Review Duplicate Targeting · ScaleSKUs MCP Academy #06

You notice the same search keyword in several campaigns. Should you pause the duplicates? Ask ScaleSkus to compare the exact keyword text, match type and advertised product over the same period. A repeated word is a reason to investigate structure. It is not, by itself, proof that money is being wasted. For September first through twenty-second, the report identifies flax seeds two hundred grams in phrase match across two campaigns.

Campaign sixty recorded about three hundred and forty-seven rupees of spend, sixteen orders and three thousand two hundred and forty-two rupees of sales. Its advertising cost of sales was ten point seven percent. The second instance, in Campaign fifty-eight, recorded no spend or orders in that window. The report shows zero duplicate wasted spend for this pair. That matters. Removing an unused route may simplify the structure, but you cannot claim it saved money that was never being spent.

Keep the performing route under review and ask why the second route exists. It might reflect a deliberate test, different product coverage, or an unfinished setup. Check the keyword, match type, product and destination before proposing cleanup. If one redundant keyword is the issue, the scope is that keyword, not the entire campaign. Review whether a second route serves an intentional purpose.

The evidence should tell you what to keep, what to inspect, and which exact entity a future change would affect. Save a short review note containing the two destinations, the reporting dates and the reason for keeping or changing each instance. After a cleanup action, check whether the retained route continues receiving the intended traffic. Your practice task is to review one duplicate group and explain both its structural overlap and its measured financial impact.

Those are two separate conclusions.