@M M I watched like 1,5 hours of it. I will go through the transcript of the last hour again, thank you.

@Brandon M It involved two ecommerce accounts under one client. We’d been working together for about 13 months. Communication has always been a core USP on our side, with weekly WhatsApp updates and more frequent check-ins when needed. To be transparent, the AI report wasn’t the only factor. The client also mentioned concerns about me delegating too much to a more junior campaign manager. Looking back, I agree that the perceived quality of updates likely dropped because of that. On top of that, one of the accounts was underperforming significantly, so I understand they were already reconsidering. That said, the AI-generated report was the trigger. It flagged things like: - Campaign structure should be simplified due to lower spend: This was valid, and something we had already started addressing - Discrepancy between GA4 and GTM tracking: Known issue, but GA4 was only used as a secondary reference, so no real impact - Recommendation to apply device bid adjustments: Not even possible within PMAX - Multiple “under target ROAS” alerts: Mostly on new campaigns that were intentionally in a testing phase with low budgets Individually, these points are either irrelevant, already in progress, or based on incorrect assumptions. But combined, it created a narrative that the account was messy and under-optimized. In reality, it was controlled, intentional, and aligned with a testing roadmap. That’s what stood out to me. The issue wasn’t accuracy, it was perception.

Hi Stephen, yes you're right. Hi from NL - just came back, visiting Australia last month :)