Worked example, not a client
An Ancoats dental clinic's Microsoft Ads import, checked line by line before it went live
A private dental clinic in Ancoats with a working Google Ads account of six months' standing asks whether Microsoft Ads is worth adding. The answer is the import, checked before anything is enabled. This page is that check as a list, line by line, with the three places the import broke and what the first month then showed. The clinic is a composite and the figures are illustrative.
Written by Daniel Stoychev. The clinic and its figures are illustrative. The checklist is the real one we run on every import, and the three breaks are the ones the Microsoft Ads guide linked below describes.
Worked example. The clinic is invented to show the import check in use. The checklist is real and is run before any imported campaign is enabled.
The check
Twelve lines before the first campaign is enabled
| # | Line | Result | Fix before enabling |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Campaigns imported with budgets | Pass | |
| 2 | Location targeting matches Google's presence setting | Fail: imported as people interested in Manchester, from anywhere | Set to people in the targeted boroughs |
| 3 | Ad schedule carried across | Pass | |
| 4 | Shared negative lists imported and applied | Pass | |
| 5 | Account-level negatives present | Fail: not carried | Added by hand from the Google list |
| 6 | Match types as set | Pass, with phrase reads checked | |
| 7 | Microsoft tag installed on every page | Fail: no tag | Installed through the tag manager, consent-gated |
| 8 | Goals defined to match Google's: booking completed, call over ninety seconds | Fail: none | Two goals created; the enquiry form left as secondary |
| 9 | Goals tested with a real booking and a real call | Pass, after the tag | |
| 10 | Ads approved, with the healthcare policy read for the imported text | Pass | |
| 11 | Sitelinks and call assets resolving | Pass | |
| 12 | Scheduled import set, with imported changes held for review | Pass |
The first month beside Google
Illustrative figures, the same keywords and boroughs
| Line | Google Search | Microsoft Search | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spend | £1,500 | £210 | Microsoft could not spend more on the same keywords |
| Clicks and cost per click | 620 at £2.42 | 130 at £1.62 | Cheaper, fewer |
| Devices | Mostly phones | Mostly desktops | The home computer with the default search |
| Bookings and ninety-second calls | 41 | 9 | Counted the same way on both sides |
| Cost per booking | £36.60 | £23.30 | On a fraction of the volume |
| Decision | Unchanged | Kept, at the budget it can spend | A cheaper second channel, not a replacement |
What the report said
Three lines
- Microsoft spent what it could, not what it was given, and the cost per booking was lower on the same keywords.
- The three import breaks, named, so that the next import is checked for the same three first.
- What is declined: a Microsoft Audience campaign, which would spend on display placements the clinic cannot measure.
Where this leads
The pages that do this work
Say what the ads are for. The fee and the first three changes come back in writing.
Calls, sales, bookings or leads, roughly what you spend, and the part of Greater Manchester you sell to. Daniel Stoychev reads it himself and answers within one working day with the tier, the fee and what he would change first. Already spending? The free check reads your account in 72 hours.