Separate repair and replacement requests before changing your ads

Identify a decision mismatch

A customer may use 'repair' to describe a problem that requires replacement, while another may search for replacement before learning a simple repair is possible. The keyword alone cannot settle the service. Look at the request, condition, and decision the customer needs. If the business offers both options, the goal is to direct that decision honestly, rather than forcing every visitor into whichever service the campaign happens to name.

Source checks: About keyword matching options · About the search terms report

Review searches alongside actual inquiries

Export visible search terms and record the service requested by staff. Matching can connect related wording, so compare both instead of treating every query as a literal service selection. Use categories such as repair suitable, replacement suitable, inspection needed, and outside scope. Leave unknown outcomes unknown. Record whether the visitor expected a quote, diagnosis, or immediate appointment; those differences can explain why the current page fails to produce suitable requests.

Map each supported request to evidence

A repair offer should explain which conditions may be repairable, what the inspection determines, and what information helps the team respond. A replacement offer should explain the product or installation choices the customer must confirm. Avoid guaranteed repairability or a universal price when the condition has not been inspected. Where the decision truly requires assessment, offer an assessment and describe what happens next rather than inventing certainty.

Choose whether distinct destinations are useful

Different destinations are worthwhile when they answer different buying questions, not merely to duplicate the same text with another keyword. Align each ad group's service promise with the appropriate page and confirmation message. Keep a route to the alternative service when an honest assessment may change the recommendation. If both requests share a useful assessment process, one clear page can work; document that choice instead of splitting by default.

Measure service fit after the routing change

Track requested service, suitable work, inspection outcomes, bookings, and completed jobs. Review whether the new page reduced repeated basic questions or increased expectations the team could not meet. Avoid evaluating the change only by click-through rate or generic form count. A replacement request with a larger quote may take longer to become work, so allow for the normal decision cycle before comparing the two offers' acquisition costs.

Keep the ad promise consistent with assessment

Review claims when suppliers, materials, or repair capabilities change. The destination should reflect the current scope, and staff should explain the same condition limits. Add a change note when routing is revised so later reports do not combine two different qualification processes without explanation. The practical outcome is a better path from the customer's problem to a supported decision, with separate outcome records for the work ultimately performed.

Worked example: illustrative figures

For example, 15 inquiries arrive from a repair-focused campaign. Staff classify 6 as potentially repairable, 5 as needing replacement, 2 as requiring inspection, and 2 as outside scope. Eleven requests clearly match an offered service; another two need assessment. Calling all nine non-repair inquiries 'bad leads' would ignore five replacement opportunities. The owner revises the page to explain the decision process and uses distinct service routes where helpful. These counts do not prove which treatment is mechanically correct; the actual condition still requires a qualified assessment.

Questions about this task