google Ads Search 广告系列提供展示份额指标专家分析，用于诊断支出不足和竞价表现问题的根本原因。

Type: 领域知识 skill（自动调用）

What This Skill Deliberately Does NOT Do

此 Skill 明确不做的事项

Calculate the budget change. Diagnosis ends at "budget is (or isn't) the constraint" — the sizing math (5-10% caps, adjustment factors, daily translation) lives in
```
budget-recommendation-calculator
```
.
Diagnose PMax with the decision tree. Performance Max has no impression share metrics — the scenarios apply to Search campaigns (plus the bid-cap check for Display/Video remarketing). PMax gets budget-utilization and asset diagnostics instead (see the campaign-type section).
Treat Rank Lost IS as a target. The skill reads it as evidence for the constraint diagnosis, never as a number to optimize down — chasing it is the misconception this skill exists to correct.
Pull the metrics. The required API fields are listed under Data Sources Required; the query templates live in
```
gaql-query-patterns
```
.

计算预算变更。 诊断止于“预算是（或不是）约束条件”——规模测算（5-10% 上限、调整系数、向日预算的换算）位于
```
budget-recommendation-calculator
```
。
使用决策树诊断 PMax。 Performance Max 没有展示份额指标——这些场景适用于 Search 广告系列（另加 Display/Video 再营销的 bid-cap 检查）。PMax 应改用预算利用率和 asset 诊断（见广告系列类型部分）。
将 Rank Lost IS 视为目标。 此 skill 将其作为约束条件诊断的证据，绝不会把它当作需要优化降低的数值——追逐降低该指标正是此 skill 旨在纠正的误区。
拉取指标。 所需 API 字段列于“所需数据源”；查询模板位于
```
gaql-query-patterns
```
。

Core Impression Share Metrics

核心展示份额指标

Search Impression Share (Search IS)

Search Impression Share（Search IS）

What it measures: Percentage of impressions you received out of total eligible impressions

How to interpret:

>80%: Excellent - capturing most available impressions
50-80%: Good - moderate market coverage
30-50%: Limited - missing significant opportunity
<30%: Very limited - major opportunity loss

Note: Higher is better, but 100% is rarely achievable or necessary

衡量内容： 你获得的展示次数占符合条件展示总次数的百分比

解读方式：

>80%： 优秀——已获得大部分可用展示
50-80%： 良好——市场覆盖度适中
30-50%： 有限——错失了显著机会
<30%： 非常有限——错失了大量机会

Note: 越高越好，但 100% 很少能够实现，也没有必要实现

Budget Lost Impression Share (Budget Lost IS)

Budget Lost Impression Share（Budget Lost IS）

What it measures: Percentage of impressions lost due to budget constraints

How to interpret:

<10%: Budget is sufficient for current demand
10-30%: Moderate budget constraint (minor opportunity loss)
30-50%: Significant budget constraint (primary limiting factor)
>50%: Severe budget constraint (major spend potential untapped)

Primary indicator: If high, increasing budget will likely increase spend

衡量内容： 因预算限制而损失的展示次数百分比

解读方式：

<10%： 预算足以满足当前需求
10-30%： 中度预算约束（错失了少量机会）
30-50%： 显著预算约束（主要限制因素）
>50%： 严重预算约束（大量潜在支出尚未释放）

主要指标： 如果该指标较高，增加预算通常会增加支出

Rank Lost Impression Share (Rank Lost IS)

Rank Lost Impression Share（Rank Lost IS）

What it measures: Percentage of impressions lost due to ad rank (quality + bid)

How to interpret:

<10%: Excellent competitive position
10-30%: Good competitive position (normal)
30-60%: Moderate competitive disadvantage
>60%: Significant competitive disadvantage

CRITICAL CONTEXT: Rank Lost IS is informational, not a primary optimization target

衡量内容： 因广告排名（质量 + 出价）而损失的展示次数百分比

解读方式：

<10%： 竞争地位优秀
10-30%： 竞争地位良好（正常）
30-60%： 中度竞争劣势
>60%： 显著竞争劣势

关键上下文： Rank Lost IS 是参考信息，而不是主要优化目标

Smart Bidding Context (CRITICAL)

Smart Bidding 情境（关键）

Most Portfolio Campaigns Use Smart Bidding

大多数 Portfolio 广告系列使用 Smart Bidding

Common bidding strategies:

Max Conversions (no target) - Automated, no manual bid control
Max Conversion Value (no target) - Automated, ROAS focus
Max Clicks (with optional max CPC limit) - Automated, traffic focus

YOU CANNOT MANUALLY ADJUST BIDS - Google's algorithm controls them.

Primary Control Lever: Monthly budget (translates to daily budget)

Budget Management Philosophy:

#1 Priority: Hit monthly spend targets (pacing)
#2 Priority: Maintain acceptable CPA/ROAS goals
Budget increases are CONSERVATIVE: 5-10% monthly budget increases

常见竞价策略：

Max Conversions（无目标）- 自动化，无手动出价控制
Max Conversion Value（无目标）- 自动化，以 ROAS 为重点
Max Clicks（可选设 max CPC 上限）- 自动化，以流量为重点

你无法手动调整出价——出价由 Google 的算法控制。

主要控制杠杆： 月度预算（可换算为日预算）

预算管理原则：

第一优先级： 达成月度支出目标（支出节奏）
第二优先级： 维持可接受的 CPA/ROAS 目标
预算增幅应保持保守： 每月增加预算 5-10%

Root Cause Diagnosis Decision Tree

根本原因诊断决策树

Scenario 1: Budget Too Low (Most Common)

场景 1：预算过低（最常见）

Pattern:

Budget Lost IS: >10% (any level of budget constraint)
Rank Lost IS: >50% (high competitive pressure)
Search IS: <70% (missing impressions)

What's happening:

Google's algorithm wants to bid higher to compete
Budget cap prevents it from spending more
Algorithm is forced to bid conservatively to stay within budget
Result: Lower bids → Worse ad rank → Lost impressions

Diagnosis: Budget is too low for competitive auction environment

Recommendation: Increase monthly budget by 5-10%

Why this works:

With smart bidding, budget is the primary lever
Higher budget → algorithm can bid more aggressively
More aggressive bids → better ad rank → more impressions → more spend

特征：

Budget Lost IS：>10%（存在任何程度的预算约束）
Rank Lost IS：>50%（竞争压力较高）
Search IS：<70%（错失展示）

正在发生的情况：

Google 的算法希望提高出价以参与竞争
预算上限阻止其支出更多
算法被迫采用保守出价，以保持在预算范围内
结果：出价降低 → 广告排名变差 → 展示丢失

诊断： 在竞争激烈的竞价环境中，预算过低

建议： 月度预算增加 5-10%

有效原因：

使用 smart bidding 时，预算是主要杠杆
预算提高 → 算法可以更积极地出价
出价更积极 → 广告排名更好 → 获得更多展示 → 产生更多支出

Scenario 2: Quality Score Issues (Secondary)

场景 2：质量得分问题（次要）

Pattern:

Rank Lost IS: >60% (very high)
Budget Lost IS: <10% (budget is sufficient)
CPA significantly above goals
Search IS: Low despite budget availability

What's happening:

Low quality score = higher cost per click
Google charges more for lower quality ads
Algorithm can't compete efficiently
Result: Fewer impressions even with budget available

Diagnosis: Ad relevance, landing page, or keyword quality issues

Recommendation:

Improve ad relevance (match ad copy to keywords)
Improve landing page experience (speed, mobile, relevance)
Refine keyword quality (remove low-performing keywords)
Secondary to budget fixes - quality improvements take time

特征：

Rank Lost IS：>60%（非常高）
Budget Lost IS：<10%（预算充足）
CPA 显著高于目标
即使预算充足，Search IS 仍然较低

正在发生的情况：

质量得分低 = 每次点击成本更高
Google 对质量较低的广告收取更高费用
算法无法高效参与竞争
结果：即使预算充足，展示次数仍然较少

诊断： 广告相关性、落地页或关键词质量存在问题

建议：

提高广告相关性（使广告文案与关键词匹配）
改善落地页体验（速度、移动端体验和相关性）
优化关键词质量（移除表现不佳的关键词）
优先级低于预算调整——质量改进需要时间

Scenario 3: Low Demand (Normal, Not a Problem)

场景 3：需求较低（正常现象，不是问题）

Pattern:

Search IS: >80% (capturing most impressions)
Budget Lost IS: <10% (budget is sufficient)
Rank Lost IS: <10% (good competitive position)
Still underspending vs. budget

What's happening:

You're capturing most available impressions
Low search volume for these keywords
This is NORMAL - not every keyword has high volume

Diagnosis: Account is operating efficiently, just low organic demand

Recommendation:

Option 1: Accept that this is normal (low search volume markets)
Option 2: Consider reducing budget to match actual demand
Option 3: Expand targeting (new keywords, looser match types, new geos)

DO NOT increase budget in this scenario - you're already capturing available demand

特征：

Search IS：>80%（已获得大部分展示）
Budget Lost IS：<10%（预算充足）
Rank Lost IS：<10%（竞争地位良好）
相对于预算仍然支出不足

正在发生的情况：

你已经获得了大部分可用展示
这些关键词的搜索量较低
这是正常现象——并非每个关键词都有很高的搜索量

诊断： 广告账户运行效率良好，只是自然需求较低

建议：

选项 1： 接受这是正常现象（低搜索量市场）
选项 2： 考虑降低预算以匹配实际需求
选项 3： 扩大定向范围（新关键词、更宽松的匹配类型、新地理区域）

在这种情况下不要增加预算——你已经获得了可用需求。

Scenario 3a: Brand Campaign Demand Ceiling (Budget Reallocation)

场景 3a：品牌广告系列需求上限（预算重新分配）

Pattern:

Brand campaign Search IS: >90% (near-maxed)
Budget Lost IS: <10%
Brand campaign spending 40-60% of allocated budget
Other campaigns (GEO, BDRM) have lower IS (more headroom)

What's happening:

Brand search demand is capped - not enough searches for "[Property] apartments"
At 90%+ IS, you're capturing nearly all available brand demand
Budget allocated to Brand cannot be spent
Meanwhile, GEO/BDRM campaigns have impression share headroom

Diagnosis: Budget misallocation - too much budget on demand-capped Brand, not enough on campaigns with headroom

Recommendation:

Reallocate budget from Brand → GEO or BDRM campaigns
Brand continues capturing all available demand (just with smaller budget)
GEO/BDRM can compete more aggressively with additional budget
Total account spend increases toward daily target

Example:

Before reallocation:
- Brand: $20/day budget, $10/day actual (50% util), 94% IS
- GEO: $45/day budget, $27/day actual (60% util), 18% IS
- BDRM: $45/day budget, $20/day actual (44% util), 44% IS

Action: Move $5-10/day from Brand to GEO/BDRM

After reallocation:
- Brand: $12/day budget (still captures 94% IS)
- GEO: $50/day budget (can now compete for more of the 82% lost IS)
- BDRM: $48/day budget (can compete for more of the 56% lost IS)

Key Insight: You can't force demand that doesn't exist - put budget where there's opportunity

特征：

品牌广告系列 Search IS：>90%（接近上限）
Budget Lost IS：<10%
品牌广告系列支出了已分配预算的 40-60%
其他广告系列（GEO、BDRM）的 IS 较低（还有更多提升空间）

正在发生的情况：

品牌搜索需求存在上限——“[Property] apartments”的搜索量不足
在 90%+ IS 时，你已经获得了几乎所有可用的品牌需求
分配给 Brand 的预算无法消耗
与此同时，GEO/BDRM 广告系列还有展示份额提升空间

诊断： 预算分配不当——分配给需求已封顶的 Brand 的预算过多，分配给有提升空间广告系列的预算不足

建议：

将预算从 Brand 重新分配到 GEO 或 BDRM 广告系列
Brand 继续获得所有可用需求（只是预算更少）
GEO/BDRM 可以利用新增预算更积极地参与竞争
账户总支出将增加并向日目标靠拢

示例：

Before reallocation:
- Brand: $20/day budget, $10/day actual (50% util), 94% IS
- GEO: $45/day budget, $27/day actual (60% util), 18% IS
- BDRM: $45/day budget, $20/day actual (44% util), 44% IS

Action: Move $5-10/day from Brand to GEO/BDRM

After reallocation:
- Brand: $12/day budget (still captures 94% IS)
- GEO: $50/day budget (can now compete for more of the 82% lost IS)
- BDRM: $48/day budget (can compete for more of the 56% lost IS)

关键洞察： 无法强行创造不存在的需求——应把预算放在存在机会的地方

Scenario 4: Recent Budget Increase (Ramp-Up Period)

场景 4：近期提高预算（爬坡期）

Pattern:

Budget was increased in last 3-7 days
Currently underspending vs. new budget
Impression share metrics not yet stabilized

What's happening:

Smart bidding algorithms need time to adjust
Algorithm gradually increases bids after budget increase
Normal ramp-up period (3-7 days typical)

Diagnosis: Normal ramp-up period after budget increase

Recommendation:

No action needed
Monitor for 3-5 more days
If still underspending after 7 days, re-investigate

DO NOT increase budget again during ramp-up period

特征：

预算在过去 3-7 天内被提高
当前相对于新预算仍然支出不足
展示份额指标尚未稳定

正在发生的情况：

Smart bidding 算法需要时间进行调整
预算提高后，算法会逐步提高出价
这是正常的爬坡期（通常为 3-7 天）

诊断： 提高预算后的正常爬坡期

建议：

无需采取操作
继续观察 3-5 天
如果 7 天后仍然支出不足，则重新调查

在爬坡期内不要再次提高预算。

Impression Share Context for Different Campaign Types

不同广告类型的展示份额上下文

Search Campaigns (GEO, Bedroom, Brand)

Search 广告系列（GEO、Bedroom、Brand）

Full IS metrics available: Search IS, Budget Lost IS, Rank Lost IS
Use decision tree above to diagnose root cause
Primary focus: Budget Lost IS (indicates spend potential)

提供完整 IS 指标： Search IS、Budget Lost IS、Rank Lost IS
使用上述决策树诊断根本原因
主要关注点： Budget Lost IS（表示潜在支出空间）

Performance Max Campaigns

Performance Max 广告系列

NO impression share metrics available (different auction dynamics)
Cannot use IS for diagnosis
Alternative diagnostics:
- Budget utilization % (MTD spend ÷ MTD budget)
- Asset performance scores
- Auction insights (when available)

没有展示份额指标（竞价机制不同）
不能使用 IS 进行诊断
替代诊断方式：
- 预算利用率（MTD spend ÷ MTD budget）
- Asset 表现评分
- Auction insights（可用时）

Demand Gen Campaigns

Demand Gen 广告系列

Limited IS metrics (display network, different from search)
Focus on: Reach, frequency, view rate
Not applicable: Search IS decision tree

IS 指标有限（展示网络不同于搜索）
关注重点： Reach、frequency、view rate
不适用： Search IS 决策树

Display/Video Campaigns (Remarketing)

Display/Video 广告系列（再营销）

Key Diagnostic: Check for "Bid setting limited" status in Google Ads UI

Common Issue: Max CPC bid cap too restrictive on Maximize Clicks strategy

Pattern:

Campaign status shows "Bid setting limited"
Very low click volume despite budget availability
Spending well below daily budget

Root Cause: Max CPC cap (e.g., $2-3) is lower than auction clearing prices for Display network. Campaign can't compete for impressions.

Standard Fix for Display Remarketing:

Increase max CPC bid limit to $4.00 (standard floor)
This provides headroom to compete while maintaining reasonable ceiling

Context: Accounts may use standardized content suitability settings which restrict available inventory. This means bid caps need to be higher ($4+) to compete in the smaller placement pool. If content suitability settings change, bid cap requirements may need adjustment.

Verification:

Check campaign settings → Bidding → "Maximum CPC bid limit"
If under $4.00, increase to $4.00
Monitor for 2-3 days - spend should increase toward budget

Expected CPC Range: $2-3 after auctions normalize (the $4 cap acts as ceiling)

Note: Display campaigns don't have Search IS metrics - diagnose via campaign status and bid strategy settings

关键诊断： 检查 Google Ads UI 中是否显示“Bid setting limited”状态

常见问题： Maximize Clicks 策略中的 Max CPC bid cap 过于严格

特征：

广告系列状态显示“Bid setting limited”
即使预算充足，点击量仍然非常低
支出远低于日预算

根本原因： Max CPC bid cap（例如 $2-3）低于 Display 网络的拍卖清算价格。广告系列无法获得足够的展示竞价机会。

Display 再营销的标准修复方式：

将 max CPC bid limit 提高到 $4.00（标准下限）
这样既能为参与竞价提供空间，又能维持合理上限

上下文： 账户可能使用标准化的内容适用性设置，从而限制可用库存。这意味着 bid cap 需要更高（$4+），才能在较小的版位池中参与竞争。如果内容适用性设置发生变化，bid cap 要求也可能需要调整。

验证方式：

检查广告系列设置 → Bidding → “Maximum CPC bid limit”
如果低于 $4.00，将其提高到 $4.00
观察 2-3 天——支出应向预算水平增加

预期 CPC 范围： 拍卖恢复正常后为 $2-3（$4 上限充当天花板）

Note: Display 广告系列没有 Search IS 指标——应通过广告系列状态和竞价策略设置进行诊断

How to Interpret Rank Lost IS in Context

如何结合上下文解读 Rank Lost IS

Common Misconception:

常见误区：

"Rank Lost IS is high (60-80%), so we need to improve quality score or increase bids"

“Rank Lost IS 很高（60-80%），所以需要提高质量得分或增加出价”

Reality:

实际情况：

Rank Lost IS is informational, not a target
High Rank Lost IS (60-80%) is common in competitive auctions
Don't optimize TO a specific Rank Lost IS target
Use it to understand WHY underspending (competitive pressure signals budget need)

Rank Lost IS 是参考信息，不是优化目标
在竞争激烈的拍卖中，Rank Lost IS 较高（60-80%）很常见
不要针对某个特定的 Rank Lost IS 目标进行优化
使用它来理解为什么支出不足（竞争压力信号表明需要提高预算）

Correct Interpretation:

正确解读：

High Rank Lost IS + High Budget Lost IS → Budget is the constraint
High Rank Lost IS + Low Budget Lost IS → Quality/efficiency is the constraint
Low Rank Lost IS + Low Budget Lost IS → No constraint (low demand)

Primary focus: Pacing variance and CPA/ROAS performance, not Rank Lost IS itself

Rank Lost IS 高 + Budget Lost IS 高 → 预算是约束条件
Rank Lost IS 高 + Budget Lost IS 低 → 质量/效率是约束条件
Rank Lost IS 低 + Budget Lost IS 低 → 没有约束条件（需求较低）

主要关注点： 支出节奏差异和 CPA/ROAS 表现，而不是 Rank Lost IS 本身

Budget vs. Quality Trade-offs

预算与质量的权衡

When Budget Increase is Appropriate:

适合提高预算的情况：

✅ Underspending vs. monthly budget (pacing variance >±8%) ✅ Budget Lost IS >10% (spend potential exists) ✅ CPA is acceptable or below goal ✅ ROAS is acceptable or above goal ✅ No recent budget increase in last 7 days

✅ 相对于月度预算支出不足（支出节奏差异 >±8%） ✅ Budget Lost IS >10%（存在潜在支出空间） ✅ CPA 处于可接受水平或低于目标 ✅ ROAS 处于可接受水平或高于目标 ✅ 过去 7 天内没有提高预算

When Budget Increase is NOT Appropriate:

不适合提高预算的情况：

❌ CPA is significantly above goal (>20% over target) ❌ ROAS is below minimum threshold ❌ Recent budget increase within last 3-7 days (ramp-up period) ❌ Search IS >80% + Budget Lost IS <10% (low demand, not budget constraint) ❌ Quality score issues evident (very high CPA despite budget availability)

❌ CPA 显著高于目标（超出目标 >20%） ❌ ROAS 低于最低阈值 ❌ 过去 3-7 天内提高过预算（处于爬坡期） ❌ Search IS >80% + Budget Lost IS <10%（需求较低，不是预算约束） ❌ 存在明显的质量得分问题（预算充足但 CPA 非常高）

The Conservative Approach:

保守策略：

Start with 5% budget increase (not 10-20%)
Monitor for 5-7 days before additional increases
Never increase budget >10% in single change (algorithm shock risk)
Quality improvements are secondary to budget optimization

从提高 5% 预算开始（而不是 10-20%）
在进一步增加预算前，观察 5-7 天
单次调整的预算增幅绝不能超过 10%（存在算法冲击风险）
质量改进的优先级低于预算优化

Integration with Underspending Investigation

与支出不足调查的集成

How This Skill Fits:

此 Skill 的作用：

This skill provides the Step 3: Impression Share Analysis framework for underspending investigations.

此 skill 为支出不足调查提供第 3 步：展示份额分析框架。

Typical Investigation Flow:

典型调查流程：

Step 1: Check recent optimizations (ramp-up period check)
Step 2: Analyze campaign spend patterns (which campaigns, budget structure)
Step 3: USE THIS SKILL → Diagnose root cause via impression share
Output: Budget recommendation or quality improvement recommendation

第 1 步： 检查近期优化操作（爬坡期检查）
第 2 步： 分析广告系列支出模式（哪些广告系列、预算结构如何）
第 3 步：使用此 Skill → 通过展示份额诊断根本原因
输出： 预算建议或质量改进建议

Expected Output from This Skill:

此 Skill 的预期输出：

After analyzing IS metrics, you should be able to answer:

What is the primary constraint? (Budget | Quality | Low Demand | Ramp-Up)
What evidence supports this? (specific IS metric values)
What action is recommended? (budget increase | quality improvement | monitor | reduce budget)
Why will this work? (mechanism explanation)

分析 IS 指标后，你应当能够回答：

主要约束条件是什么？（预算 | 质量 | 低需求 | 爬坡期）
有哪些证据支持这一判断？（具体的 IS 指标值）
建议采取什么操作？（提高预算 | 改进质量 | 观察 | 降低预算）
为什么这样有效？（机制解释）

Quick Reference: IS Patterns Cheat Sheet

快速参考：IS 模式速查表

Search IS	Budget Lost IS	Rank Lost IS	Diagnosis	Recommendation
<70%	>30%	>50%	Budget too low	Increase budget 5-10%
<70%	<10%	>60%	Quality issues	Improve quality (secondary)
>80%	<10%	<10%	Low demand	Normal (or reduce budget)
Any	Any	Any	Recent budget ↑	Monitor 3-5 more days
50-70%	10-30%	30-60%	Mixed constraint	Increase budget 5% + monitor

Search IS	Budget Lost IS	Rank Lost IS	诊断	建议
<70%	>30%	>50%	预算过低	增加预算 5-10%
<70%	<10%	>60%	质量问题	改进质量（次要）
>80%	<10%	<10%	需求较低	正常（或降低预算）
任意	任意	任意	近期预算 ↑	继续观察 3-5 天
50-70%	10-30%	30-60%	混合约束	增加预算 5%并观察

When to Use This Skill

何时使用此 Skill

Auto-Invoked When:

自动调用场景：

Investigating underspending issues
Analyzing impression share metrics
Diagnosing auction competitiveness
Determining budget vs. quality constraints
User mentions "impression share", "lost IS", "rank lost", or "budget lost"
Creating budget increase recommendations
Explaining why campaigns are underspending

调查支出不足问题
分析展示份额指标
诊断竞价竞争力
确定预算与质量约束条件
用户提到“impression share”“lost IS”“rank lost”或“budget lost”
制定预算增加建议
解释广告系列为何支出不足

Data Sources Required:

所需数据源：

Google Ads API:
```
metrics.search_impression_share
```

Google Ads API:

metrics.search_budget_lost_impression_share

Google Ads API:

metrics.search_rank_lost_impression_share

Campaign bidding strategy:
```
campaign.bidding_strategy_type
```

Campaign CPA/ROAS:

metrics.cost_per_conversion

metrics.conversions_value_per_cost

Google Ads API：
```
metrics.search_impression_share
```

Google Ads API：

metrics.search_budget_lost_impression_share

Google Ads API：

metrics.search_rank_lost_impression_share

广告系列竞价策略：
```
campaign.bidding_strategy_type
```

广告系列 CPA/ROAS：

metrics.cost_per_conversion

、

metrics.conversions_value_per_cost

CRITICAL: API Returns Decimals, Not Percentages

关键：API 返回小数值，而非百分比

The Google Ads API returns impression share as decimals (0.0 to 1.0), NOT percentages.

API Value	Actual Percentage
0.2464	24.64%
0.1017	10.17%
0.0999	9.99%
0.6337	63.37%

When displaying to users or applying thresholds, always multiply by 100:

python

undefined

Google Ads API 返回的展示份额是小数（0.0 到 1.0），不是百分比。

API 值	实际百分比
0.2464	24.64%
0.1017	10.17%
0.0999	9.99%
0.6337	63.37%

向用户展示或应用阈值时，始终乘以 100：

python

undefined

Correct

search_is_pct = row.metrics.search_impression_share * 100 print(f"Search IS: {search_is_pct:.1f}%") # Output: "Search IS: 24.6%"

WRONG - will show misleading values like "0.25%"

print(f"Search IS: {row.metrics.search_impression_share:.2f}%")


**Threshold comparisons must use percentage values (after multiplying by 100):**
```python
search_is = api_value * 100  # Convert to percentage first
if search_is > 80:  # 80% threshold
    print("High impression share")

print(f"Search IS: {row.metrics.search_impression_share:.2f}%")


**阈值比较必须使用乘以 100 后的百分比值：**
```python
search_is = api_value * 100  # Convert to percentage first
if search_is > 80:  # 80% threshold
    print("High impression share")

Using Impression Share as Demand Ceiling (Budget Viability Analysis)

将展示份额作为需求上限（预算可行性分析）

The Pattern

模式

When evaluating whether an ad group or campaign can absorb a budget increase (or sustain spend after pausing other segments), use impression share as a demand signal to calculate the spending ceiling.

Key Insight:

Current spend tells you what you are spending
Impression Share tells you what you could spend (the demand ceiling)

评估广告组或广告系列能否吸收预算增加（或在其他细分暂停后维持支出）时，使用展示份额作为需求信号来计算支出上限。

关键洞察：

当前支出告诉你正在花费多少
展示份额告诉你能够花费多少（需求上限）

Formula

公式

Potential Spend = Current Spend / (Search IS / 100)

Potential Spend = Current Spend / (Search IS / 100)

Example

示例

Scenario: Client asks to pause all ad groups except one single-geo ad group. Can it absorb the budget?

Metric	Single Ad Group
Current spend	$91/month
Search IS	15.8%
Potential ceiling	$91 / 0.158 = $577/month
Required budget	$1,800/month
Verdict	Will severely underpace (68% under)

场景： 客户要求暂停除单个地理广告组之外的所有广告组。它能吸收该预算吗？

指标	单个广告组
当前支出	$91/月
Search IS	15.8%
潜在上限	$91 / 0.158 = $577/月
所需预算	$1,800/月
结论	支出进度将严重不足（低 68%）

When to Use This

何时使用

Client asks to pause ad groups and consolidate budget into fewer segments
Evaluating if a single geo/segment can absorb increased spend
Predicting underspend risk before making changes
Sizing addressable demand for a keyword set or geography
Answering "can X absorb Y budget?"

客户要求暂停广告组并将预算整合到更少的细分中
评估单个 geo/细分能否吸收增加的支出
在进行更改前预测支出不足风险
估算一组关键词或地理区域可承接的需求规模
回答“X 能否吸收 Y 预算？”

Ad Group Level IS

广告组级 IS

Important: Search Impression Share is available at the ad group level, not just campaign level.

Query pattern:

sql

SELECT
    ad_group.name,
    metrics.impressions,
    metrics.cost_micros,
    metrics.search_impression_share
FROM ad_group
WHERE campaign.name LIKE "%GEO%"
AND segments.date DURING LAST_30_DAYS

重要： Search Impression Share 不仅可在广告系列层级获取，也可在广告组层级获取。

查询模式：

sql

SELECT
    ad_group.name,
    metrics.impressions,
    metrics.cost_micros,
    metrics.search_impression_share
FROM ad_group
WHERE campaign.name LIKE "%GEO%"
AND segments.date DURING LAST_30_DAYS

Nuances & Limitations

细微差异与限制

This is a rough estimate, not exact
Assumes similar CPCs at higher volume (CPCs may increase with more aggressive bidding)
Smart Bidding may adjust behavior when segments change
Works best for Search campaigns (PMAX has no IS metrics)
The ceiling assumes 100% IS capture, which is rarely achievable in practice

这是一个粗略估算，并非精确结果
假设在更高展示量下 CPC 保持相似（更激进的出价可能导致 CPC 上升）
Smart Bidding 可能会在细分发生变化时调整行为
最适合 Search 广告系列（PMAX 没有 IS 指标）
该上限假设能够获得 100% IS，而实际情况中很少能够实现

Probability Assessment

概率评估

Use the gap between potential ceiling and required budget to estimate underpacing risk:

Gap	Probability of Underpacing
Ceiling < 50% of required	>90% (near certain)
Ceiling 50-75% of required	70-90% (very likely)
Ceiling 75-100% of required	40-70% (likely)
Ceiling > 100% of required	<40% (may work)

使用潜在上限与所需预算之间的差距估算支出不足风险：

差距	支出不足概率
上限 < 所需预算的 50%	>90%（几乎确定）
上限为所需预算的 50-75%	70-90%（极有可能）
上限为所需预算的 75-100%	40-70%（有可能）
上限 > 所需预算的 100%	<40%（可能可行）

When to Load Other Skills

何时加载其他 Skill

Skill	When
`budget-recommendation-calculator`	AFTER diagnosis, when the verdict is "budget constraint" — it turns the diagnosis into a conservative, capped recommendation
`underspending-investigation`	The producing investigation workflow that routes here — this skill is its impression-share analysis step
`investigation-methodology`	When IS analysis is one layer of a broader performance investigation rather than a standalone underspend question
`gaql-query-patterns`	When pulling the IS metrics this skill interprets

Built by Kurt Henninger. More free skills: github.com/fourteenwm/ppc-ai-skills

Skill	使用时机
`budget-recommendation-calculator`	完成诊断且结论为“预算约束”之后——将诊断结果转化为保守且设有上限的建议
`underspending-investigation`	会路由到此处的上游调查工作流——此 skill 是其中的展示份额分析步骤
`investigation-methodology`	当 IS 分析只是更广泛表现调查中的一个层级，而非独立的支出不足问题时
`gaql-query-patterns`	需要拉取此 skill 所解读的 IS 指标时

由 Kurt Henninger 构建。更多免费 skill：github.com/fourteenwm/ppc-ai-skills