Advanced Account Structure & Management
The “One Campaign to Rule Them All” Mistake: Why Granular Structure Still Wins (Usually)
Liam tried the “one campaign” approach for his diverse e-commerce store, putting all products into one Performance Max campaign. It failed. While consolidation is good, extreme over-consolidation meant poor relevance for niche items and muddled AI learning. He learned that a granular yet consolidated structure – e.g., separate campaigns or distinct asset groups for major product categories (like “Men’s Hiking Boots” vs. “Women’s Yoga Wear”) – still usually wins by providing clearer signals and allowing for more tailored creative, especially when budgets exceed five hundred dollars daily.
My “Hub and Spoke” Google Ads Account Structure for Maximum Control & Scalability
Maria, managing a complex B2B account, used a “Hub and Spoke” structure. Hub Campaigns: Broad, top-of-funnel campaigns (e.g., targeting general industry terms). Spoke Campaigns: Highly specific campaigns targeting niche services or long-tail keywords, often fed by insights from the Hub. This allowed her to capture broad interest with the Hub (e.g., spending three hundred dollars daily) and convert high-intent users with laser-focused Spokes (each with fifty to one hundred dollars daily), offering both scalability and granular control.
Managing Multiple Clients/Brands with an MCC: Best Practices for Agencies & Consultants
David’s agency used a Google Ads Manager Account (MCC) to manage 20+ client accounts. Best practices: 1. Clear Naming Conventions within each client account. 2. Using MCC Labels for grouping clients (e.g., “E-commerce,” “Lead Gen,” “High Spend”). 3. Implementing MCC-Level Automated Rules or Scripts for common tasks like budget alerts across accounts. 4. Standardized Reporting Dashboards pulling data from multiple accounts. This organization was crucial for efficiently managing diverse client needs and a combined spend over fifty thousand dollars monthly.
The “Alpha/Beta” Campaign Structure: Is It Still Relevant in the Age of AI Bidding?
Sarah used to run “Alpha” (Exact Match keywords, high bids) and “Beta” (Broad Match for keyword discovery) campaigns. With modern AI bidding and improved match types (like updated Phrase Match), strict Alpha/Beta is less critical. She found that well-themed ad groups with a mix of phrase match and some carefully monitored broad match (with Smart Bidding) often achieve similar keyword discovery and control with less complexity. It’s not dead, but its traditional implementation has evolved.
How to Structure Your Account for Different Buyer Journey Stages (TOFU, MOFU, BOFU)
Tom structured his account by buyer journey: 1. TOFU (Top): Display/YouTube campaigns targeting Affinity audiences with educational content (Goal: Awareness). 2. MOFU (Middle): Search campaigns for informational keywords, remarketing to TOFU engagers with lead magnets (Goal: Consideration/Leads). 3. BOFU (Bottom): Search campaigns for transactional keywords, remarketing to MOFU leads/cart abandoners with direct offers (Goal: Sales). Each stage had distinct campaigns, messaging, and KPIs, guiding users through the funnel for his high-ticket service.
The “Single Keyword Ad Group” (SKAG) Autopsy: Why It Died and What Replaced It
Priya performed a SKAG autopsy. SKAGs (one keyword per ad group) died because: 1. Google’s “close variant” matching made them redundant (one exact match keyword now covers many slight variations). 2. Managing thousands of SKAGs became incredibly cumbersome. What replaced it: Tightly Themed Ad Groups (STAGs) with 5-15 closely related keywords (often phrase/exact) that share the same user intent and can be served by the exact same highly relevant ad copy. This offers similar relevance with far less complexity.
“My Account is a Mess!” – A Step-by-Step Guide to Restructuring a Chaotic Google Ads Setup
Raj inherited a chaotic account (100+ campaigns, no logic). His restructure guide: 1. Pause All (or most) Campaigns: Stop inefficient spend. 2. Analyze Historical Performance: Identify top-performing keywords, ads, and themes. 3. Define Clear Business Goals & KPIs. 4. Design a New, Simplified Structure: (e.g., based on product categories, funnel stage, or geo). 5. Rebuild Methodically: Start with 1-2 core campaigns, test, then expand. This systematic approach (costing several days of work) brought order and improved ROAS by 40%.
Using Naming Conventions Like a Pro: The Secret to Staying Sane in Large Accounts
Sophie managed a Google Ads account with 50+ active campaigns. Consistent naming conventions were her sanity-saver. Her format: CampaignType_Targeting_Product/Service_Geo_BidStrategy. Example: Search_Prospecting_BlueWidgets_USA_tCPA. For Ad Groups: Theme_MatchType. Example: BlueWidgetsSmall_Phrase. This clarity allowed anyone to instantly understand an entity’s purpose, making reporting, filtering, and management far easier across her large, complex account spending ten thousand dollars daily.
How to Structure Campaigns for Different Product Lines or Service Categories Effectively
Carlos’s company offered distinct services: “Residential Cleaning” and “Commercial Janitorial.” He created separate campaigns for each. Campaign 1: “Residential Cleaning – [City]” – Ad Groups for “house cleaning,” “apartment cleaning.” Campaign 2: “Commercial Janitorial – [City]” – Ad Groups for “office cleaning,” “strata cleaning.” This separation allowed for tailored budgets, ad copy, landing pages, and performance tracking for each distinct service line, maximizing relevance and ROI for each.
The “Geo-Targeting Layer” Strategy: Structuring Campaigns for National, Regional, and Local Focus
Aisha’s national e-commerce brand also had strong local presence in key cities. Her geo-targeting layers: 1. National Campaign: Broad reach, general offers. 2. Regional Campaigns (State/Province): Slightly tailored messaging if regional preferences existed. 3. Local City Campaigns: For top 5 cities, featuring hyper-local ad copy (“Free Delivery in Chicago!”) and specific location extensions, often with higher bids due to better conversion rates. This layered structure optimized for different geographic granularities.
“Should I Create a New Campaign or Just a New Ad Group?” – The Decision Framework
Liam used a decision framework: New Campaign If: 1. Different budget needed. 2. Different geographic targeting. 3. Different campaign-level settings required (e.g., bid strategy, ad schedule). 4. Fundamentally different product/service line or funnel stage. New Ad Group If: Targeting a new, tightly themed set of keywords for the same product/service within an existing campaign’s budget and geo. This helped him maintain a logical, efficient structure.
Managing Shared Budgets vs. Individual Campaign Budgets: Pros, Cons, and Best Use Cases
Maria tested Shared Budgets. She grouped 3 campaigns for similar, lower-priority products under one fifty dollar daily shared budget. Pro: Google automatically allocated budget to the best performer within the group, simplifying management. Con: Less control if one campaign, even if underperforming slightly, needed a guaranteed minimum spend for strategic reasons. Best use: For groups of campaigns with similar goals and flexibility in how budget shifts between them. For core, high-priority campaigns, she preferred individual budgets.
The “Brand vs. Non-Brand” Campaign Split: Essential for Clear Performance Measurement
David always split Brand (“David’s Donuts”) and Non-Brand (“best donuts near me”) keywords into separate Search campaigns. Why essential: 1. Brand terms have vastly different metrics: High CTR, low CPC, high conversion rate. Mixing them skews overall campaign averages. 2. Different Intent: Brand searchers already know you. 3. Budget Control: Allows allocating specific budgets to brand defense vs. new customer acquisition. This separation provided clear performance measurement for each strategic objective.
How to Structure Your Account for Effective A/B Testing at Scale
Sarah, needing to A/B test many ad copy angles, structured for it. Within each themed ad group, she always had at least two Responsive Search Ads (RSAs) active, each testing a different core message or CTA. For landing page tests, she used Google Ads Experiments to split traffic from an ad group to two different page URLs. This systematic inclusion of test variations directly within her existing structure facilitated ongoing, scalable A/B testing.
The “PMax alongside Search” Conundrum: How to Structure for Synergy, Not Cannibalization
Tom ran Performance Max (PMax) alongside existing Search campaigns. To ensure synergy: 1. Feed PMax strong Audience Signals: Including remarketing lists and customer match lists. 2. Use Account-Level Negative Keywords: To prevent PMax from heavily bidding on core branded Search terms he wanted to control manually. 3. Monitor PMax Insights: See what search themes PMax covers and adjust Search campaign keyword coverage accordingly. The goal was for PMax to find new opportunities while Search captured specific high-intent queries.
Using Labels for Advanced Segmentation and Reporting Across Your Account Structure
Priya used Google Ads Labels extensively in her large account (spending five thousand dollars daily). Examples: “Q4_Promo_Campaigns,” “Testing_New_Bid_Strategy,” “High_Margin_Products_AdGroups,” “Low_QS_Keywords.” She could then filter her views in Ads Manager by these labels to quickly see performance for specific initiatives, test groups, or product categories, enabling advanced segmentation and more insightful reporting beyond standard campaign/ad group views.
The “International Account Structure” Blueprint: Managing Ads in Multiple Countries & Languages
Raj expanded his e-commerce client into 5 countries. Blueprint: 1. One MCC. 2. Separate Google Ads accounts per country OR per language/currency group (depending on similarity). 3. Within each account/country, campaigns structured by product line. 4. All ad copy, keywords, and landing pages fully localized. 5. Separate billing profiles per currency. This modular structure allowed for tailored strategies and easier management of diverse international markets.
How to Audit Your Own Google Ads Account Structure for Inefficiencies & Opportunities
Sophie audited her own account structure monthly: 1. Campaign Alignment: Do campaign names/goals still match business objectives? 2. Ad Group Theming: Are ad groups still tightly themed, or have keywords drifted? 3. Audience Overlap: Are campaigns/ad sets unnecessarily competing? 4. Naming Conventions: Still clear and consistent? 5. Budget Allocation: Does it reflect current priorities and performance? This self-audit helped her spot structural creep and identify optimization opportunities.
The “Agile Account Management” Approach: Iterating on Structure as Your Business Evolves
Carlos practiced “Agile Account Management.” His client’s business was rapidly evolving, launching new products monthly. His account structure wasn’t static; it iterated. He’d spin up new campaigns for new product lines, consolidate underperforming old ones, and adjust budget allocations frequently based on real-time performance and shifting business priorities. This agile approach ensured the account structure always supported current business needs, rather than becoming an outdated relic.
When to Consolidate Campaigns vs. When to Split Them Out Further
Aisha faced this decision often. Consolidate If: Multiple campaigns have very similar goals, target overlapping audiences, and individually struggle to get enough conversion data for Smart Bidding (e.g., combine 3 small campaigns for “blue widgets,” “red widgets,” “green widgets” into one “widgets” campaign with ad groups for colors). Split Out If: A segment within a campaign needs a distinct budget, different geo-targeting, or a unique bid strategy (e.g., split out “Top Performing City” from a national campaign).
The “Zero Click Account” Phenomenon: Why Some Well-Structured Accounts Still Fail to Launch
Liam built a perfectly structured Google Ads account for a new client: great themes, ad copy, settings. It got impressions but almost zero clicks. The “Zero Click Account” phenomenon can occur if: 1. Bids are far too low to enter auctions effectively. 2. Ads are disapproved or severely limited. 3. Keywords have virtually no search volume. 4. Technical issue with tracking or billing. Even perfect structure fails if fundamental delivery or relevance issues exist. His issue: bids were 10x too low.
Managing User Access & Permissions in Google Ads: Security Best Practices
Maria, managing agency access to client accounts, followed security best practices: 1. Use MCC for linking: Never direct email invites for admin access. 2. Grant Least Privilege: Team members only get the access level they need (e.g., “Standard” for campaign management, “Read-only” for reporting). 3. Regularly Audit Users: Remove access for former employees/agencies promptly. 4. Enable 2-Factor Authentication on all Google accounts. This protected client data and prevented unauthorized changes.
The “Archive vs. Delete” Debate for Old Campaigns & Ad Groups
David debated archiving vs. deleting old, paused campaigns. Archive (Google’s term is “Remove,” but they are effectively archived): Keeps historical data accessible if needed for future reference or learning, but cleans up the main interface. Delete (not truly possible for campaigns, only for some assets like audiences): Permanently removes some things. He preferred “Removing” (archiving) campaigns and ad groups, as historical data, even from failures, can sometimes provide insights.
How to Use “Campaign Groups” for High-Level Performance Monitoring and Budgeting
Sarah’s client had 20+ campaigns across different product categories and funnel stages. She used “Campaign Groups” in Google Ads to organize them (e.g., “Top Funnel – Brand Awareness,” “Mid Funnel – Product Consideration,” “Bottom Funnel – Ecom Sales”). She could then set performance targets (e.g., spend, conversions) for each group and monitor aggregated performance at this higher level, simplifying oversight and strategic budget shifts between these thematic buckets.
The “Device-Specific” Campaign Structure: Is It Still Necessary with Smart Bidding?
Tom used to create separate campaigns for Mobile vs. Desktop. With modern Smart Bidding (which optimizes bids by device automatically based on conversion likelihood), this strict separation is often unnecessary and can fragment data. He now typically uses one campaign targeting all devices, then analyzes device performance reports and applies bid adjustments (or lets Smart Bidding handle it) if significant performance disparities exist, rather than fully separate campaigns.
My “Template Campaign” Strategy for Quickly Launching New Products or Services
Priya frequently launched ads for new online courses. Her “Template Campaign” strategy: She had a perfectly structured “Master Course Campaign” in Google Ads Editor with ideal settings, ad group themes (e.g., “Beginner,” “Advanced”), and placeholder ad copy. When launching a new course, she’d duplicate this template, update the course-specific keywords, ad copy, and landing pages, and launch. This saved hours and ensured consistency for each new launch.
Structuring for “Match Type Funneling” (Broad > Phrase > Exact) in a Post-BMM World
Raj adapted match type funneling. Post-BMM, his structure: Campaign 1 (Discovery – Broad Match with Smart Bidding): Uses broad match keywords to discover new relevant search queries. Campaign 2 (Core – Phrase Match): Contains proven, high-performing keywords as phrase match. Campaign 3 (Control – Exact Match): Contains top converting, high-volume exact match keywords. Negatives are used extensively to channel traffic correctly (e.g., exact match terms are negative in phrase/broad campaigns).
The Role of “Campaign Goals” in Guiding Google’s AI Within Your Structure
Sophie knew setting the correct “Campaign Goal” (e.g., Sales, Leads, Website Traffic) during campaign setup was crucial. This goal directly informs Google’s AI which outcomes to prioritize when making bidding and optimization decisions within her defined structure. A “Sales” goal with Target ROAS bidding tells the AI to find users likely to generate high purchase value. A mismatched goal can lead the AI to optimize for irrelevant actions.
How to Plan Your Account Structure BEFORE You Build Anything (The Blueprinting Phase)
Carlos always did a “blueprinting phase” before building: 1. Define Business Objectives & KPIs. 2. Map out Product/Service Categories. 3. Identify Key Buyer Personas & Journey Stages. 4. Brainstorm Core Keyword Themes. 5. Sketch a Campaign Hierarchy: How will campaigns, ad groups, and themes be organized to align with goals and product lines? This upfront planning (often in a spreadsheet or mind map) prevented chaotic builds and costly restructures later.
The “Competitor Campaign” Structure: Isolating Bids and Budgets for Conquesting Efforts
Aisha ran “Competitor Campaigns,” bidding on competitor brand names. She always isolated these in their own campaign because: 1. Different Performance Metrics: CTRs and Conversion Rates are often very different. 2. Specific Budget Allocation: She wanted to control spend on these terms precisely. 3. Tailored Ad Copy: Messaging needed to highlight her advantages over the competitor. Separating them allowed for focused strategy and clear measurement of these conquesting efforts.
Managing “Seasonal Campaigns” Within Your Existing Account Structure Without Causing Chaos
Liam managed seasonal campaigns (e.g., “Christmas Sale,” “Summer Specials”) without chaos: 1. He created new, dedicated campaigns for each major season/promotion, with clear start/end dates. 2. He labeled them clearly (e.g., “XMAS23_Promo”). 3. He often used shared audiences (e.g., remarketing lists) but tailored creatives. 4. After the season, he paused these campaigns (not deleted), keeping data for next year. This kept them separate from his evergreen campaigns.
The “Franchise Model” Account Structure: Centralized Control with Localized Flexibility
Maria managed Google Ads for a franchise with 50 locations. Structure: 1. MCC Account. 2. One “Master” Google Ads account with shared brand campaigns, negative lists, and core assets. 3. Separate “Child” Google Ads accounts OR distinct campaigns within the Master for each franchisee/location. This allowed for centralized brand control and budget oversight, while still enabling localized ad copy, promotions, and geo-targeting for each individual franchise, using location extensions extensively.
How Billing Setups Can Influence Your Google Ads Account Structure Decisions
David learned billing setups influence structure. If a client had two distinct business entities with separate budgets and payment methods, he had to create two separate Google Ads accounts, even if their products were similar. If one product line had a dedicated marketing budget that needed strict tracking, it might warrant its own campaign for easier budget control and reporting, even if it could technically fit within another. Billing realities often dictate structural necessities.
The “Content Pillar” Account Structure: Aligning Campaigns with Your Core Content Themes
Sarah, a content marketer, structured some Google Ads campaigns around her “content pillars.” For example, if a core pillar was “Sustainable Living,” she’d have a campaign with ad groups targeting keywords related to sub-topics like “eco-friendly home,” “zero waste tips,” “sustainable fashion.” Ads drove traffic to relevant blog posts or guides within that pillar. This aligned her ad structure directly with her content strategy, creating a cohesive user experience.
When Your Account Gets “Too Big”: Signs You Need a Major Restructure or Cleanup
Tom’s account got “too big” and unwieldy. Signs: 1. Hundreds of paused, forgotten campaigns/ad groups. 2. Difficulty finding specific information or analyzing performance due to clutter. 3. Inconsistent naming making filtering impossible. 4. Many ad groups stuck in “Learning Limited” due to budget fragmentation. 5. Team members confused about where to make changes. A major restructure to simplify and consolidate was needed, despite the initial effort.
The “MCC Linking Hierarchy”: Best Practices for Agencies Managing Sub-MCCs
Priya’s large agency used a tiered MCC structure. Top-Level Agency MCC. -> Sub-MCCs for different client teams or regions. -> Individual Client Google Ads Accounts. Best practices: 1. Clear ownership and access levels at each tier. 2. Standardized naming conventions for MCCs and accounts. 3. Using MCC-level scripts/rules for global alerts or reporting. This hierarchy provided organization, control, and scalability for managing hundreds of client accounts.
Using “Portfolio Bid Strategies” Across a Well-Structured Set of Campaigns
Raj grouped 5 e-commerce campaigns with similar ROAS goals into a “Target ROAS Portfolio Bid Strategy.” His account structure was key: each campaign within the portfolio targeted distinct product categories but aimed for a similar overall profitability target (e.g., 350% ROAS). This allowed Google’s AI to optimize bids holistically across these related campaigns, shifting budget and bids dynamically to achieve the shared portfolio goal more efficiently.
The Impact of “Account History” on New Campaign Performance Within An Existing Structure
Sophie launched a new campaign within her established, well-performing Google Ads account (which had years of good history, high overall QS). She noticed this new campaign often exited the learning phase faster and sometimes performed better initially than if launched in a brand new account. While not a direct, explicit factor, a strong overall account history and quality can indirectly benefit new campaigns by providing Google’s AI with positive contextual signals.
How to Document Your Google Ads Account Structure for Team Onboarding & Handovers
Carlos meticulously documented his complex account structure: 1. A visual diagram (e.g., Lucidchart) showing campaign hierarchy and relationships. 2. A spreadsheet detailing each campaign’s objective, target audience, budget, and naming convention logic. 3. Notes on specific ad group themes and keyword strategies. This documentation was invaluable for onboarding new team members quickly and ensuring smooth handovers if responsibilities changed, preventing costly misunderstandings.
The “Lead Gen vs. E-commerce” Structural Divide: Key Differences in Approach
Aisha knew lead gen and e-commerce structures differed. E-commerce: Often heavily reliant on product feeds, Shopping campaigns, PMax, with campaigns structured by product category/brand, and ROAS as a key KPI. Lead Gen: Focus on Search/Display campaigns driving to landing pages or Lead Forms, structured by service/offer, with CPA and Lead Quality as key KPIs. Conversion actions (purchase vs. form fill) and typical funnel paths dictate these structural differences.
Using “Experiments” to Test Structural Changes Before Full Rollout
Liam wanted to test consolidating three granular campaigns into one broad CBO campaign. Instead of a risky direct change, he used Google Ads “Custom Experiments.” He created a draft of the new consolidated campaign structure and ran it as an experiment, allocating 50% of traffic/budget to it. After 4 weeks, he compared performance against the original structure. The experiment proved the consolidated setup was more efficient, giving him confidence to roll it out fully.
The “Budget Allocation” Logic: How Your Structure Dictates Where the Money Flows
Maria’s account structure directly dictated budget flow. With individual campaign budgets, she had precise control over how much was spent on “Product Line A” vs. “Product Line B.” With CBO campaigns containing multiple ad groups for different sub-themes, Google’s AI decided where the campaign’s budget flowed based on performance. Understanding this link between structure (CBO vs. individual, number of campaigns) and budget control was crucial for strategic allocation.
How to “Sunset” Old Account Structures Gracefully Without Losing Historical Data Value
David needed to “sunset” an outdated account structure. Graceful process: 1. Pause, Don’t Delete: Pause old campaigns to retain historical data. 2. Build & Test New Structure: Launch new campaigns and ensure they perform well. 3. Gradual Budget Shift: Slowly move budget from paused old campaigns to new proven ones. 4. Document Learnings: Note why the old structure was retired and what worked/didn’t. This preserved valuable historical insights while transitioning to a better setup.
The “Minimum Effective Dose” of Granularity: How Detailed Does Your Structure REALLY Need to Be?
Sarah initially created hyper-granular SKAGs. She learned about the “Minimum Effective Dose” of granularity. With Google’s AI improvements, she only needed enough granularity to: 1. Ensure high ad relevance for tightly themed keywords. 2. Allow for distinct messaging/offers where necessary. 3. Provide clear performance data for key business segments. Often, this meant STAGs (Single Theme Ad Groups) provided sufficient detail without excessive complexity, especially with her fifty dollar daily budget.
My “Account Structure Audit Checklist”: 20+ Points to Review for Optimization
Tom’s audit checklist included: Naming conventions consistent? Campaigns aligned to clear goals? Ad groups tightly themed? Audience overlap minimized? CBO used effectively? Negative keywords robust? Conversion tracking accurate per campaign goal? Location/Device settings optimal? Ad extensions maximized? QS generally healthy? Redundant/paused entities archived? This comprehensive review, done quarterly, always uncovered optimization opportunities in his clients’ accounts.
The “Future-Proof” Account Structure: Designing for Adaptability with Google’s Changes
Priya designed “future-proof” structures by: 1. Focusing on strong fundamentals: Clear goals, quality creative, robust CAPI data – things Google always values. 2. Embracing AI where it excels: Using Smart Bidding and testing Advantage+/PMax for broad objectives. 3. Keeping structures relatively simple and consolidated: Easier to adapt to new AI features or platform shifts. 4. Maintaining a testing framework: To quickly evaluate and adopt new Google offerings. Adaptability was built in.
Using “Ad Group Theming” as the Cornerstone of a Solid Account Structure
Raj considered tight “Ad Group Theming” the cornerstone. Each ad group contained only very closely related keywords that shared the exact same user intent (e.g., all keywords in an ad group about “emergency plumbing services”). This allowed him to write hyper-relevant ad copy for that specific theme, leading to high Quality Scores, better CTRs, and lower CPCs. Solid ad group theming was foundational to everything else in his account structure.
The “Mobile App Promotion” Structure Within a Larger Brand Account
Sophie’s client had a website and a mobile app. Within their main Google Ads account, she created a separate campaign type specifically for “App Promotion” (App Campaign/UAC). This campaign had its own budget, bidding (e.g., tCPI or tCPA for in-app actions), and creative assets (videos, images, text tailored for app installs). This kept app promotion distinct from their website-focused Search/Display campaigns, allowing for specialized optimization.
How Your CRM Integration Can (And Should) Influence Your Ad Account Structure
Carlos’s CRM (HubSpot) integration influenced his structure. He synced different lead stages from HubSpot back to Google Ads as distinct conversion actions (e.g., “MQL,” “SQL,” “Closed Won”). He then considered creating separate campaigns or using different bid strategies to optimize towards these varying lead quality levels. For instance, a campaign might specifically target “SQLs” with a higher allowable CPA, informed directly by CRM data.
The “Single Source of Truth” Principle for Managing Complex Account Data & Settings
Aisha’s agency adopted a “single source of truth” principle for complex accounts. While Google Ads was the activation platform, key strategic decisions, core audience definitions, and master budget allocations were often planned and documented outside Google Ads (e.g., in a master strategy spreadsheet or project management tool). Google Ads Editor was then used to implement these agreed-upon structures and settings faithfully, ensuring consistency and minimizing ad-hoc changes.