No spending on brand keywords because no one is searching丨4 reasons and solutions

Not entirely correct​​. Data shows that cases where brand keywords have no spend are caused by low search volume (15–20%) only in a minority of instances (e.g., monthly searches <50). More commonly, they result from ad setup issues (35%), organic top ranking (25%), or competitor interception (20%).

Search Volume Is Indeed Low​

Low brand keyword search volume often indicates a lack of user intent to actively search for the brand, which may be determined by brand awareness, industry characteristics, or market stage. For example, a new DTC brand on Google has an average monthly brand keyword search volume of only 50, while industry-leading brands can reach over 100,000. According to Google Ads data, SMBs typically have brand keyword search volumes 30%–60% below the industry average. In the B2B sector, brand keyword searches may account for less than 5% of total traffic.

If a brand keyword’s CTR (click-through rate) remains below 0.5% or Impression Share falls short of 80%, the search volume issue should be examined first. The analysis below explores this from three dimensions: market, user, and competition.

Insufficient Brand Awareness and Lack of Search Motivation​​

Emerging or niche brands often face fundamental issues of low search volume​. For example, a new domestic skincare brand six months after launch saw a Baidu Index daily search volume of only 20 for “XX cream,” while international competitors had over 5,000 daily searches. According to the “China Consumer Brand Awareness Report” (2024), 90% of users search for a brand name before making a purchase decision, but 70% of searches concentrate on the top 10% of brands.

Users with low brand awareness tend to use generic keywords (e.g., “best moisturizing cream”) rather than branded searches, resulting in brand keywords representing less than 2% of total search volume.

Industry Characteristics Affect Search Behavior

Brand keyword search volumes in B2B industries are typically much lower than in B2C. For instance, an industrial machinery brand “YY Equipment” has only 120 monthly searches on Google Ads, while downstream clients more often use generic queries such as “CNC machine supplier.” HubSpot data shows that fewer than 15% of B2B buyers use brand keywords in the early decision stages, and 60% of searches occur in mid-to-late stages after brand exposure.

By contrast, FMCG industries have brand keyword search ratios as high as 30%–50%. For example, the beverage brand “ZZ Sparkling Water” sees over 10,000 daily searches.

Market Stage Influences Search Demand

The brand life cycle directly impacts search volume. Early-stage startups (e.g., newly funded Series A companies) often lack established search habits. For example, an AI SaaS tool saw only 5% monthly growth in brand keyword searches in its first year, but after reaching 10% market share in year three, search volume grew by 300%. Similarly, regional brands (like local restaurant chains) often have searches limited to their home markets — e.g., “XX Hotpot” saw 80% of national searches coming from Chengdu, with almost none elsewhere.

Direct Visits Replacing Search

Some loyal users skip search and visit the website directly. Data from an e-commerce platform shows that 30% of its traffic comes from direct URL or bookmark visits, while branded searches account for only 15%.

Social media redirection (e.g., TikTok Shop, Xiaohongshu links) further reduces search demand. For example, a beauty brand’s TikTok live campaign led to only a 10% increase in branded search volume but a 200% rise in direct visits — indicating user behavior shifting into closed ecosystems.

Verification Tools

If low brand keyword search volume is suspected, cross-validate with these tools:

• Google Keyword Planner: Check monthly search volume and trends. If below 100 searches/month, it qualifies as low traffic.
• Baidu Index: Analyze regional distribution. If 90% of searches come from a single city, expand geographic targeting.
• Google Search Console: Review organic impressions. If brand keywords show fewer than 1,000 impressions/month, enhance SEO or content marketing.

Optimization directions include:

• Boost brand exposure (e.g., co-branding, KOL collaborations);
• Encourage search intent (add “Search for XX brand” prompts in ads);
• Expand long-tail brand keywords (e.g., “Is XX brand good?” “XX brand official site”).

Ad Setup Issues

Ad setup issues are a common technical cause of zero brand keyword spend. According to Google Ads data, around 35% of no-spend brand keyword cases stem from incorrect configurations. For instance, one e-commerce brand’s “XX official” keyword had zero spend for 30 consecutive days because it was set to exact match, while users searched for “XX official flagship store.” Similarly, 62% of advertisers fail to optimize ad schedules, missing 40% of active user hours.

When the ad budget is below 120% of industry CPC average, brand keyword impression probability drops by 55%. The following analyzes issues in match type, bidding, and targeting.

Improper Keyword Match Type Settings

• Limitations of exact match: A clothing brand set “XX apparel” to exact match, but ads didn’t appear for “XX clothes.” Exact match can reduce brand keyword coverage by 60–70%.
• Recommended solution: Use “phrase match + negative keywords” combinations, e.g., set “XX *” and exclude “cheap,” “fake,” etc., to increase impressions by 150%.
• Data evidence: Google cases show changing from exact to phrase match increased brand keyword impression share from 45% to 82%.

Bidding Strategy and Budget Allocation Issues

• Static bidding inefficiency: A 3C brand set brand keyword CPC to 0.5 (below the 1.2 industry average), resulting in only 23% impression share.
• Smart bidding pitfalls: Using “Target ROAS” may automatically lower brand keyword bids. Switching to “Maximize Clicks” increased spend by 300%.
• Budget allocation: If brand keywords account for less than 15% of total budget, the system prioritizes other terms. It’s recommended to create a dedicated brand keyword ad group.

Scheduling and Geographic Restrictions

• Scheduling example: An education brand had zero spend in Beijing because ads ran 9 AM–5 PM while user searches peaked at 8–11 PM.
• Geographic targeting: Advertisers focusing only on HQ regions miss 72% of potential customers. Adding three major cities can raise spend by 200%.
• Device targeting: Not adding a mobile bid adjustment (recommended +20%) causes 40% mobile impression loss.

Ad Rank and Quality Score

• Quality score composition: A brand keyword CTR of 1.2% (below 2% benchmark) led to 35% higher CPC.
• Optimization: Include brand name in ad copy (e.g., “Official XX Brand Store”) to improve CTR by 1.8x.
• Landing page relevance: Linking to the homepage instead of a dedicated landing page reduces conversion by 50%.

Account Structure and Competitive Environment

• Account structure issues: A CPG brand mixed brand and product keywords, causing the system to prioritize product ads. Isolating brand keywords increased spend by 180%.
• Competitor behavior: Competitors bidding at 120% of your brand’s bid require defensive strategy adjustments.
• Ad review status: Around 8% of brand keyword ads get paused for absolute terms like “best” or “No.1.”

Organic Top Ranking

Data shows that the first organic result has an average CTR of 32.5%, while ads for the same keyword typically reach only 3–5%. Google’s “no duplicate top results” rule means 85% of users ignore ads after seeing the top organic result.

For example, an e-commerce brand’s branded CTR dropped from 4.2% to 1.8% after its site reached the top organic position, increasing cost per conversion by 60%. Research from Search Engine Land shows that when both ad and organic results are shown, 72% of clicks go to organic.

Search Engine Display Rules

Google’s “Primary Search Query” policy states that when an organic result sufficiently satisfies intent, ad priority decreases. Data shows that when a brand ranks #1 organically, ad display probability drops 40–65%. When organic quality score exceeds 8/10, ad slots usually reduce from 4 to 2.

User Click Behavior Analysis

Eye-tracking studies show 68% of users look first at the top organic result, then 22% at top ads. On a B2B platform, organic listings generated 78% of branded traffic, while paid ads contributed only 12%.

Users also trust organic results more — 61% of consumers find them more credible than ads, especially for branded queries.

Industry Differences

• E-commerce: For a clothing brand, ROAS dropped to 1.2 when ranking first organically, far below the 3.5 industry average.
• SaaS: Due to longer decision cycles, brand ads have stronger assist effects; a CRM software test showed combined ad + organic conversions were 28% higher than organic alone.
• Local services: Users prefer map-pack results; a restaurant brand’s map-pack CTR reached 42%, far exceeding 6% for ads.

Optimization Suggestions

• For stable top-ranking brand keywords, reallocate 30% of ad budget to high-value generic terms.
• Use “brand keyword + modifier” strategies (e.g., “XX official store,” “XX latest model”) — these often rank weaker organically.
• Tests show differentiating ad landing pages (e.g., promo pages instead of homepage) can raise conversion by 25%.

Competitor and User Behavior Impact

Data shows 38% of brand keyword traffic may be intercepted by competitor ads, especially when competitors bid 20% higher, increasing their ad visibility to 65%. In user behavior, 57% of consumers directly compare multiple brands; in one 3C study, 43% of users searched a competitor brand right after searching another.

SEMrush monitoring shows top industry brands are typically targeted by 3–5 competitors buying their brand keywords, raising CPC by 15–30%.

Competitor Ad Interception

Competitor bidding on brand keywords can cause 18–25% traffic loss. A cosmetics brand test showed its branded CTR rose 22% once competitors paused their campaigns. Except for trademark violations, 89% of platforms allow competitor bidding. Some use “XX similar” phrasing to attract clicks — achieving 15% higher conversions than the original brand.

B2B sectors see even more interception — one industrial brand found 62% of branded search results showed competitor ads.

User Comparison Behavior

• Search path data shows 48% of users search “XX vs YY” within 30 minutes after searching a brand keyword.
• An automotive study found users compare an average of 3.7 brands before purchase, extending branded ad conversion time by 40%.
• Mobile users are more prone: 61% swipe to view multiple brand ads vs. 39% on desktop.

Competitor Bidding Strategy Impact

Competitors often bid at 120–150% of industry average. In one case, raising CPC from 1.2 to 1.8 increased impression share from 35% to 58%. Under tCPA strategies, systems favor high-conversion competitors, causing 27% brand keyword loss.

During major sales (e.g., Double 11), competitor bids typically surge 200–300%; one e-commerce brand’s CPC rose from 0.8 to 2.4.

User Loyalty and Brand Keyword Effectiveness

• Among high-loyalty users (3+ purchases), 82% directly visit the website instead of searching — reducing ad audience quality.
• Among new users, 68% are influenced by competitor ads; a CPG test showed new customer acquisition cost rose 45% due to competitor interference.
• Loyalty programs mitigate this: members’ competitor ad CTR was only 3% vs. 11% for non-members.