Most Shopping accounts are not held back by bidding. They are held back by the feed: attributes missing, titles written for humans instead of matching, variants fighting each other, and a quiet pile of disapprovals nobody has read. We are engineers, so we fix the data first and then run the campaigns on top of it.
Thanks — that’s with us.
A senior engineer reads every enquiry and will get back to you shortly.
Book a time that suits you, or send a message and get an answer sooner.
2020
Building since
1,000+
Clients served
UK
Registered company
4.6/5
Rated on Clutch
Quick answer
Google Shopping is a data problem with an advertising layer on top. The feed decides which searches you are eligible for, which products are shown, and whether they are shown at all. Bidding only allocates money across the eligibility the feed has already created, which is why accounts with excellent management and a poor feed stay stuck.
The commonest losses are unglamorous. Titles written as marketing copy rather than as the words buyers type. Missing GTINs or incorrect brand values that suppress whole categories. Variants competing against each other for the same query. Product types and Google categories left at whatever the platform exported by default. And a disapproval list that grew quietly until a chunk of the catalogue stopped serving.
Merchant Center suspensions are their own discipline. A misrepresentation suspension is rarely about the thing the notice names; it is usually about missing or inconsistent policy information across the site, returns, delivery, contact details and pricing consistency between the feed and the landing page. Appealing without fixing the underlying inconsistency usually burns an appeal for nothing.
Free listings matter more than most retailers expect, because they put products into Shopping surfaces without spend, using the same feed. If the feed is right, that traffic arrives as a side effect of work you had to do anyway.
What we do
Eight areas. Most accounts need the first three before any bidding work is worth doing.
Building the feed properly from your platform: required and recommended attributes, correct Google product categories, sensible product types, and a structure that survives a catalogue change rather than breaking on the next import.
Shopping matches on the feed text, not on your product page. Titles get rebuilt around the words buyers actually use, in the order that matters, with the attributes that decide eligibility filled in rather than left blank.
Working through the disapproval list by cause rather than by product, and handling misrepresentation suspensions by fixing the site-level inconsistency behind them. Appealing without fixing the cause usually wastes the appeal.
Getting products into the unpaid Shopping surfaces using the same feed. It needs the feed to be correct and the structured data on the site to agree with it, both of which you want anyway.
Segmenting so that spend can follow margin rather than volume: best sellers separated from the long tail, and the products you actually want to sell given room instead of being averaged into one bid.
Used where it suits the account rather than by default. Pmax hides a great deal, so we structure asset groups and exclusions to keep some control over what it is actually selling and at what cost.
Schema on the product pages that matches the feed: price, availability, GTIN, brand and reviews. Where the two disagree, Google trusts neither, and that disagreement is a common cause of quiet suppression.
Monthly, in writing: what changed in the feed, what cleared, what is still suppressed and why. Written by the person doing the work rather than exported from the platform.
Why this matters
Feed faults are invisible in the campaign reports. Spend looks efficient because the products that would have lost money were never eligible in the first place.
Not sure how much of your catalogue is actually serving?
The review tells you: how many products are eligible, how many are disapproved and why, and what the feed is costing you in impressions you never saw.
In practice
Six recurring situations. These describe the pattern rather than named client work.
The notice names one thing and the cause is usually another: returns and delivery information missing or contradictory, contact details thin, or feed prices disagreeing with the landing page. We fix the inconsistency first and appeal once, properly.
Reinstatement pursued at the cause
Rarely a thousand separate problems. Usually one export mapping that dropped a field, or a supplier range with no barcodes that needs the identifier exists attribute set correctly instead of being left blank.
Whole categories eligible again
Eligibility is not the same as matching. Titles written as brand copy do not contain the words buyers type, so the product never enters the auction for the searches that would have converted.
The catalogue competing for real queries
Every size and colour submitted as a separate competing product, with no item grouping, so the account pays more to show the same thing. A structural fix rather than a bidding one.
One auction entry per real product
A campaign absorbing the budget with little visibility into what it sells. We rebuild asset groups and exclusions so the spend can be attributed to products and margins rather than to a single opaque total.
Spend that can be explained
Free listings off or failing silently while the same products are bought through ads. Turning them on costs nothing beyond getting the feed right, which the account needed regardless.
Unpaid Shopping traffic recovered
How we work
Bidding work before feed work is money spent on eligibility you do not have yet.
We look at the feed, the Merchant Center diagnostics and the campaign structure together, and work out how much of the catalogue is genuinely eligible. The review is free and the findings are yours.
Attributes, titles, categories, variant grouping and identifier handling corrected at source where possible, so the fix survives the next catalogue import rather than being patched over.
Disapprovals worked by cause, and any suspension handled by fixing the underlying site inconsistency before appealing. We tell you honestly where reinstatement looks unlikely.
Campaign structure rebuilt so spend can follow margin, then managed with a written monthly note on what changed and what it did.
Clear scope · Regular demos · Full handover
Honest fit
Shopping rewards catalogue quality. If the catalogue is small and clean, there may be less here than you think.
Sectors
Retailers where the catalogue is large enough for feed quality to decide the outcome.
FAQ
What UK retailers ask us before handing over an account.
Still have a question?
Ask us directly — a senior engineer will get back to you.
Ask about your projectUsually a small number of causes affecting a large number of products: a missing or malformed GTIN, a brand value Google does not recognise, a price or availability mismatch between the feed and the landing page, or a policy issue in a restricted category. The product-by-product list is misleading; grouping by cause is what makes it tractable.
Often, but not always, and we will not promise it. Misrepresentation suspensions are usually caused by something other than what the notice names, most often missing or contradictory returns, delivery, pricing or contact information across the site. We fix the cause and then appeal once. Repeated appeals without a fix tend to make reinstatement harder.
For most accounts, yes. The feed decides which searches you are eligible for and which products can show at all. Bidding only distributes budget across eligibility that already exists. Excellent bid management on a poor feed is optimising within a box that is smaller than it needs to be.
It depends on the account, and we will tell you which after looking rather than before. Pmax can work well with a clean feed and clear conversion data, but it hides a lot, so accounts that need visibility into what is selling often do better with standard Shopping, or with both running in a controlled split.
They can, and they cost nothing beyond having the feed right, which you need for ads anyway. The volume varies a great deal by category. We would not build a strategy on them, but leaving them off while paying for the same clicks is a straightforward waste.
No. Anyone guaranteeing ROAS is either selecting the metric after the fact or making a promise they cannot keep. What we will do is show you honestly what the feed is suppressing, what the campaigns cost, and whether the margin supports the channel at all.
Shopify, WooCommerce, Magento, BigCommerce and custom builds. Because we are a software company we can usually fix the feed at source in the platform rather than patching it with supplemental feeds, which is what makes a fix survive the next import.
Yes, and the two are usually run together. Our Google Ads page covers search, Pmax and the rest. Most retailers want one team on both so that feed changes and campaign changes are not fighting each other.
It depends on the size of the site and the scope of the work, so we do not publish a fixed price: the honest range is wide. The first conversation and the audit are free, and the quote follows them, in pounds, once we both know what the work actually is.
SpiderHunts Technologies Ltd, registered at Companies House under number 16718403, with an office at 182-184 High Street N, Office 14607, London E6 2JA. You are invoiced in pounds. The engineering team works from Lahore, which we state openly rather than implying a room full of desks in London.
Start here
Tell us the store and the platform. We will look at the feed and the Merchant Center diagnostics, work out how much of the catalogue is genuinely eligible, and tell you what is suppressing the rest. Free, and yours to keep whether or not you work with us.
Thanks — that’s with us.
A senior engineer reads every enquiry and will get back to you shortly.
Book a time that suits you, or send a message and get an answer sooner.